Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I come to the floor to stand in support of S. 2251, the crop insurance reform bill. I thank all of my colleagues on the Senate Agriculture Committee for the tremendous work they did in getting this bill to the floor. First and foremost, thanks goes to the chairman of the committee, Senator Lugar, for his willingness to bring this issue up in a timely fashion, so we could get this legislation out of committee and to the floor to get some meaningful support for our Nation's farmers, particularly those farmers who are not participating in the current Crop Insurance Program. Congress is reaching out to farmers, encouraging them to participate in the Crop Insurance Program to give them the kind of risk management tools they need to deal with the uncertainties of weather conditions, prices, et cetera, experienced in the past several years in agriculture. I thank the chairman for his good-faith adherence to moving this bill in a prompt fashion. I thank in particular also Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas and Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska for their incredible work with me as one of two Senators from the Northeastern part of the United States on the Agriculture Committee. They reached out to see what we could do in crafting a piece of legislation which would broaden the base of the Crop Insurance Program to include many areas of the country that have not participated in the old Crop Insurance Program, basically because it wasn't tailored to meet the needs of many regions of the country, particularly the Northeast. Believe it or not, agriculture is the No. 1 industry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Most people don't realize that, but we also have the largest rural population of any State in the country. Agriculture is very important to the way of life for the millions in Pennsylvania who do not live in Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, who live in between those two cities in the great rural areas of our commonwealth. We have the third lowest participation rate in crop insurance in the country. We are anywhere from single digits to reaching a high of about 20 percent participation of our farmers. It is a very small rate of participation. We need to encourage our very diversified farmers to get into this program to provide a safety net for them in the event of drought, floods, or other problems they may encounter in producing their crops. There is an opportunity for them now with this bill. With about a third of the money in this bill devoted to specialty crops, it is a real opportunity for our fruit growers and for our vegetable growers-- truck farmers, we call them--folks who produce potatoes up in the great northwestern part of our commonwealth, and a variety of other producers, as well as nursery men and women. Those are the folks who now cannot get any kind of help or support. We have provisions included for them in pilot programs. There is a real opportunity for risk management tools that many farmers in our States have not had the opportunity to enjoy. Special thanks, again, go to Senator Roberts and Senator Kerrey. They come from the bread basket, Nebraska and Kansas. Frankly, they understand very well the issues of agriculture. To their credit, they understood that if we were going to move forward with agriculture policy under Freedom to Farm, we would have to make sure that all areas of the country had the kind of tools necessary to be able to farm successfully. This legislation will go a long way in providing government aid to an area of the farming country that has been left behind in the past. I heard Senator Roberts and I thank him for his kind comments. Senator Roberts talked about the battle we had on the floor of the Senate last year with respect to the agricultural supplemental. There was a record drought, a 100-year drought in Pennsylvania, which caused about $1 billion in crop losses. It was a frustration to me in that there was a very small part of that bill which was designated to help farmers who had suffered as a result of that nonprogram crop, former program crop farmers. We have a very small percentage of those in Pennsylvania. As a result, a lot of the help in that bill was in the form of AMTA payments. A very small percentage of our farmers in Pennsylvania receive any AMTA payments. As a result, the bill was of minimal help to our farmers. We tried to include some things for dairy and livestock and some things for specialty crops, and we were successful--I thank the Senator from Mississippi for including that--but it highlighted the concern that many of us in the Northeast have with the direction of farm policy in the Senate and in the Congress generally. In this legislation, for the first time in quite some time, we have seen a nod to the Northeast, saying what goes on up there is not insignificant. Pennsylvania, for example, is the fourth largest dairy- producing State in the country. New York is the third largest dairy- producing State in the country. We have real production agriculture in many States in the Northeast and that production agriculture needs to have the same tools available to be able to survive through the difficult times as other areas of the country. We may not have the frequency of disasters as in other areas of the country, and I understand that and respect that, but it does not mean we should have any fewer tools to be able to deal with the vagaries of the marketplace or the vagaries of the weather. This bill does that. It does it in a very fair way, reaching out to farmers who have not participated in the program in the past. It eliminates some of the hurdles and obstacles which have limited our access in the past and I think will create a much stronger backbone for agriculture in Pennsylvania which we desperately need. Rural Pennsylvania is lagging behind economically from the rest of the Commonwealth. We have record employment rates in metropolitan areas, but, still, some rural counties in Pennsylvania have double- digit unemployment rates where the principal economy is either mining or agriculture. These kinds of tools to support farmers who are the backbone of that economy are very important to keep these farms operating through very difficult weather disasters. It is very important to have these tools available to our farmers at an affordable rate and to provide real coverage for these losses, not as we have seen in the past. I again thank Senator Lugar and particularly Senator Roberts and Senator Kerrey for their outstanding work on this legislation. I hope we can move on this bill rather quickly, get this passed, and move forward to join with the House in a conference that can result in a strong, bipartisan piece of legislation to be sent to the President. I am enthusiastic about the product we have on the floor and hope we can take care of that quickly. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. We are in morning business.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for his heartfelt comments. I want to relate a small personal story. I had an opportunity, with my wife Karen, to meet and talk with the cardinal a few years ago when we were in New York. I had never had a chance to meet him, and he was someone whom I respected very much and followed his leadership. I had wanted the opportunity to meet with him. We went by his residence and were hoping for about 5 minutes. An hour later, after a wonderful discussion of issues that I was working on and that he was interested in, and things he was working on that I was interested in, he gave me a tremendous amount of encouragement for work in public service. He understood the importance of public service in his work as a chaplain and, obviously, in his work as the Cardinal of New York. That was, indeed, public service, also. Senator Schumer mentioned many things he did outside the archdiocese and work that reached out into the community. He gave me great encouragement to continue to work, to fulfill what Catholic social teaching is, to care particularly for the poor and the most vulnerable in our society. He gave me a lot of inspiration. He gave my wife a lot of inspiration. For that I will always remember and always thank him, and for the blessing and the prayers that he gave me that night. Senator Schumer said--and I said earlier--he is gravely ill right now. But I know, as he spends these last few days on Earth, that many of us who know him and admire him will long remember him. Certainly, the comment, ``Well done, my good and faithful servant,'' will apply to John Cardinal O'Connor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3557 and the Senate now proceed to its immediate consideration under the following limitations: There be 10 minutes of debate equally divided between Senators Santorum and Schumer, and no amendments or motions be in order to the bill. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of debate time, the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, it is with an enormous amount of pride and respect that I rise in support of this bill. Senator Schumer from New York spoke on this matter earlier today. I strongly endorse and support his words of support for this resolution. I stand with a tremendous amount of pride to speak in favor of my favorite son. John Cardinal O'Connor is a Philadelphian, someone who has left his mark not only on the country but on Pennsylvania, where he served as Bishop of Scranton--I see Senator Biden who is a Scrantonian--where he served a brief time--less than a year--but with distinction and, prior to that gave tremendous service to this country as a chaplain in the U.S. Navy, serving during the Korean conflict and during Vietnam. He was appointed Chief of Chaplains of the Navy with the grade of rear admiral and served for over 25 years in the capacity of a chaplain in the military. From that, he came into civilian life to Scranton, PA, and served there for less than a year until he was picked by Pope John Paul II to be the Archbishop of the Catholic Diocese of New York, and then shortly thereafter was elevated to the rank of cardinal in May of 1985. He has served as Cardinal O'Connor in the Diocese of New York and, as the leader of the Diocese of New York, also as the titular head of the Catholic Church in this country. He has provided tremendous leadership on a variety of humanitarian and moral causes, always standing up for the weakest among us and shepherding his flock in an extraordinary way with great principle, dignity, and character. It is sad that as we speak today, Cardinal O'Connor is suffering from cancer and is gravely ill. Senator Schumer and I worked very hard to make sure this Congressional Gold Medal would be awarded to Cardinal O'Connor so he could be aware of it during this very difficult time in his life and know that the Senate, the Congress, and certainly all of us in Washington extend our best wishes to him and want him to know how much we appreciate the tremendous outstanding service he has given to the Catholic Church and to the people in the United States of America. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the safe return of Song Yongyi to his home and family in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Mr. Song, Librarian at Dickinson College, was recently freed from a Chinese detention center after a detainment of 172 days. Mr. Song was born on December 15, 1949 in Shanghai where he attended elementary and middle school. During the Chinese Cultural Revolution, his education was interrupted and Mr. Song became a dockworker. In 1971 he was detained and labeled a ``counter-revolutionary'' for organizing a book club with four other young people interested in discussing political ideas. Mr. Song spent five years in detention under harsh conditions, where he was severely beaten, resulting in permanent damage to his health. After the Cultural Revolution, he was completely exonerated of all criminal charges. In 1977 Mr. Song was part of an elite group of students who entered university as a result of a competitive, nationwide examination. He graduated from Shanghai Normal University in 1981. He taught Chinese literature for Shanghai educational television until 1987, at which time he became a full-time literary critic and widely recognized researcher. Mr. Song moved to the United States in 1989 and enrolled in graduate school at the University of Colorado, where his wife Helen (Xiaohua) and daughter Michelle (Xiaoxiao) joined him in 1990. After obtaining a second masters degree in library information science from Indiana University, the Song family moved to Carlisle, Pennsylvania, where Song Yongyi is employed as Librarian at Dickinson College. Mr. Song's deep interest in the 1966-1976 Cultural Revolution and growing prominence as an expert in the field led him to make research trips to China in the summers of 1998 and 1999. As part of his research, Mr. Song collected documents concerning the Cultural Revolution, which are widely available in markets and curio shops. It was during this most recent visit to China that state security officials detained Mr. and Mrs. Song in Beijing on August 7. For about one month, Yongyi and Helen were held in a detention center in Beijing and interrogated. They were not allowed to see each other or communicate with the outside world. Later they were moved to a facility where conditions were less harsh and were finally permitted to speak with each other. Helen was released from custody on November 16 and allowed to return home to Carlisle, but Yongyi remained in detention. On December 24, Song Yongyi was arrested and charged with the ``purchase and illegal provision of intelligence to foreign people.'' Mr. Song's arrest generated an outpouring of support from scholars in the United States and abroad, as well as from politicians. As of result of the vigorous campaign to secure Mr. Song's release, the Chinese government announced their decision to free Song Yongyi. On behalf of the many Pennsylvanians who diligently kept the Song family in their thoughts and prayers, I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations and warmest wishes on the safe return of Song Yongyi.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, on February 10th, I phoned in a request to become a cosponsor of S. Res. 256, a resolution designating the week of February 14 through 18, 2000, as ``National Heart Failure Awareness Week''. Unfortunately, my name was inadvertently not included in the list of cosponsors at that time. Hence, I ask unanimous consent that the Record reflect my support and cosponsorship of the resolution. Mr. President, I cosponsored this important resolution because it will help to promote research related to all aspects of heart failure and enhance the quality and duration of life for those with heart failure. With that in mind, I was pleased that S. Res. 256 passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

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. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize John S. Brouse, who will receive the American Heritage Award from the Anti- defamation League on Thursday, February 3. Mr. Brouse, President and CEO of Highmark, Inc. will be honored for his professional accomplishments, concern and commitment to his community. As President and CEO of Highmark, Inc., John Brouse is responsible for the day-to-day business operations of a health insurance corporation that exceeds $7.5 billion in annual revenues and has more that 18 million customers nationwide. Mr. Brouse was the architect of Highmark's national business strategy for dental and vision programs, and has had a tremendous impact on the success of the corporation. Prior to becoming President of Highmark, Mr. Brouse served as Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer for Pennsylvania Blue Shield, where he was responsible for the administration and overall operations of the organization. In addition to his successful career achievements, John Brouse has always maintained a commitment to serving his community. Mr. Brouse serves on the Board of Directors of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, and is a member of the Association's Executive Committee. He is also on the Boards of Inter-County Health Plan, Inc. and Inter-County Hospitalization, Inc., and is a member of the Board and Executive Committee of Keystone Central. Mr. Brouse serves on numerous other business, civic and cultural boards including the Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce, the Western Pennsylvania Caring Foundation for Children, and the Advisory Committee for the Caring Place. Over his remarkable career, John Brouse has shown in countless ways that he is deserving of the Anti-defamation League's American Heritage Award. His dedication and leadership have had an immeasurable impact on his community, from assuring quality health care coverage for millions of Americans to participating in local community organizations. I would like to join the Anti-defamation League in honoring John S. Brouse, a man who is truly deserving of recognition.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Elmer Gates as he retires from the Fuller Company of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, where he served as Chairman, President, and CEO. Mr. Gates joined the Fuller Company as President and Chief Operating Officer in 1982 after a thirty-one year career with General Electric. His mission was to restore Fuller Company to sustained profitability, and under his leadership Fuller not only accomplished this goal but became a world leader in the cement industry. During his tenure at Fuller, Elmer Gates combined his spirit of entrepreneurship with the discipline essential for long term business success. Throughout his distinguished career, Elmer Gates operated under a business philosophy that put a strong emphasis on the customer while maintaining a high level of quality. He firmly believes that community involvement is crucial for businesses, and that a business leader's first responsibility to the community is to run a profitable business so that good jobs are available, which in turn will improve the community. Mr. Gates' career has been a model for aspiring community servants to follow. He currently serves as Director of PP&L Resources, chairs their Finance Committee, and serves on their Corporate Governance Committee. He also chairs the Boards of the Lehigh Valley Economic Development Corporation and SI Handling Systems, Inc., and was the Founding Director of Ambassador Bank of the Commonwealth. In addition, Mr. Gates was a member of the U.S. Export-Import Bank Advisory Committee, and was appointed by the State legislature and the Governor to the IMPACT Commission and follow-up PRIME Council, to study and make recommendations for ways to reduce the cost of government while improving service levels. These are but a few of the countless contributions Elmer Gates has made, which have served not only his immediate community, but also his State and Country. Over his remarkable career, Elmer Gates has received numerous awards for his contributions, including the Distinguished Citizen Award from the Minsi Trail Council of Boy Scouts of America, Americanism Awards from B'nai B'rith and the U.S. Marine Corps League, and the Distinguished Community Leadership Award from the Bethlehem Chamber of Commerce. I would like to join these organizations in recognizing the tremendous contributions of Elmer Gates, and wish him continued success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, there is an issue over the language contained in section 413 of H.R. 1180 and the intent thereof that I ask the majority leader to clarify.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to pick up where the Senator from Illinois left off. I think he hit the nail on the head with respect to our concern with a provision in this bill which will create an additional moratorium for the organ allocation regulations to go into effect. There will be a 90-day moratorium. Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer, Senator Moynihan, Senator Specter, and I, and many others have some grave concerns about its impact on thousands of people who are on transplant lists across this country and their ability to get organs in what may be the last few days of their lives. That is, unfortunately, what is going to occur. We are going to delay a system being put into place which would put a priority on the health status of the person on the transplant list as opposed to the residency status of where that person happens to be in the hospital. It is a battle. It is an economic battle in many respects. And certainly, from some perspectives, I have transplant centers in my State that support these regulations; I have transplant centers in my State that oppose them. I look at it from the unbiased position of, what is in the best interest of the patient? For me, as Senator Durbin just said, when 3 of the 11 people who will die today because organs are not available, when 3 of them needlessly die because we are transplanting organs that would otherwise go to them into people who are healthier and would not die but for the transplant, then we have something seriously wrong in this country. We have something seriously wrong when geography trumps patient need. That is what the current organ allocation system has. Why has that occurred? This was a system that was put in place well over 10 years ago, when there were fewer transplant centers and when organs could not survive as long after being harvested. So geography did play an important role because the organ that was harvested had to be quickly transported to a hospital and implanted into the donee. That has changed. Now organs survive for around 4 hours, according to our transplant surgeon, Dr. Frist, who lectured us on this a little while ago. Now we have the ability to more broadly spread these organs out so we can reach sicker people. Yet the organ allocation system developed well over 10 years ago still focuses on geography. It may have been applicable at one time. It doesn't work anymore. People are dying as a result of it. We have 4,000 people on transplant lists; 1,000 will die. And it is incredible to me that those will die unnecessarily--4,000 will die and 1,000 will die unnecessarily--because of our regulations. We have gone through a moratorium on these regs. I know this is a very controversial issue. It is a controversial issue because of economics. There is no controversy anymore as to what is in the best interest of patients. Last year, when Bob Livingston was able to get a year delay as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we said, well, the medical evidence will sustain their position that geography is the best way to do this. So we asked for a study--the study of the Institute of Medicine--to determine the findings of a nonpartisan, nonbiased organization. Let me tell you what they came back with: On the basis of the analysis of this report, it seems apparent that patients on liver transplant---- That is what they specifically looked at---- waiting lists will be better served by an allocation system that facilitates broader sharing within broader populations. The Institute of Medicine says ``broader sharing,'' with geography being a lower priority factor in the decision. This question was also put forward: Will more people die if we continue this system? Again, the Institute of Medicine was very clear: Increased sharing of organs would result in increasing transplantation rates for status 1 patients, the sickest patients, decreasing pre-transplantation mortality for sicker patients, which is status 2(b), and decreasing transplantation rates for status 3 patients, without increasing mortality. That is the key. Yes, status 3, the healthier patients, will get fewer organs, but they won't die as a result of that. Yes, status 1 and 2(b) patients will get more transplantations and will live as a result of that, where they otherwise would die. So it is clear, again, from the medical evidence the Institute of Medicine has put forward that a broader geographic sharing is the way to go. That is what these regulations dictate--that the sicker patients should get these before they die, not healthy patients who would otherwise live or would live for a long period of time without transplants. The other issue you will hear brought up is that we need geography to be a big factor because it increases the availability of organs, that people want to donate organs in their community. The Institute of Medicine looked at this and found no convincing evidence to support the claim that broader sharing would adversely affect donation rates, or potential donors would decline to donate because an organ might be used outside the immediate geographic area. I have an organ donor card. I am someone who, upon my demise, wants to be able to give organs to someone else so they might live. I don't care whether it goes to somebody in Pittsburgh, or in Chicago, or in Alabama, as long as it goes to the person who needs it the most. That brings me to my final point, on which I think we can all agree. This debate is contentious, and the reason for that is, we don't have enough organs. So I just say that we can all agree that we need to do more to encourage organ donation. People are needlessly dying because people and families have trouble at that moment of death--I know how difficult that can be--making the decision to donate the organs of somebody who is brain dead to someone else who can live as a result of that donation. Hopefully, through this discussion, we can also work on how we can broaden the availability of organs so this contentious issue of regional transplant centers will be minimized in the future. Mr. President, with that, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the majority leader for the clarification.

Mr. SANTORUM. I wish to clarify the language in section 413 of H.R. 1180 pertaining to the implementation of the Secretary of Health and Human Service's final rule on organ procurement and the transplantation printed in the Federal Register on October 20, 1999, specifically to ensure that this language allows, but does not require, the Secretary of HHS to revise this rule after the 90-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this act.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a genuine hero, who paid the ultimate price so that a loved one might live. John Edward Giovannini, born in 1958, was an employee of US Airways and a member of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard, stationed in Harrisburg, PA. He served in the Marines from 1976 to 1980, and joined the Air National Guard in 1985. On September 13, 1999, while vacationing with his girlfriend and her family in Ocean City, Maryland, John was faced with a fateful decision. While enjoying a relaxing day on the beach, the calm was suddenly shattered by desperate cries from Kim, the 21-year-old daughter of John's girlfriend. Kim was swimming in the ocean when a riptide threatened to carry her out to sea. Without concern for his own safety, John immediately swam out to reach Kim before the current could carry her away. Being an exceptionally strong swimmer, John was able to reach Kim despite the riptide, and began towing her toward the beach. Before reaching shore, John became overwhelmed with exhaustion from fighting the strong current. He continued to struggle toward shore, and when unable to swim any further, John fought with all his might to keep Kim above water as he cried out for help. Kim's grandmother, Deanna, swam out to the pair and successfully helped Kim back to shore. Meanwhile John's friend, Ron, came to his aid and pulled John the remaining distance to the beach. By the time John reached shore, he was completely incapacitated, having expended all of his energy in his effort to save Kim. The lifeguard and medical technicians were unable to revive John, and he died while being transported to the hospital. If not for John's quick actions and refusal to put his own life before Kim's, she would surely have been swept away. Words can not begin to adequately describe the ultimate sacrifice John made on that fateful September day. His selfless courage is rarely demonstrated today apart from storybooks and movies. John Giovannini is truly an American hero, and as I extend my heartfelt condolences to John's loved ones for their tragic loss, I would also like to express my sincere admiration for the courage which John displayed throughout this tragic event.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to call to your attention a special event which will be occurring in Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania on Thursday, November 18, 1999. La Salle College High School will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of their Father/Son Banquet, sponsored by the ``Men of La Salle,'' otherwise known as the Father's Club. La Salle College High School is a private, independent Catholic college preparatory school for young men of varied backgrounds and abilities. La Salle is dedicated to providing a challenging and nurturing environment for learning, inspired by Saint John Baptist De La Salle, and seeks to empower each student to accept responsibility and achieve his fullest potential. La Salle is committed to Christian values, academic excellence, spiritual fulfillment, cultural enrichment, and physical development. The Lasallian experience prepares young men who are dedicated to leadership, achievement, and service to help build a society that is more human, more Christ-like, and more just. The Father's Club has a long history of doing good for the La Salle College High School and its families. Much of the money raised by the Men of La Salle College High School and its families. Much of the money raised by the Men of La Salle, for example, goes to help students at La Salle who find themselves in financial difficulties as a result of the death of an employed parent. This scholarship fund makes it possible for students who go through a family tragedy to stay at La Salle, and helps to foster a family-like atmosphere. The Father's Club also contributes to the financial growth and stability of La Salle, and provides a wholesome social climate through its various events and activities. Once again, I would like to congratulate La Salle College High School and the Men of La Salle for the 50th anniversary of their Father/Son banquet, and thank them for the great work which they are doing. They are a tribute to Pennsylvania and should be recognized as a model organization to be emulated.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, it is with great enthusiasm that I rise today to join my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Connecticut, Christopher Dodd, in introducing the Lyme Disease Initiative of 1999. This legislation is aimed at waging a comprehensive fight against Lyme disease--America's most common tick-borne illness. I know that Mr. Dodd shares my sentiments in believing that this legislation could not be more timely or necessary. Lyme remains the 2nd fastest growing infectious disease in this country after AIDS. The number of annually reported cases of Lyme disease in the United States has increased about 25-fold since national surveillance began in 1982, and an average of approximately 12,500 cases annually were reported by states to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from 1993-1997. Every summer, tens of thousands of Americans enjoying or working in the outdoors are bitten by ticks. While most will experience no medical problems, others are not so lucky--including the 16,801 Americans who contracted Lyme disease last year. According to some estimates, Lyme disease costs our nation $1 billion to $2 billion in medical costs annually. The number of confirmed cases of Lyme disease in 1998 increased 31.2 percent from the previous year-- and that is only the tip of the iceberg. Many experts believe the official statistics understate the true number of Lyme disease cases by as much as ten or twelve-fold, because Lyme disease can be so difficult to diagnose. And Lyme is a disease that does not discriminate. Persons of all ages and both genders are equally susceptible, although among the highest attack rates are in children aged 0-14 years. The Lyme Disease Initiative is a five year, $125 million blueprint for attacking the disease on all fronts. In addition to authorizing the necessary resources to wage this war, this legislation outlines a public health management plan to make the most of our efforts on all fronts to combat Lyme disease: The Lyme Disease Initiative makes the development of better detection tests for Lyme disease the highest research priority; The Lyme Disease Initiative sets goals for public health agencies, including a 33 percent reduction in Lyme disease within five years of enactment in the ten states with the highest rates; The Lyme Disease Initiative fosters better coordination between the scattered Lyme disease programs within the federal government through a five year, joint-agency plan of action; The Lyme Disease Initiative helps protect workers and visitors at federally-owned lands in endemic areas through a system of periodic, standardized, and publicly accessible Lyme disease risk assessments; The Lyme Disease Initiative requires a review of current Lyme disease prevention and surveillance efforts to search for areas of improvement; The Lyme Disease Initiative fosters additional research into other related tick-borne illnesses so that the problem of co-infection can be addressed; The Lyme Disease Initiative initiates a plan to boost public and physician understanding about Lyme disease; The Lyme Disease Initiative creates a Lyme Disease Task Force to provide Americans with the opportunity to hold our public health officials accountable as they accomplish these tasks. This legislation is the product of countless meetings that Senator Dodd and I have had with patients and families struggling to cope with this debilitating disease. Although Lyme disease can be treated successfully in the early stages with antibiotics, sadly, the lack of physician knowledge about Lyme disease and the inadequacies of existing laboratory detection tests compound the physical suffering, which can include damage to the nervous system, skin, and joints and other significant health complications where patients go undetected, and hence untreated. Patients relate heart breaking stories about visiting multiple doctors without getting an accurate diagnosis, undergoing unnecessary tests while getting progressively weaker and sicker --and racking massive medical bills in the process. Although Lyme disease poses many challenges, they are challenges the medical research community is well equipped to meet. This legislation will enhance efforts to discover new information on and establish treatment protocols for Lyme disease. Thanks to the scientific research being conducted here in the United States and around the world, new and promising research is already accumulating at a rapid pace. We have a unique opportunity to help re-build the shattered lives of Lyme victims and their families, and I look forward to working with Senator Dodd, my colleagues, and the administration to accomplish this worthy public health goal.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss the amendment offered by Senator Domenici, Senator Abraham, and myself to raise the minimum wage. I cosponsored this proposal because I believe it represents a fair, sensible compromise. In raising the minimum wage, it is imperative that we do not hurt the very people we are trying to help. Increasing the minimum wage always carries the risks of hindering job growth, cutting off opportunities for entry level workers, or displacing current workers. These risks are a real concern to me. In my view, any increase in the minimum wage must be accompanied by measures that will negate possible unintended negative effects on workers and businesses. I believe the Domenici amendment offers a reasonable way to help workers and businesses by coupling the wage increase with tax relief that will help small businesses offset the additional costs. I would like to highlight a few of the ways this amendment creates a win-win situation for workers and small businesses. First, our amendment provides a one dollar increase in the minimum wage, which will be phased in incrementally over the next three years. Currently, the federal minimum wage is $5.15 per hour. Our amendment raises the minimum wage to $5.50 per hour in 2000, to $5.85 per hour in 2001, and to $6.15 per hour in 2002. It also includes reforms to expand pension coverage, particularly for employees of small businesses. These provisions enhance fairness for women, increase portability for plan participants, strengthen pension security and enforcement, and streamline regulatory requirements. Likewise, our proposal permanently extends the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which gives employers an incentive to hire people receiving public assistance. This program helps people who have fallen on hard times to move back into the workplace. A section of our proposal that I am particularly proud of allows self-employed individuals to deduct 100 percent of their health insurance costs as early as next year. Under current law, hard working men and women must wait until 2003 before they can fully deduct their health insurance costs. This measure puts small business owners, farmers, and other hard working men and women struggling to get their businesses off the ground on a level playing field with large corporations, who already enjoy full deductions for healthcare. I have fought for this parity throughout my tenure in Congress, and I thank Senator Domenici for including it in this amendment. Mr. President, our amendment is a compromise package. It is a good faith attempt to help low-income workers without penalizing their employers or causing unintended job displacement. We believe the tax relief and pension reforms in this bill will help small businesses and mitigate possible adverse effects of raising the minimum wage. Once again, I thank Senator Domenici for his hard work on this amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, it is with great enthusiasm that I rise today to join my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Connecticut, Christopher Dodd, in introducing the Lyme Disease Initiative of 1999. This legislation is aimed at waging a comprehensive fight against Lyme disease--America's most common tick-borne illness. I know that Mr. Dodd shares my sentiments in believing that this legislation could not be more timely or necessary. Lyme remains the 2nd fastest growing infectious disease in this country after AIDS. The number of annually reported cases of Lyme disease in the United States has increased about 25-fold since national surveillance began in 1982, and an average of approximately 12,500 cases annually were reported by states to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from 1993-1997. Every summer, tens of thousands of Americans enjoying or working in the outdoors are bitten by ticks. While most will experience no medical problems, others are not so lucky--including the 16,801 Americans who contracted Lyme disease last year. According to some estimates, Lyme disease costs our nation $1 billion to $2 billion in medical costs annually. The number of confirmed cases of Lyme disease in 1998 increased 31.2 percent from the previous year-- and that is only the tip of the iceberg. Many experts believe the official statistics understate the true number of Lyme disease cases by as much as ten or twelve-fold, because Lyme disease can be so difficult to diagnose. And Lyme is a disease that does not discriminate. Persons of all ages and both genders are equally susceptible, although among the highest attack rates are in children aged 0-14 years. The Lyme Disease Initiative is a five year, $125 million blueprint for attacking the disease on all fronts. In addition to authorizing the necessary resources to wage this war, this legislation outlines a public health management plan to make the most of our efforts on all fronts to combat Lyme disease: The Lyme Disease Initiative makes the development of better detection tests for Lyme disease the highest research priority; The Lyme Disease Initiative sets goals for public health agencies, including a 33 percent reduction in Lyme disease within five years of enactment in the ten states with the highest rates; The Lyme Disease Initiative fosters better coordination between the scattered Lyme disease programs within the federal government through a five year, joint-agency plan of action; The Lyme Disease Initiative helps protect workers and visitors at federally-owned lands in endemic areas through a system of periodic, standardized, and publicly accessible Lyme disease risk assessments; The Lyme Disease Initiative requires a review of current Lyme disease prevention and surveillance efforts to search for areas of improvement; The Lyme Disease Initiative fosters additional research into other related tick-borne illnesses so that the problem of co-infection can be addressed; The Lyme Disease Initiative initiates a plan to boost public and physician understanding about Lyme disease; The Lyme Disease Initiative creates a Lyme Disease Task Force to provide Americans with the opportunity to hold our public health officials accountable as they accomplish these tasks. This legislation is the product of countless meetings that Senator Dodd and I have had with patients and families struggling to cope with this debilitating disease. Although Lyme disease can be treated successfully in the early stages with antibiotics, sadly, the lack of physician knowledge about Lyme disease and the inadequacies of existing laboratory detection tests compound the physical suffering, which can include damage to the nervous system, skin, and joints and other significant health complications where patients go undetected, and hence untreated. Patients relate heart breaking stories about visiting multiple doctors without getting an accurate diagnosis, undergoing unnecessary tests while getting progressively weaker and sicker --and racking massive medical bills in the process. Although Lyme disease poses many challenges, they are challenges the medical research community is well equipped to meet. This legislation will enhance efforts to discover new information on and establish treatment protocols for Lyme disease. Thanks to the scientific research being conducted here in the United States and around the world, new and promising research is already accumulating at a rapid pace. We have a unique opportunity to help re-build the shattered lives of Lyme victims and their families, and I look forward to working with Senator Dodd, my colleagues, and the administration to accomplish this worthy public health goal.

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. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for his amendment dealing with disclosure--as the Senator from New York talked about in his remarks--on credit card solicitations, as to what the real interest rate is that is going to be involved and all the other information that is necessary for consumers to make intelligent decisions as to whether to contract with a credit card company. All of us get solicitations--I do every day--in the mail offering outrageously low rates of interest. I have looked through them and it is very difficult, even for somebody who is somewhat sophisticated in looking at this information, to find what the true interest rate is and the true terms of the credit card for which you may be signing up. What the amendment of the Senator from New York does is put it in an obvious place, in clear and bold type, in a box, in a format that people are used to using, as a result of his legislation from a few years ago with respect to credit card statements. This would make it applicable to applications and to solicitations. I think it is a constructive amendment, a disclosure-oriented amendment. It is not something I think is unduly burdensome and it can be helpful to everybody, not just seniors and the others who may have difficulty reading the small print and understanding very complex legal documents but also the average consumer who wants to be able to make intelligent decisions. And what we are looking at in this bill is the failures as a result of credit card overpayments, as a result of decreased savings rates. This is the kind of commonsense type of thing we ought to be supporting.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Fifteen minutes for the Senator from Florida.

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent there be a period of 30 minutes for morning business, with the first 10 minutes allocated to the Senator from Washington and the second 5 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.