Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Sportsmen's Privacy Protection Act'' to address a number or privacy concerns I have heard from my constituents. When I worked with my colleagues to pass the 1996 welfare reform law, we made sure that we created a system to hold parents accountable for supporting their children. A provision included in that law obligated States to implement new requirements to encourage payment of child support that cross-referenced Social Security Numbers of applicants for drivers' licenses, professional licenses, occupational licenses and recreational licenses. States that failed to implement these requirements would have faced the loss of Federal welfare funding. Under current state law, Pennsylvania is required to revoke or deny recreational licenses, including hunting and fishing licenses of parents who are behind on child support payments. As a result, any individual that applies or renews a driver's, occupational or recreational license must include their Social Security Number on their application form. And it is the application that is the problem. In Pennsylvania and many other States, the drivers', professional and occupational records are automated or computerized, while the recreational licenses remain in a paper book often with multiple entries on a page. In my view, there are significant privacy concerns to continuing this provision as it relates to recreational licenses such as hunting and fishing. In preparing this bill we asked the Congressional Research Service, CRS, about the effectiveness of this provision. CRS spoke with the Pennsylvania Child Support Program, PACSP, regarding the effectiveness of retracting or denying individuals hunting and fishing licensees. CRS indicated to my staff that there have been very few instances where individuals have been denied hunting and fishing licenses for falling behind in child support payments. In the overwhelming majority of the instances where they have been denied, the custodial parent will tip- off PACSP of the non-custodial parent's interest in obtaining a hunting and fishing license. PACSP can then notify the PA Hunting and Gaming Commission to deny the non-custodial parent a license. I have heard from a lot of hunters about their legitimate concerns in giving their Social Security Number when applying for a hunting license. This bill will repeal the Federal mandate that requires States to collect Social Security Numbers for recreational licenses. The requirement for drivers', professional and occupational licenses would remain in place. My home State colleague, Representative English, has introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to consider cosponsoring this legislation that restores the privacy rights of recreational hunters and fisherman, while maintaining an effective system of child support enforcement.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, it is an honor for me to be here today to speak on behalf of a great organization and a great group of men who accomplished the heights of their profession. The Pittsburgh Steelers were victorious in Super Bowl XL on Sunday. As I speak right now, there is a parade going through downtown Pittsburgh of our warriors, our champions who have brought back the Super Bowl trophy, the Lombardi trophy, to Pittsburgh for the fifth time, which ties a record with the San Francisco 49ers and the Dallas Cowboys, having won five Super Bowls. During the 1970s, we won four and got comfortable with the fact that Pittsburgh was a city of champions, winning both football titles and two World Series titles in 1972 and 1979; and in 1979 we won both the Super Bowl and the World Series. It has been a long time--26 years-- since we were able to get, as the saying goes in Pittsburgh, ``one for the thumb.'' We didn't yet have the one for the thumb. But the time for the one for the thumb has come. We have, in fact, gotten over the hump, and we have a lot more to look forward to, in my view, in the years to come with this great squad. I congratulate, obviously, the team. I also congratulate some other folks who I think deserve particular recognition--and, by the way, Senator Specter and I have put forth a congratulatory resolution, which we brought down to the floor and I am sure will be cleared and we will be able to get that passed today. I congratulate the Rooney family. This is a family enterprise that has been, since 1933, running the Steelers. I don't know of any other team in the NFL that has had the kind of stable ownership and closeness with the community that the Rooney ownership has brought over the past 73 years. They are a great Pittsburgh family. Art Rooney, who bought the team back in 1933, was one of the founders of the NFL. For years and years and years, he was one of the great men of football but never won a championship for over 40 years being in the league, and then they had a great run in the 1970s. After his passing, Dan, his son, took it over, and has been a tremendous pillar of the Pittsburgh community. This is a man who is as humble as any man I have ever met. In contrast with some of the high- flying owners of the NFL, this is a man who still flies around in a little single-engine plane. They have a training camp well out of town, so instead of having to drive from his home, he takes this little plane and flies out to the airport near St. Vincent College. He still remembers his roots and does so much for the community. One of the things he does most for the community is he keeps the beloved Steelers a local community team, a team that is good to its players and good to the community and puts the community first. That is one of the reasons the Steelers are so beloved in Pittsburgh--because they are so much a fabric in the city because they participate in community organizations, and their players have great relationships throughout the Pittsburgh area and make a difference in the community. That is really what professional sports should be more about. We have true role models in people like Jerome Bettis who have added so much to the texture of Pittsburgh. Over the years, we have had many great players in and out, and because of the leadership of the Rooney family and the stability of the coaching ranks, from Chuck Knoll to Bill Cowher, we have seen that stability, that bond with the city that has been transferred to the players. They feel that special relationship and obligation to be role models in the community. Overwhelmingly, they have lived up to that. So it is a very proud moment, not only because they won a football game--in fact, they won four improbable games against worthy opponents--they were a team that barely made the playoffs, but they went through and not only got to a championship game and won the AFC championship, they then won the Super Bowl. They are truly a remarkable team, inspired by this great family, the Rooney family, and a great coach, Bill Cowher, who has been, again, another important piece of the Pittsburgh family now for better than a dozen years. He continues to show that a hometown boy can come back, somebody who wasn't a star in the league but a solid guy from Pittsburgh who understands the importance of the Steelers to the community and lives by that ethic and the code the Rooneys have established very well and makes Pittsburgh a better place as a result. It is great to see Coach Cowher get a Super Bowl, it is great to see the team back on top, and it is great to see Pittsburgh, a town that has gone through a lot in the steel industry in the 1970s--they have seen pretty dark times in the 1980s in particular as a community. We have been going through a renaissance in Pittsburgh in the last 10, 12 years, a tremendous transformation of that city. It is nice to see that the Steelers put a punctuation mark which, hopefully, draws some attention and makes us feel better about ourselves because not only have we made the transformation, but we have a winning team and a good, positive attitude about how we go forward. So I am proud to be a Pittsburgher, and I am proud particularly to be a Pittsburgh Steeler fan today. I congratulate the entire organization and all of the people in Pittsburgh for the tremendous support you continue to give the Steelers and the great attitude you bring to our fair city.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, it is sort of with mixed emotions that I am here on the floor to talk about this tax bill. In one sense, I am very happy we are moving forward with the Tax Increase Protection Act. At the same time, I am at somewhat of a loss as to why we are spending 2, 3, and maybe more days of the Senate's time for something that is traditionally done when there is comity and cooperativeness in the Senate by unanimous consent, putting in a substitute Senate-passed bill for the House bill and go to conference. That is something we do routinely here, almost daily. We have disagreements with the House, and we simply go through the procedure of moving to conference and having those differences worked out. Unfortunately, we are at a time here where even routine things become weeklong labors to accomplish them. That does not reflect well on the Senate. I don't believe it accomplishes anything other than to delay other matters that are to come before the Senate. We have a very important bill dealing with an issue that is of vital importance to my State--many manufacturing jobs in my State--and that is the asbestos debacle going on throughout the courts in this country where over half of the money paid out by corporations in asbestos claims has gone to lawyers. There are many people in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who are literally getting pennies--people who are sick and some are dying and some have died, and they have received literally pennies for their exposure to asbestos and their subsequent disease because of the horrific environment of litigation on asbestos, where lawyers are profiting and patients--those who are sick or are survivors of those who have gotten ill and died--get virtually nothing. This is something we have to address. Instead of addressing that, which is what we should be doing right now, we are holding up the Senate on a procedural matter. It is truly sad that we can no longer just cooperate on the normal business. Everything is obstruction and slowdown and political potshots and making points. I think that is unfortunate for this body. It sets a very dangerous precedent that we are going to conduct business like this in the future. Whether it is in the next election or elections in the future, at some point in time, the tables will turn. I believe what we are establishing today is not something that will be beneficial for the long term in our ability to get things done in the Senate. While the chairman is still on the Senate floor, I thank him again. I am repeating this because we are doing the same bill. I thank him for all the hard work he has put into this bill. The fact that he was able to get a bipartisan bill through the Senate is a testament to him, and I know it is very difficult and trying, negotiating within our own conference as well as negotiating with Members on the other side of the aisle. He was able to, as he has done on many occasions, cut through all of the difficulty and partisanship and the angst some Members have about various provisions and find a good middle ground, and well over 60 Members of the Senate supported the Senate bill that passed in November. I thank him for his good work and for the work he has done with me, in particular, on the issue of helping the nonprofit sector in our society meet the needs of those. We were at the prayer breakfast this morning, and Senator Grassley was there. We heard Bono and the President talk about taking care of the least of our brothers and sisters. The President says it so well. I have been advocating so long that nobody really does it better than our faith-based communities and our community nonprofits. They are the ones on the front line. We talked about it at the prayer breakfast--whether it is responding to a natural disaster or, more often and less prominently, responding to a person in need in our communities across America, rich as well as poor, people in need who are suffering. It is important that we recognize that portion of this bill has to be a net plus for our charitable community. There are provisions in there that I have expressed concerns about which would do damage to those nonprofits' ability to be able to provide the needed services and to do the good works in our communities that make America stronger. We have some good charitable-giving incentives, which are a big plus, but we also have charitable reforms on which I worked with the chairman. I think that maybe we are 90 percent of the way there, making sure we weed out some bad practices and making sure there isn't abuse within the charitable field, but at the same time not saddling our charities with a Sarbanes-Oxley type of oversight and regulations that would drive a lot of our small volunteer-oriented nonprofits out of existence and leave a big hole in our communities across America. I am hopeful that when we get to the House and into conference, Chairman Thomas will work with us and we will be able to get a bill that will be not only a net plus but a big plus for the armies of compassion, the foot soldiers across America who are helping men and women in need and children in need in our society. A big part of this bill, obviously, is the tax relief. It is not exactly what I had hoped for. It is one of those compromises we had to make along the way. I thought the House bill actually had some better provisions when it comes to some of the tax provisions. It continues on a policy that has resulted in a lot of positive economic news over the past several years since 2003. We have seen that by these changes in the Tax Code and reducing marginal rates and capital gains taxes and dividends, it has incentivized the entrepreneurial spirit and incentivized business investment; it has created an explosion of growth in this country, which has also resulted in millions of people getting jobs--net new jobs across America. I have a chart that shows, since the Jobs and Growth Act of May of 2003, and looking at the real GDP growth in America, there is a dramatic tilting upward since these provisions were passed. That has resulted in a dramatic increase, as we have seen on some other charts, in Federal revenues. There is a constant complaint, a drumbeat on the other side of the aisle, and from a few on this side of the aisle, that somehow we cannot afford these tax reductions. It is interesting; if you think of tax reductions, that leaves the question, What is a tax reduction? What is a tax reduction? Is a tax reduction a reduction in the taxes paid; or is it a reduction in the rate of the tax paid? What is a tax reduction? Depending on how you view a tax reduction--and the answer is different based on what we did--if you look at, Did we reduce taxes, the answer is, with respect to rates, yes, we reduced taxes; we reduced the capital gains dividend rates, the marginal tax rates. We reduced the rates on the taxation of married couples and in several other areas. So, yes, we reduced the rate of tax. The question is, Did we reduce the collection of taxes? What should Congress be more concerned about? Should we be more concerned about the rates of taxes or should we be more concerned about the collection of tax revenues? I would think most people, when we have cut taxes, would say we reduced the collection of taxes in America. That is not what happened. When we reduced the rate of taxes, when we cut taxes, we actually didn't cut taxes. We actually increased the flow of revenue to the Federal Government. So if we are looking at it from the standpoint of the budgeteers, the folks who are responsible for managing the receipts and distributions of Government, then the actions taken by the Congress in 2001 and 2003 resulted in increased taxes paid to the Federal Government through a policy that believes in the innovation and the energy of the people, that if you unshackle them from higher tax rates, they will produce more, they will create more jobs--and job growth has been terrific, over 2 million jobs, and the unemployment rate has been under 5 percent--and we end up with a better quality of life, more revenue to the Federal Government, and higher growth rates overall in our economy. That is a pretty good picture. So why the complaints? Why are people so upset that we actually put a program in place that has resulted in more revenues coming to the Federal Government? Why the complaints? Why the gnashing of teeth that somehow this is a policy that is harmful to the budget deficit? Revenues were up 14 percent last year. How is that harmful to the budget deficit? They say: That would have happened; in fact, we would have gotten more money had we not reduced taxes. Is that true? Let's look at the capital gains issue. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2003 that we would collect roughly $125 billion in the year 2004 and 2005 in capital gains taxes. We went ahead and reduced the capital gains tax rate. Many of us stood on the floor and said, by reducing that rate, we will actually get more revenues. The Congressional Budget Office said ``no,'' everybody on the other side said ``no,'' and, in fact, everybody on the other side still said ``no'' and still says we shouldn't keep those rates low, we have to increase those rates because we need the money. How did it work out? What happened when we reduced those rates? Did we get, as the Congressional Budget Office suggested, $26 billion less money? And that is what they projected. They projected in 2004 and 2005 that the amount of money coming into the Treasury in capital gains taxes paid would go down by $26 billion. What happened? Now we know. The amount of revenue collected in capital gains taxes went up $27 billion. I was talking to a reporter the other day. I said: Lo and behold, I voted for a tax increase and didn't even know it. I voted for a provision that actually increased taxes to the Federal Government, and the folks who paid those taxes were very happy to pay them, by the way, because they were investing in America and America's values were increasing. Stock in America, real estate in America, the things that made wealth in America were increasing because of a growing economy because of what we did on the floor of the Senate, and they were very happy to have paid those taxes. And we got more Federal revenues. What does the other side want to do? They want to have that rate go back up. One might suggest that if the rate goes back up, revenues could do down. What could be their motivation? What is the motivation of trying to increase a tax to get less revenue? Think about it. What could be the possible motivation of coming to the floor of the Senate and saying we need to increase taxes, even though by doing so we are going to get less money. Why would you do that? From a public policy perspective, why would you want to do that? I can tell you that the argument is given that we need it to balance the budget. Wait a minute. We are going to get less money, so why would you do it? Could it be something of the whole politics of envy, the politics of pointing the finger at those who are successful, get a paycheck, and invest in America and say we need to tax them more; that is the fairness issue? We hear that a lot on the floor of the Senate: It is about fairness. That is what it is about? Stick it to those who succeeded, invested, purchased real estate, purchased stocks and bonds; we are going to take a bigger chunk of their money because that is fair. We may get less revenue, we may get slower economic growth, fewer jobs will be created, but we will feel better. That is not sound public policy. That is not in the best interest of the American people. We did not get in the Senate bill a reduction of capital gains tax rate extension for 2 more years, but I will tell you that we will work very hard in the conference to make sure that happens. It is important for the economic growth of our country, for the job creation in our country, and for Federal revenues that we get that extension in law. There are a lot of games being played on the floor of the Senate when it comes to tax policy and the politics of envy. What we should be focused on is how does this Senate, how does this Government create the best environment for growth opportunity and job creation and how do we do it in a way that is fiscally responsible. Those are the two things on which we should be focusing. I would make the argument that the bill before us, which prevents an increase in taxes--these are tax policies that are in place right now; there is no new policy or, I should say, very minor, little new policy changes, such as the charitable giving incentives, but very small policy changes, a very small percentage of the money. The overall bill deals with provisions such as the alternative minimum tax, which is vitally important and the small saver's credit, which is important. About a quarter of a million people in my State strongly support that provision, in fact, would strongly support increased incentives for low-income individuals to save and, in fact, put forth a bill with former Senator Corzine to do that. So I am looking for another new cosponsor if anybody wants to join. It is called a kid's account to give every child in America a nest egg to begin to save at their birth. I am big on giving people the opportunity to save, invest, build wealth, and feel connected to the economy of this country. We need to do more of that. But we have a little piece of that here, which is important to the people in my State. Mr. President, 150,000 families and students in my State will lose their deduction for college tuition if we don't extend that provision. With regard to the teacher tax credit provision Senator Collins championed, 142,000 teachers in Pennsylvania will not be able to deduct that. We can go on and on. These are preventions of tax increases, a tax reduction that caused the kind of economic growth we have seen. It is important for us to have these provisions stay in law. Finally, I want to talk about an issue that has been brought up--and it is an important issue--and that is the issue of mine safety. I know Senator Rockefeller has put forth an idea that I think deserves some consideration because it has merit. It provides mining companies with incentives to make available newer technology that will enhance safety. We have seen over the last month in West Virginia and we saw, I guess, 3 years ago in Pennsylvania, mine disasters occur where human life was lost, in the cases of West Virginia, and certainly a major disaster was diverted in Quecreek in Pennsylvania. This is a serious issue, one I care deeply about. My grandfather was a coal miner in a deep mine for 30 years, so this is very close to home for me. This is one issue we need to do something about, to improve the safety for those who literally risk their lives every day to provide for their families, to build strong communities, and to provide energy for all of us so these lights will work in the Chamber. We need to do all we can to improve enforcement as well as to create incentives for the mining community to improve safety at the workplace. There is another provision in the Rockefeller bill that has to do with training for rescue teams. Because of the way it is written, I have some concerns about it. I heard from a lot of our small mining operations, family-run operations, that this provision would not benefit them at all. As we know, a large percentage--at least in my State--a large percentage of the mine operations in my State are not big corporate mining operations. They are small, in some cases small corporations, family-run operations. So while I certainly strongly support the first provision and support the concept behind the second provision, I have serious concerns about the way that provision will tilt to the benefit of the larger mining operations. While I support it and will support this amendment, I hope it is included and that we can work on something in conference to include improvement of mine safety, I am putting my marker down here that we will do so not to discriminate against small mines versus larger mining operations. If anything--if anything--we should be concerned about, as we do on a lot of issues in the Senate, helping the little guy, as opposed to helping the big guy because the big guys already have the resources to spend to provide for a safer workplace. What we should be doing is focusing on how we can make smaller mining operations safer. That is not what this amendment that Senator Rockefeller puts forward does. As a result of that, while I support it and will support the provision to be included in the conference, I put the marker down that we are going to work diligently to make sure it uniformly impacts across the industry and, if anything, it benefits the smaller mine operator as opposed to the bigger one. That is not the way it is currently drafted. I completely understand. I don't think Senator Rockefeller--at least I hope he didn't go in there with the idea that we are going to favor one segment of the mining industry over the other. I hope that is not his intention. Whether it is his intention, I will certainly work with him to make sure it is a much more balanced provision when it comes out of conference. With that, Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding the time to speak on this important bill. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of Coretta Scott King and express my condolences on her passing. Mrs. King carried the message of nonviolence and the dream of racial equality around our great nation and throughout the world. She led goodwill missions in Africa, Latin America, Europe, and Asia. Mrs. King traveled throughout the world advocating racial justice, religious freedom, and helping those in need. Coretta Scott was born in Marion, AL, on April 27, 1927. In a world where neither women nor minorities pursued an education, she graduated as valedictorian of her high school class and attended Antioch College in Yellow Springs, OH. She received a bachelor of arts in music and education and then studied concert singing at the New England Conservatory of Music in Boston, MA. While in Boston, she met Martin Luther King, Jr., and the two forged a unique relationship that led to the raising of their four children and an endeavor to find racial equality throughout our country. She was not just the wife of one of our great civil rights leaders. She was a great civil rights leader in her own right. She became the first woman to deliver the Class Day address at Harvard, and the first woman to preach at a statutory service at St. Paul's Cathedral in London. Just days after the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., Mrs. King carried out her husband's dream by leading a march on behalf of sanitation workers in Memphis, TN. Mrs. King continued to speak publicly and write nationally syndicated columns. As founding president, chair, and chief executive officer of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change, she dedicated herself to providing local, national, and international programs that have trained tens of thousands of people in Dr. King's philosophy and methods. In 1983, she led an effort that brought more than a half million demonstrators to Washington, DC, to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where King delivered his famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech. Mrs. King was also an instrumental part in establishing Dr. King's birthday, January 15, as a national holiday in the United States. By an act of Congress, the first national observance of the holiday took place in 1986. Dr. King's birthday is now marked by annual celebrations in over 100 countries. Mrs. King has received honorary doctorates from over 60 colleges and universities and was the author of three books. She served on, or helped create, dozens of organizations, and has met with various heads of state to address the issues of racial inequality and fighting poverty. As a nation, we owe Mrs. King a debt of gratitude for her strength and perseverance throughout her lifelong pursuit of equality for all Americans. She and her husband inspired generations of Americans to work towards freedom and equality. Their legacy will live on and their quest for civil rights will never be forgotten.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Missouri for his excellent comments. I join with him in talking about some of the issues the President brought up with respect to the State of the Union and, in particular, some of the issues confronting us overseas. Before I do that, I congratulate the President for focusing like a laser beam on the crucial issues we have to deal with on the domestic side--the issues of health care, doing something to curb health care costs, improving the efficiency of the system through technology, expanding access through both health savings accounts and tax credits to those health savings accounts to let more people who do not have employer-provided health care purchase health insurance; his initiatives on competitiveness and education, preparing all of our students, K-12 as well as in college, for the new technology jobs that will be available; and an emphasis on improving the quality of education through teacher training, as well as providing opportunities and incentives for folks who get into the areas of math and science-- very important initiatives. Obviously, there was a lot of focus on energy. It has profound national security implications, as the President laid out. The President cited our addiction to oil and laid out a charge for us to reduce our dependency. It is a great aspirational goal for a President to lay out and charge all of us, on both sides of the aisle, to come forward with our best ideas to create more energy in the United States using the great minds and the technologies being developed in our university communities and in our laboratories. We are going to work very diligently on trying to address energy again in this session of Congress, to build on what we did last year. We bring up the tax bill, what I call the Tax Increase Prevention Act, which is to continue the presence of progrowth policies that have resulted in dramatically increasing revenues to the Federal Government because we have seen dramatic improvement in the health of the economy, more jobs being created, stronger investment, more capital investment which has led to more capital gains taxes than otherwise anticipated. We actually have seen an increase in capital gains taxes over what was anticipated prior to reduction. Here we reduced the rate and got more revenue. It is something many of us here have been arguing for a long time, and we see it borne out with the issue of capital gains. Again, one of the hindrances of our economic system right now is lawsuit abuse and the horrific trauma some of these unscrupulous trial lawyers--there are a lot of good trial lawyers, but there are some unscrupulous ones, a small percentage, who are wreaking havoc on our society, which we will deal with after the Tax Increase Prevention Act, and also medical liability, frivolous lawsuits in a whole host of other areas, obesity lawsuits and the like. We need to get our arms around that and have a much more rational system. The President called for that. Finally, there is the issue of fiscal responsibility, tighter spending. I think he is going to propose a very tough budget for next year. It will be tough to get done, but I think many of us are looking forward to the kind of fiscal discipline we believe this country needs as we enter a period of time when the baby boomers are going to start to retire and the pressure on us is going to grow dramatically, exponentially.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the reason I have come to the Chamber to speak is because I received a letter recently, which was passed on to me, from a soldier in Iraq. This was passed on to me by his parents. This is not a letter he sent to me; he sent it to his parents and his friends telling about his experience in Iraq. The letter was written on December 15 of last year. His parents wanted me to see it to share their son's experience of what is going on and to juxtapose that with what some in this Chamber have been saying is going on in Iraq, as certainly many in the national media say. It dovetails nicely with what the President said last night and the advances and the progress that are being made in Iraq. Instead of hearing my words, I will read what this fine soldier--this fine Pennsylvania soldier--said to his friends in writing from Baghdad. It says: Friends, I apologize in advance for this mass email. I felt I had to gather every email address I had and send a message. . . . I am writing this from outside of Baghdad, and this is how I see the war from my small corner. This is my opinion only, and not the position of the U.S. Army or government (I think I have to say it). The bottom line is that I have witnessed enormous progress in just my short four months in Iraq. We are on the right path, and we must complete our mission here. Democracy is Winning: The election today was a great success with more voters and less violence than anyone imaged. I sat in our operations center watching reports come in. I think the biggest emergency was getting a busload of students to the polls despite the ban on driving (Iraqi police escorted them). Building democracy is a slow process that must be shepherded along the way, but clearly the majority of Iraqis want to participate in a democratic process and have a democratic government. This is evident all the way from the neighborhood councils to these national elections. The choice is between terrorism and democracy . . . and 15 million chose democracy. We are Defeating the Enemy: Our battalions in our area have routed out much of our enemy, forced them to ground, or forced them to flee. The Marine and Army actions in the west have cut off new recruits and supplies. If a bad guy does something, nine out of ten times, he pays for it. The threat is shifting from terrorism to one that is more criminal in nature, but make no mistake, the insurgency is not over. This is driven by the casualties we have taken in our unit, though they have been gratefully few. The insurgency will continue even as Iraqis take over the fight, and it may continue for years, but it is waning, there is no doubt. The Iraqi Army is Effective: I can only speak for our area, but here the Iraqi Army units are motivated and effective. We continue to turn over more and more of the city to the Iraqi Army and they have done well at continuing to defeat the insurgents. The Iraqi Army and police successfully provided all of the security for the elections in our area, with our units acting only as a quick reaction force if required. We continue to partner U.S. soldiers with Iraqi units and they continue to improve. It is inevitable that they will be able to carry the full burden securing their country in the near future. Consequences: The consequences of pulling out too early are enormous. It would likely lead to a civil war and terrorist haven in Iraq, possibly dragging the entire region into further turmoil. Al Qaeda would be encouraged to continue to attack America, at home and abroad. Staying to finish this fight, though more soldiers will lose their lives, is a much smaller price to pay. The benefits of creating a modest democracy in Iraq are also enormous. The people of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia will witness the benefits of an open democracy and, hopefully, pressure the governments to change. What was a swelling of jobless, dissatisfied Arab young men, easily recruited to the ideology of terror just a few years ago, will soon have nonviolent outlets through democracy and an economic future through open markets. Negative Political and Media Comments are Damaging our Efforts: I want to make it unequivocally clear that political comments about pulling out of Iraq or losing this war does hurt soldier morale and absolutely gives hope and encouragement to our enemies. The only way the terrorists can win in Iraq is if the American people lose the will to finish what we started and withdraw early. Now our battered enemies have been given a sliver of hope by weak politicians, so they will fight on and gain additional recruits. This political mistake will cost more blood than any military error yet made in this war. Of course the crime is worsened by an alarmist media always willing to tell everyone the sky is falling. Well, it is not. The great thing is that the support regular American citizens show for their soldiers is overwhelming and counters the negative political and media comments. Care- packages, cards, e-mails, and letters are abundant, and send a strong message to those of us in the fight. There is a Plan: And the plan is that we pull U.S. soldiers out as Iraqis become strong enough to secure themselves. We are doing this little by little, slowly withdrawing and turning security over to the Iraqis. Slow and methodical is the key, not a rushed abandonment of our allies and friends. A vacuum in the wake of a rapid U.S. pullout would only be filled by chaos. Like almost all soldiers here, I would like to go home. For me it would be to see my young children and wife. However, in the end I would prefer to stay until the job is done, or return for a second tour. I say this because I recognize that we are making progress, and that we will win . . . and I recognize the cost of failure. I do not want my family to be a target of terrorism in my homeland, nor do I want my son to have to fight the war I should have finished. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope it helps balance what you are hearing in the media. This soldier wrote this letter on his own. No one called him or wrote him or asked him to write this letter. He did it, obviously, because he cares a lot about his country, his family, and the future security of our country. I can tell you that this is not an unusual letter I have received or an unusual comment I have been given by soldiers who have returned from their duty in Iraq. It is almost unanimous. The sentiments expressed in this letter are the sentiments I hear, whether it is talking to folks back in Pennsylvania, talking to folks at Walter Reed or Bethesda. I hear it over and over--the optimism, the high morale, the sense of accomplishment, and the fact that we are, in fact, winning this conflict in Iraq. I will tell you that I agree with him, that we are making progress, that we have a plan, that democracy is winning, we are defeating the insurgents, the Iraqi army is becoming more capable and effective each day, and, as he said, there are real consequences of losing, of withdrawing before the job is finished, and that the defeatist rhetoric and the media bias do have an impact on our ability to accomplish this task. It is far too often in this country, now that we are 4\1/2\ years removed from the events of 9/11, that we forget what happened there and what happened before; that we were not antagonizing our enemy, we were not out there riling up the insurgency, we were not threatening terrorists around the world. We were ``minding our own business,'' and they hit us and hit us hard. My wife and part of my family watched the A&E special the other night on flight 93. I encourage every American to watch that just to be reminded of, obviously, the incredible heroism of the members of that ill-fated flight but also of what we are up against and what they are willing to do to take down our way of life. We have a job to do, and we need to finish it, and that includes we have a job to do in the U.S. Congress. We have to pass the PATRIOT Act. It is absolutely irresponsible for us to have every few months or few weeks the PATRIOT Act potentially not being extended, out there hanging over our law enforcement people. We need to improve the PATRIOT Act, pass it, improve both civil liberties and our ability to protect ourselves, and we need to do it now. We also need to stand behind our President in his efforts to make sure we are intercepting communications between suspected al-Qaida terrorists and those who want to coordinate from places all over the world. I hear often in reference to the events of 9/11 that the critics of the administration are saying they failed to connect the dots. I don't know how many times I have heard that the President or the administration or the intelligence community failed to connect the dots. And these very same people today want to erase the dots. They don't even want us to have the dots to connect. They don't want us to get the intelligence so we can, in fact, proceed in having those dots a little closer together so we have an idea of in what direction they are going. This is not a political folly of the President, to track down enemies of the administration and eavesdrop on them. This is a targeted program run by professional people of suspected al-Qaida terrorists who are communicating overseas. I find it almost incredible that this has become a political football in this overtly and, I believe, extreme political environment we are in right now. I am hopeful that the rhetoric will back off and that we will focus again on what this soldier said. We have a mission to accomplish--to protect America and to secure our freedom in the future--and we need to do so together, in a bipartisan manner, without snipping at each other's heels trying to get political advantage. Simply support the mission that is best for the long-term future of our security. I have one final comment on the NSA program of trying to uncover terrorists who are potentially planning and plotting further destruction in America. It came from an op-ed that I read in the Wall Street Journal the other day, from the sister of Charles Burlingame. He was one of the pilots on American Airlines flight 77. He was from my State. I had the opportunity to meet his wife and members of his family. Debra Burlingame writes in the Wall Street Journal this week: NBC News aired an ``exclusive'' story in 2004 that dramatically recounted that how al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, the San Diego terrorists who would later hijack American Airlines flight 77 and fly it into the Pentagon, received more than a dozen calls from an al Qaeda ``switchboard'' inside Yemen where al-Mihdhar's brother-in-law lived. The house received calls from Osama Bin Laden and relayed them to operatives around the world. Senior correspondent Lisa Myers told the shocking story of how, ``the NSA had the actual phone number in the United States that the switchboard was calling, but didn't deploy that equipment, fearing it would be accused of domestic spying.'' Back then, the NBC didn't describe it as ``spying on Americans.'' Instead, it was called one of the ``missed opportunities'' that could have saved 3,000 lives. It is a classic case in point where people complained about connecting the dots, but in this case we simply did not have the dots because we were afraid to go out and find the information we needed to prevent the loss of lives in America. Don't hamper our ability to do that in the future. Quit playing politics with the safety and security of the American public. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to give my full support to Judge Alito to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I am sure that will be no great surprise to those who have followed my career. I want to lay out in brief why I believe Judge Alito is exactly the kind of Justice this country needs at this time and, candidly, is exactly the kind of Justice this country, for the most part, has had, in keeping with its constitutional traditions over the last 200-plus years. Judge Alito is not from Pennsylvania, although he claims to be a Phillie fan, which is fine by me. I somewhat prefer the Pirates, being from Pittsburgh. I certainly respect him. He comes from the Third Circuit, which includes the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I have had an opportunity to talk to many of his colleagues on the court, Republicans and Democrats. Both Republicans and Democrats--everyone I have spoken to, and I have spoken to several--have praised him in the highest terms possible. Colleagues of his have stepped forward and have used terms of respect you don't often hear. Unfortunately, you don't often hear it around this body--certainly not lately--but you certainly heard it from them both privately and publicly, saying how much integrity the man has, how much his legal acumen is right on, as are his demeanor, jurisprudence, and humility--all of the things one would want to see out of a judge, and they speak in glowing terms about him. So that was my introduction to him. I had never met Judge Alito prior to his nomination. When he was nominated, one of the first things I did was call some of his colleagues. I did it to get a sense of the kind of man he was. The response I received was overwhelming. One of the things I want to cover is how I believe that his view of the role of a judge is very similar to John Roberts' view of the role of a judge. In fact, his record, in my opinion, and the way he approaches the law is remarkably similar to the judge who is now a Justice confirmed here in the Senate by 70-plus votes. I am somewhat at a loss to see why Judge Alito is not receiving similar support, because their records and their approach to the law are remarkably similar, in my mind. He is a judge who, when I met him, used very much the same terms as Justice Roberts--terms such as humility and modesty in dealing with the matters before them; that he was not to be a judge who was to impose his views on the case before him. Many have tried to claim that somehow or another he is ideological. I don't think there is anything in the Record that would indicate Judge Alito applies his own personal viewpoints to the case at hand. He looks at the law, looks at the facts of the case and does his best on the narrowest grounds possible to decide the cases before him. That is what a judge is supposed to do--not say, gee, here is my opportunity to change the law, my opportunity to right a wrong that I think Americans or a particular State or the Government has done that I disagree with; here is my opportunity to change the law by using the force of the Constitution to impose my values. That is not what he does. Again, what he also doesn't do--and it strikes me as a very odd discussion when it comes to analyzing a judge's rulings on who he rules for, does he rule for the little guy or the big guy, as if little guys are always right and big guys are always wrong, or vice versa, for that matter. It is the idea that you don't decide the case before you based on the law and the facts but based on whether you like the plaintiff, or you like the defendant, or what is a sympathetic figure on one side or the other-- that is about the worst kind of justice you can possibly acknowledge. My colleagues who say he rules for the big guys or the big corporations, or whoever it is, are you saying every action that comes before the Court where a little guy is in a case, he automatically should win? Is that what it is? If you are not a judge who rules for the little guy all the time, is it true that somehow you don't have a proper view of the law? This is a remarkable discussion I keep hearing. I heard over and over again in the Judiciary Committee about the result of these cases and who he sides with. Is that somehow a point which is legitimate when it comes to a judge? The question is, is he an appellate jurist who was following the law? Was he properly applying the law to the case? It is not who won or lost the case. I find it very disturbing that we are reducing this confirmation process to whose side he ruled on and whether ideologically he fits a particular Senator's view of a particular issue or particular issues. That is not how we have ever viewed Justices in the Senate. We do not keep scorecards of whether you side with the little guy or big guy or how you came down on cases. We certainly have not had ideological litmus tests in the past on judicial nominations. Those two things, I have to tell you, that have been some of the more frequent criticisms of Judge Alito trouble me as to how we are morphing the judicial process or the selection, approval, and confirmation process into sort of a campaign process, into a process of how we elect legislators and Presidents. We are not electing a legislator or a President, someone who we have a right to know their ideology or what side they are going to come down on. We are electing someone whose job it is to play it right down the middle, whose job it is to be blind justice, who is going to weigh the facts in the law and do what it dictates, not do what they believe, in their ideological viewpoint, is right. I am disturbed by the criticism, but I am very encouraged by Judge Alito and the way he has conducted himself and the way he answered the questions and how he has, in fact, laid out a very concise and well- reasoned approach to his making decisions on the Court in the past. He obviously has impeccable credentials. The Senator from Utah is in the Chamber right now, and I heard him say over and over that no one has the credentials this man has and the experience he brings to the Supreme Court. No one, in my view, has been more personally decent, humble, and modest dealing with a rather rancorous hearing process. He came off, at least from my view, as exactly the kind of temperament we would want of a Supreme Court Justice--of any judge. He is obviously highly intelligent, battling wits with some of the best minds in the Senate. During this process, both privately and publicly, he has been gracious. He is, again, someone I am very proud to support. If I can, for a moment, talk again about where we are in the context of the role of the judiciary in our democratic process. We often talk about the tyranny of the judiciary--many on our side of the aisle do-- how the judiciary has run amok in its ever-unceasing quest to take responsibilities and decisions away from the elected democratic bodies of our country and hoist it onto the backs of the Supreme Court or the courts in our country. That is a very dangerous precedent we have seen over the last 30 and 40 years in our courts, that increasingly decisions are being made by the judicial system and, in so doing, barring the House, the Senate, and the President from regulating or legislating in that area in the future, in a sense making these substantive decisions as to how we should live our lives, how our economy will function, how our laws will be written across the street in an unelected body as opposed to how the democratic process works--to have the people's collective will reflected in their laws. One of the reasons I think these nominations are so important and maybe so contentious is because we are at a point right now where there has been a movement for many years to bypass the democratic process, bypass the people's Houses and go to the courts to get an extreme agenda passed and into law in this country. The voices we have heard over the past couple of months during this nomination and which we heard somewhat more muted during the Roberts nomination were of those trying to hold onto power by holding onto a majority on the Supreme Court of the United States to continue to promulgate a far-left-of-center agenda on a variety of issues, using the Court as the place to silence the people in their collective judgments. One of the reasons that I think is vitally important for putting a Judge Alito on this Court, and hopefully future Judge Alitos as other vacancies occur, is that we will have an opportunity to return a balance of power in this country away from nine unelected people across the street from the Senate to the halls of the people's bodies, to the living rooms of America, for them to be able to make these decisions that are important to the future of our country and not have those decisions taken from them by radical judges on our courts. So this is an important step. Do I believe that we are going to see, as a result of Judge Alito's confirmation, which appears to be all but certain, a dramatic change in the precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court? I sort of doubt that we will see dramatic change, certainly not any time soon. But I think what we will see is a more modest approach to dealing with the problems with which the Supreme Court is confronted. We will not see cases where the Court could decide a case on a narrow issue and settle the dispute at hand and instead of doing so take the opportunity, ``while we are at it,'' to overturn a variety of precedents they don't need to overturn and create new legislation, if you will, through their judicial opinions. We see that happen time and again. It threatens the very foundation of our country. Thomas Jefferson understood that. Jefferson in 1821--this was after he was President, 5 years before he died, obviously a great student of our Constitution, obviously a great student of the powers of the Congress and the judiciary and obviously of the Presidency--he said, in reflecting on this very delicate system and the balance of power among the executive, the judicial, and the legislative branch: The germ of destruction of our Nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. He saw the power of an immodest, a brash, a bold judiciary in its ability by using the ultimate law of the land, the Constitution, in grabbing power by day and by night quietly--drip, drip, drip--taking the power away from the people and ceding it to itself so that, to paraphrase Jefferson, they would be like the monarchs we left, ruling from their kings' benches. This is a true threat, in my opinion, to the democracy in America today. Jefferson, as he did with many issues, had it right here too. There have been times in American history where the pendulum has swung in favor of one branch of Government to the other. I think this is such a time when we have seen that pendulum swing to the Supreme Court, and it is incumbent upon all of us to make sure that equilibrium is restored. I know there are a lot of folks who are listening who say: I like the decisions the Supreme Court has made; that is why I am out here arguing, to make sure we can preserve that. I can say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. There may, indeed, come a day-- although I hope it will not come--there may, indeed, come a day when this Court decides, since we have power to make laws in favor of those who like the recent decisions of the courts or decisions over the last 30, 40 years, there may come a time when they take that same authority and make a whole host of decisions that you don't like. Whether I am in the Senate or somewhere else at that point in time, I hope I will have the integrity and the ability to stand up and criticize that Court such as I am criticizing the courts over the last 30 years for their activities. There is no place for the Court imposing its will and making laws. There is no place for that in our Constitution. That is not their role. I am very pleased the President understands that and that he has put forth judges who I believe understand that point of view as a member of the judiciary. I am hopeful that we will confirm Judge Alito and that we will continue this process of creating a better balance of powers among the Congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary. This is a very important, in my opinion, second step in that process. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, but I want to take a few minutes to discuss a specific aspect of that bill--the reauthorization of the welfare reform law. As many of my colleagues have heard me say, I believe the 1996 welfare reform law is one of the great legislative successes during my time in the U.S. Senate. Since the bi11's enactment, welfare caseloads have been cut in half, more than 7 million individuals and 2 million families have exchanged a welfare check for a paycheck, and welfare reform has lifted 2.3 million children out of poverty. We must build upon this success to move the 2 million families that remain on welfare into the workforce by ending the Practice of simply extending the program and passing a legislative reauthorization of the welfare reform law. On January 24, 2005, I introduced S.6, the MORE Act, that included a reauthorization of TANF. A bipartisan reauthorization bill, S. 667, passed the Senate Finance Committee with my support on March 9, 2005. While I continue to believe that such reauthorization would have been best suited by moving the Senate Finance Committee reported bill, S. 667, under regular order; we unfortunately have been unable to reach an agreement with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to bring this bill to the floor. After over 3 years of trying to move forward on this reauthorization, our colleagues in the House have included TANF reauthorization in their budget reconciliation bill. Going into this process, I was concerned that some provisions in the House legislation regarding work hours, participation rates, child support enforcement and access to child care did not strike the appropriate balance needed to meet the needs of these families as they strive to move from welfare to work. I was pleased that the House had included provisions to encourage healthy marriages, promote responsible fatherhood, and support strong families. At the end of the day, the Deficit Reduction Act is not my preferred vehicle, but I am glad we are making some improvements in the program without upsetting the necessary balance. The conference report reauthorizes the welfare program--the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program or TANF--through fiscal year 2010 at its current funding level of $16.9 billion annually. The bill provides an additional $1 billion for child care over 5 years for a total of $2.917 billion annually. While I understand and have heard from many that they want a higher amount for child care, this bill will increase the investment in child care for working families by $1 billion, and if we don't do this bill there will be no increase in child care at all. It is important to get this increase done this year. I am very pleased that the conference report provides $100 million annually for healthy marriage promotion, and $50 million annually for the promotion of responsible fatherhood. The need for these programs is clear. Children growing up in married, two-parent homes are less likely to be victims of abuse, engage in high risk behaviors, and suffer from emotional problems. Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, five times more likely to be poor, and at least two to three times more likely to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with both parents. However the benefits are also clear. Married families are 5 times less likely to be in poverty than are single-parent families. Adults benefit from marriage through lower mortality rates, better health, greater financial well-being, less suicide, greater happiness, and suffer less violence by intimate partners. Children with involved, loving fathers are significantly more likely to do well in school, have healthy self-esteem, exhibit empathy and pro-social behavior, and avoid high-risk behaviors such as drug use, truancy, and criminal activity compared to children who have uninvolved fathers. These grants can be used to provide information on the value of marriage, conflict resolution, relationship skills and financial management. Increasing healthy two-parent marriages is a proven means to reduce poverty and improve child well-being. This conference report also makes modest changes in the implementation of the TANF program. First, it updates work participation rates. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act, P.L. 104-193, contemplated that all states would meet a 50-percent participation rate by 2002. Because the current caseload reduction credit is based on the 1995 caseload level, most States--including my home State of Pennsylvania--have an actual participation rate standard of zero. States currently achieve their credit because of their ability to count a decade-old caseload decline. The conference report updates the credit to the more relevant date of 2005, thereby ensuring that the intent of the 1996 welfare reform act is realized. The bill also closes a loophole on work participation rates. To avoid having to meet caseload requirements, some states set up separate programs and moved their harder-to-place clients to those programs to avoid the work requirements. The bill removes the ability to game the system by including these separate state programs in the work calculation, closing a loophole. I have seen a number of reports that indicate that this bill changes work requirements, narrows what is considered work, et cetera. I want to be clear that this bill maintains the current work requirements. The bill does not change the current-law standard of 30 hours and maintains the separate 20-hour standard for adults with a child six years of age and under. It also maintains current-law activities that count as work, including allowing 12 months for education and training. The measure leaves it to the states to determine whether activities may be counted as work activities, and how to count and verify reported hours of work. I have heard a number of my colleagues say that this bill ``cuts'' money from child support enforcement. I hope they go back and read the bill. The changes in child support actually increase child support enforcement and gets support to the families. The conference report includes provisions that increase States' ability to improve child support collection. Under current law, much of the child support that is owed to families on welfare is assigned to the State. The conference agreement would allow $423 million owed to families on welfare and those who have left welfare to go directly to those families--a significant improvement over current law. The supposed ``cut'' is a restoration of the current state-matching requirement. Currently, States are required to match certain Federal funds with state funds, showing a State investment in the child support enforcement program. However, States have been taking Federal funds from one grant and then using them as the ``Federal'' matching funds rather than using State funds. The conference report prevents States from ``double dipping'' by using Federal funds to draw down additional matching federal funds for child support enforcement. Additionally, the conference report provides $100 million for grants to ensure that the safety, permanence and well-being needs of children are met in a timely manner. The funds may also be used for the training of judges, attorneys, and other legal personnel in child welfare cases. The measure also provides an increase of $200 million for the Safe and Stable Families program. The purpose of this program is to enable States to develop, expand or operate coordinated programs of community- based family support services for family preservation services, family reunification services, and adoption promotion. A number of organizations may have misunderstood the changes relating to the alleged ``cuts'' in foster care. There are two provisions relating to foster care that might have led to this misperception, so let me speak on them for a minute. First, the conference agreement restores long-standing foster care eligibility criteria relating to the Rosales v. Thompson decision. That decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals broadened eligibility for Federal foster care benefits to include almost every child in foster care in the nine affected States--California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii--instead of only children removed from low-income homes that TANF is intended to help. The conference agreement again ensures the same policy applies nationwide. As this decision did not apply in Pennsylvania, this change does not affect my home State. Second, the bill limits the amount of administrative expenses when States are slow to place children in safe and suitable situations. I should be clear that this proposal does not reduce foster care benefits because the funds in question do not support payments to families. Instead, the proposal addresses how much Federal funding States may claim to operate their foster care programs and under what circumstances Federal funding may be claimed. Current law requires the placement of a child in a licensed foster family home or a child care institution as a condition of eligibility for federal foster care maintenance payments. As part of meeting this duty, States may make certain administrative claims on behalf of ``candidates'' for federal foster care. ``Candidates'' are children who have not been removed from their homes but are at imminent risk of removal. The proposal allows the State to claim Federal administrative funds for up to 12 months while children are ``candidates'' for Federal foster care and the State is working to license the home as safe and appropriate for the child. In January 2005, the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, issued a proposed regulation making this change. So States have been on notice that this issue was of concern for almost a year. Fourteen States have indicated that they would be affected by the proposed regulation; however Pennsylvania was not one of those States. In summary, millions of our fellow citizens have replaced the dependency on government handouts with the dignity and opportunity of work. Children and families will now have opportunities to strengthen their families through programs to support marriage and responsible fatherhood. Thousands of children will have access to childcare through the $1 billion in new funding. And we have strengthened our child welfare programs. On balance, I think the reconciliation bill, as it relates to welfare reform, is a step in the right direction. I remain committed to ensuring that work remains a gateway to opportunity for all Americans and urge my colleagues to support passage of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3402 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 337, a revised version of the same resolution.

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon. I know he personally believes in the original resolution. Before I get into the disparities between the two resolutions and some of the difficulty we have had over the last several days in trying to pass this resolution, it is important to understand how reprehensible these statements are and how dangerous they are in light of not only the conflicts within the Middle East but the frightening perspective of Iran having nuclear capabilities. We hear mixed reports. We have heard reports from the overseas press in the last few weeks about fears that Iran is actually within months, potentially, of having nuclear weapons capability. The idea that a country with a President who says that Israel should be wiped off the map and then amends the statement, if you can call it that, to say, Well, maybe they could move it to Europe, Germany or Austria, as Charles Krauthammer recently noted: . . . perhaps near the site of an old concentration camp. This is the kind of ridiculous statement one would expect out of a street merchant who is out there spewing anti-Semitic statements but not from the President of a country. It is unbelievable. As unbelievable as that statement is, it is almost equally unbelievable, the silence of response from the civilized world in condemning this statement and calling for actions on the part of the United Nations to condemn Iran, sanction Iran, and a whole host of other remedies available. This condemnation we passed is a mild condemnation. We tried to make it a little stronger. We didn't achieve that. But what we need to recognize is that Iran, as the President has said, is a real threat. It is a real threat because there are people in that country, not the average Iranian but people at the leadership levels of that government who have explicit designs to not only disrupt the process of democracy building in the Middle East but also disrupt any attempt for peace and finally eliminate millions of Israelis from the face of the Earth. That is something that the civilized world should not stand for. The United Nations should not stand for it, should not countenance the continuation of Iran sitting where they sit without having to undergo some sort of sanction or reprimand. It is important to understand how destabilizing Iran is in our fight to create stable democracies in the Middle East, how they foment anti- Semitic, anti-Zionist, as well as anti-democratic sentiment in the Middle East, and how they sponsor terrorism. One of the pieces of legislation I am most proud of in my time in the Senate was the Syrian Accountability Act. Throughout the years, Iranian influence in Lebanon and Syria has oppressed fellow Arabs. Well, Iranians are not Arabs but oppress fellow Muslims and obviously some Christians. But it is important for us, as a Senate, as a people, to understand the threat that Iran poses to everything we believe in and the larger picture of what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq and the Middle East. We are trying to do something that for a long time people in this country and even some today believe is not possible. Some have suggested we can't win the mission we have engaged in. The mission we have engaged in is to create a stable democracy in the Middle East, in the Arab world. The mission we have engaged in, more fundamentally, is to provide increased national security to this country. That is the first mission. The strategy is to ensure security for this country. The tactic is to establish democracies in an area of the world that threatened this country. Iran stands starkly opposed to that objective and, further, with statements such as this, destabilizes the entire region and foments and uses sort of the lowest base, primitive instincts of the haters in the Middle East to undermine our objective. We are succeeding in Iraq in spite of the Iranians. We are succeeding in Afghanistan in spite of the Iranians. We are moving democracy forward. But we dare not take our eye off what Iran is doing and is preparing. They are actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program under the nose of the rest of the world, with virtually no real attempt to limit that development. When you see these statements combined with that, it is a flare that should be going up across the world of what we may be confronted with in the next months or years, with a nuclear bomb. This resolution is a statement that needed to be made. I am glad we passed this resolution. But we need to do more. I have authored a piece of legislation on Iran, which calls for the funding of pro-democracy groups within Iran. Others have offered ideas to provide increased sanctions on Iran. If you look at people who study the country of Iran and tell you--we had a very good hearing that Senator Coburn chaired a few weeks ago. When you listened to the testimony at that hearing, which I had the opportunity to do for a little while, you hear that the Iranian street is one that is largely sympathetic to the United States and to the cause of freedom and democracy. They are oppressed people. Oppressed people generally do want and seek freedom. So we have, I believe, an opportunity, as we have had opportunities in the past, when we lent our ideas and our encouragement to help develop either exile movements or freedom movements within the countries that are a threat to the region and a threat to our country. It is important for the Senate to speak out and say we stand with you--those of you who seek freedom, those of you who seek democracy, those of you who do not want to be threatening to your neighbors, or say, as the President of Iran has said, he wants to wipe Israel off the map. We have an obligation in the Senate, and I will be pressing very hard next year to pass my legislation on Iran. I remember several years ago when Senator Boxer and I introduced legislation on Syria, and we did not get a lot of support in the committee and had trouble on the floor of the Senate. We had trouble at the White House. They were opposed to the bill. Eventually, the administration, the committee, and the Senate came along and we were able to pass the Syria Accountability Act. Literally, within a few months, we saw dramatic changes in Lebanon. The Syria Accountability Act was a measure that called for Syria to get out of Lebanon and imposed sanctions on Syria for not doing so. The President, to my dismay, in some respects, didn't support it at first. Presidents don't often like Congress telling them what to do when it comes to foreign policy. But this President not only signed the Syria Accountability Act, he implemented the sanctions--a tough regime of sanctions--and it had a tremendous effect. I have had people come over from Lebanon and tell me of the importance of that particular legislation and the symbolism of America standing with the people of Lebanon against the evil dictator in Syria. The symbolism of us passing this resolution today, and the more than the symbolism of passing the Iran Freedom and Support Act, is an important sign in a time now with these kinds of comments that Iran has popped its head up again--its rather unattractive head--in the area of influencing policy in the Middle East. We tried in this resolution to match the language of the Iranian bill I have introduced with the language, as I said, with this resolution, but unfortunately, we were not able to clear that language. I want to read the changes we had to make in the resolved section of the resolution that were struck as unacceptable for us to be able to pass it by unanimous consent. The portions we had to drop were two resolved sections. The three things that are in the final version that passed say: Resolved, That the Senate (1) condemns the recent statement by President Ahmadinejad that denied the occurrence of the Holocaust and supported moving the State of Israel to Europe; (2) demands an official apology for these damaging, anti- Semitic statements that ignore history, human suffering, and the loss of life during the Holocaust; (6) reaffirms the need for Iran to (A) end its support for international terrorism; (B) join other Middle Eastern countries in seeking a successful outcome of the Middle East peace process. What was struck were two sentences: The Senate supports efforts by the people of Iran to exercise self-determination over the form of government of their country. That was not acceptable to some here in the Senate. And second is: The Senate supports a national referendum in Iran, with oversight by international observers and monitors, to certify the integrity and fairness of the referendum. So we could not adopt tonight in the Senate the Senate saying to the people of Iran that we support efforts of self-determination and a national referendum that was free and fair. That is, in my mind, a rather unfortunate occurrence. But I found, from my perspective, that it was so important to condemn these actions that we agreed to strike those two sentences from the resolved clauses. I don't necessarily understand why anyone would oppose either of those sentences, those resolved clauses. They state that we are for freedom and democracy for all people, including the people of Iran. Maybe it is because we are pursuing that and it becomes such an issue of partisan controversy in the country of Iraq--or saying we support that same thing in Iran would somehow taint their criticism of the current mission in Iraq. I don't know. I am still groping for answers as to why those two clauses were not acceptable. What was not acceptable were the comments and the actions of developing nuclear weapons by the terrorist regime in Iran. I appreciate my colleagues for agreeing to pass this resolution. I thank all of the cosponsors. There were some 20 cosponsors of this resolution. The first Democrat was Senator Mikulski. I also thank my colleague in the chair for his patience and allowing me the opportunity to speak here tonight. He is also a cosponsor of the resolution. No one is a stronger advocate for peace and the mission we are trying to accomplish in the Middle East, and as well for the protection of the state of Israel, than the occupant of the chair. It is a pleasure to have the Senator from Minnesota in the chair while I am delivering these remarks. The Senator from Minnesota is truly one of the great leaders on the Foreign Relations Committee in this regard. I commend him for his efforts. I know he will be working with me on the Iran bill, on which he is a cosponsor, in trying to send a statement from the Senate that Iran is a threat--a real threat--and we need to do something other than simply stand back and jawbone international organizations--feckless international organizations-- in some respects, as the Senator from Minnesota knows, corrupt international organizations--to do something that they have shown no desire, willingness, or ability to accomplish, and that is to spread democracy, to lift people out of bondage into freedom. We in the United States have to begin to take steps. The steps we are talking about in this resolution and the bill we hope to pass next year are not military steps. That is the last resort. But we need to start acting. Sitting silently by, doing nothing as a crazy man as president of a country, potentially developing nuclear weapons in the most sensitive area of the world is not acceptable for the Senate and is not acceptable for this country. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to raise an issue of concern with the Katrina tax relief bill, known as the Gulf Opportunity Zone. This bill quite rightly provides incentives to bring back businesses and capital to the devastated regions of the gulf coast. This package is needed legislation that will continue to drive redevelopment and provide encouragement for businesses and others to come back and rebuild, creating jobs in the rebuilding and jobs in the businesses themselves and providing much needed revenues for the local communities. However, I have raised a concern to my colleague from Mississippi regarding providing incentives to certain industries such as casinos. I read with interest an article in the New York Times on December 14, 2005, regarding the return of casinos to the gulf coast. The article noted that while the storm damaged 9 out of 10 casinos in Biloxi, MS 3 of the 9 damaged would be open again before the new year. In fact ``[a]ll 10 Biloxi casinos have told the city they will rebuild, and most plan larger, more elaborate facilities.'' Clearly, the casinos and gaming industry do not need Congress to give them tax breaks to entice them to reopen. More importantly, there are significant concerns about the impact of gambling on communities and families. In 2000, the Government Accountability Office found that ``individuals suffering from pathological gambling engaged in destructive family behavior, committed more crime than other citizens, and had higher suicide rates.'' It also found the ``destructive family behavior'' included domestic violence, divorce, and homelessness. Additionally, GAO ``also reported that children of individuals suffering from pathological gambling are often prone to suffer abuse and neglect.'' As we look at soaring costs for social programs and ever-increasing needs, it is most troubling that this report noted that ``lifetime pathological, problem, and at-risk gamblers are more likely than low-risk or nongamblers to have been alcohol or drug dependent'' and estimates that ``15 million adults are at risk of becoming problem gamblers.'' With the heartbreaking impact this industry has on some of our most vulnerable citizens, I am pleased that my colleague from Mississippi has recognized my concern and offered a package that ensures the necessary economic assistance for his State and communities without exacerbating the social toll on these already devastated communities and families. I urge my colleagues to support the expeditious passage of this bill. I am hopeful our House colleagues will then adopt this bill and send it on to the President's desk so we can get this help out to these States, communities, businesses and families before the new year. Then hopefully the Congress can turn its attention back to the Tax Relief Act and enact its charitable incentives to help the countless nonprofits working day and night to heal the wounds in Katrina's wake. That element of the tax bill is critical, and we should move forward on this bill in short order. EITC and CTC for Katrina Victims

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am going to propound what I hope will be two unanimous consent requests about one particular issue. The issue is on the anti-Semitic statements made by the President of Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad, who said, among other things, that the state of Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. We have been working cooperatively to try to get this resolution cleared, condemning those statements. We had some concerns raised with the resolution which I will discuss in more detail. We finally have a version cleared, and I will discuss in detail how we had to work through that. Suffice it to say that it is good to see that we are going to finally get strong bipartisan support to condemn this conduct and call for Iran to be a constructive partner in the peace process in the Middle East. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 336, a resolution to condemn the recent destructive and anti-Semitic statements of the President of Iran which I submitted earlier today. I ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to vote this afternoon on the DeWine motion to instruct conferees with respect to S. 1932, the deficit reduction bill. The DeWine motion to instruct conferees was crafted with the goal of preventing Senate conferees to S. 1932 from agreeing with the House provision that repeals the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA) during conference deliberations. Despite widespread support for this provision of law, the House companion bill repeals CDSOA. I have been a supporter of CDSOA since it was first crafted by Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask that the Record reflect that, had I been here, I would have voted in favor of Senator DeWine's motion to instruct conferees to not repeal CDSOA during conference deliberations on S. 1932. I ask unanimous consent that my letter of November 29, 2005, to the Honorable Charles Grassley, Chairman, Committee on Finance, on the need to maintain CDSOA, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to vote this afternoon on the Reed motion to instruct conferees with respect to S. 1932, the deficit reduction bill. The LIHEAP program is of critical importance to Pennsylvania. My State routinely faces very harsh winters. Now that the cold weather is here and bills must be paid, I believe we must act to provide additional funding for this program. My record shows that I have been a consistent LIHEAP supporter, and I am hopeful that an increase will be promptly approved. Mr. President, I ask that the Record reflect that, had I been here, I would have voted in favor of Senator Reed's motion to instruct.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today is a historic day for the people of Iraq as they go to the polls to freely elect a permanent 275- member Iraqi National Assembly. It is important to remember that these elections in Iraq would not have been possible without the bravery and sacrifice of the U.S. Armed Forces who have served and are currently serving in Iraq helping to provide the Iraqi people with the freedom and democracy that they deserve. Our service members who are serving in Iraq are promoting democracy, restoring and repairing public services, working to prevent terror attack, and destroying the insurgency in a country that hasn't known freedom in decades. As we focus on the meaning of Thursday's election in Iraq, it is important to realize the extraordinary bravery exhibited by our service members. One unit in particular, the 4th Civil Affairs Group, CAG, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, based in Washington, DC was deployed to Iraq during the January 30, 2005 elections of a temporary Iraqi National Assembly. These marines, many of whom are from my State of Pennsylvania, helped to promote democracy, restore and repair public services to the Iraqi people, and prevent terror attacks by insurgents. This particular unit played an active role in the election day operations in January by setting up polling locations and participating in security patrols to protect voters and voting sites and was an integral part in the United States' battle for Fallujah. Also during its deployment, the 4th CAG worked to install new electricity transformers in the Iraqi city of Ramadi, the capital city of the al Anbar Province, also known as one of the most dangerous cities in Iraq. And I would be remiss if I failed to mention that the deputy commander of this unit of brave marines was William Reynolds, now proudly serving as Senator Specter's chief of staff. One marine in particular from that unit, CPL William Cahir, has written about his experiences in Iraq. Corporal Cahir, originally from State College PA, was a journalist before September 11, 2001. After seeing the horrific terrorist attacks that occurred in our country on that day, Bill Cahir felt compelled to serve our country and joined the Marine Corps. As part of the 4th CAG of the Marine Corps Reserve, Corporal Cahir was deployed to Iraq. During his deployment to Iraq, Corporal Cahir, along with other members of the 4th CAG, helped to establish a Civil Military Operations Center in Ramadi. On election day in January in Iraq, Corporal Cahir and the 4th CAG were responsible for protecting a polling site in Ramadi. Having returned from his deployment to Iraq, Corporal Cahir has since returned to his civilian job. As a journalist, Bill Cahir covers a multitude of stories but has since focused many of those stories on his own personal experiences in Iraq and the experiences of other service members. In one article he wrote for The Express-Times, a newspaper from Easton, PA, Mr. Cahir told the story of two service members--COL James T. Anthony, a marine reservist from Nazareth, PA, and LTC Stanley B. Smith, Jr., an Army officer with the Army's 98th Division, Institutional Training. Both service members were on their way to Camp Taji in Baghdad to begin their deployments to Iraq. In his article, Bill Cahir documented the sentiments of these two service members during their deployments. Colonel Anthony had recounted his observations of the training of Iraqi soldiers, ``U.S. Marines, soldiers and sailors, along with their commanders, `did a fantastic job really pushing the ball forward when it comes to training Iraqi security forces, not just in terms of numbers but in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.''' Lieutenant Colonel Smith also recounted his experiences in Iraq when he said, ``I am able to feel a sense of pride in accomplishment here in seeing real results in the form of construction that has been completed as planned and Iraqi units operating with installations that contribute to mission readiness.'' Mr. President, these stories from our soldiers are just a few more examples of the success in Iraq that our troops are contributing to. Each and every one of our service members has contributed to the promotion of democracy, the security, and the rebuilding of Iraq. I applaud the marines of the 4th Civil Affairs Group and all of the service members who are serving or who have served our Nation in Iraq. The bravery that they have displayed and the progress they have made in Iraq is remarkable, and it needs to be told.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, H.R. 3402, the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, includes ``technical changes'' to legislation known as ``Aimee's Law.'' I am dismayed that the Department of Justice has waited until now to take the adequate steps to implement this legislation. I sponsored this legislation in the Senate, which was signed into law by President Clinton in October 2000. The law was to be implemented in 2002. I believe that 3 years is more than adequate time to implement this critical protection for my constituents. Aimee's Law is named after Aimee Willard, a college senior from suburban Philadelphia who was brutally raped and murdered by a convicted murderer who was released early in Nevada and crossed State lines to kill again in Pennsylvania. Aimee's mother, Gail, became a tireless advocate to prevent such unnecessary tragedies from happening to other families, culminating in the passage of Aimee's Law in the U.S. Senate by an 81-to-17 margin and its final inclusion in H.R. 3244, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act conference report, which also included the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization, Pub. L. 106-386. Aimee's Law is narrowly tailored to address the heinous crimes of murder, rape, and child molestation. The law is designed to protect the residents of one State from the negligence of another State. The law assists States which recognize that the primary responsibility of State and local governments is to maintain public safety. Sexual predators have the highest rate of recidivism of any category of violent crime. The law simply provides that States where a subsequent similar violent crime occurs because of an early release will be reimbursed for the prosecution and incarceration costs through a reduction of future Federal funds from the allocation of the State where the original violent crime and conviction occurred. I wish to state for the record that I will not object to the ``technical changes'' of Aimee's Law in H.R. 3402 as the Department of Justice assures me that the law will be implemented within six months. While I think that it is unacceptable that it has taken this long to take the appropriate steps to implement this law, I am hopeful that Aimee's Law will finally and effectively be implemented in the very near future so other families do not suffer the same fate as the Williards.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to share with my colleagues another positive story from a member of the U.S. Armed Forces currently serving in Iraq. His story, once again, depicts the frustration that so many of our servicemembers have with the lack of public attention in the U.S. to the humanitarian and military successes of their work in Iraq. I recently received a letter in the mail from Ms. Ann Sensenich of Boiling Springs, PA. Ms. Sensenich wrote to me: Dear Mr. Santorum: Enclosed is a copy of a letter I received from one of our soldiers serving our country in Iraq. I am forwarding this to you as I feel this is a letter that should not be viewed by only my eyes. I have been sending packages to my employer's son in Iraq and he forwards them on to his soldiers and this is one of the responses I received. Please share this letter with anyone you feel would appreciate the service of this and all our U.S. soldiers defending our country and keep in mind he indicated he would go back seven times before he would let terrorists on our soil. Thank you for reading this and please share his words with others. Sincerely, Ann B. Sensenich. Attached to Ms. Sensenich's correspondence is the letter that a deployed servicemember wrote to her when her package was shared with fellow servicemembers. He wrote: Dear Ann Sensenich, I am deployed with the 3/3 ACR. We received your package, and I just wanted to take a little bit of my time to say thanks. Your package helped with the morale of a lot of soldiers. Due to the negative feedback we get from the media and people back home, it is nice to receive a package from someone who supports us and what we do. People like you are the reason why we fight this war. We sit over here day to day risk getting shot at or having mortar rounds dropped in on us so that the people back home (like yourself) can keep on enjoying the freedoms that a lot of people take for granted everyday. I, myself used to take those things for granted also until I was deployed to fight for our freedom. This is my second deployment, and this is the first time that we have received a package from someone in the states. So, thank you for your unselfishness, and don't ever feel bad for the soldiers that are over here fighting this war. This is our job! This is what we were trained to do. I would come back over here seven more times before I let these terrorists on our soil. You can sleep safe in your home tonight, enjoy every warm meal you have, enjoy your warm shower tonight, and wake up to a free world tomorrow because we are over here fighting for you and your family. Once again--Thanks! I just wanted you to know that your package that you sent did not go unnoticed. Mr. President, these stories need to be told. Our soldiers are sacrificing their lives for us; they are putting themselves in harm's way each and every day over there, and missing valuable time with their families and loved ones. They need to know that we support them, and that their bravery and hard work is not going unnoticed. We cannot allow critics here in the United States to influence the mentality of our troops. They need to know that we stand with them and that we support their invaluable mission.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, our top U.S. trade negotiators traveled this week and last in Europe, Africa, and Asia. They are making a concerted effort to encourage certain influential countries among our 148 trading partners in the World Trade Organization to put meaningful agricultural offers on the table in Geneva. We are coming down to the wire in the most recent round of multilateral trade negotiations, referred to as the Doha Development Round. The offers that our trading partners put on the table in the next month or two are the starting point for agricultural negotiators. That deal in agriculture will be combined with the results of similar negotiations in the manufacturing and services sectors of the economy. Together, they constitute the outcome of the round that has been going on for the last 4 years. Without a deal in agriculture, however, the Doha Development Round will falter. While bilateral trade agreements are beneficial to U.S. exporters, it is through multilateral negotiations that across-the-board tariff reductions can be achieved. That is why the Doha Development Round is so crucial. The agricultural negotiations are significant to all of us representing states with agricultural constituencies. In the case of Pennsylvania, production agriculture generated $4 billion in cash receipts in 2003, according to USDA statistics. That's $4 billion for the producers of livestock and commodities in my State. Pennsylvania generates only 2 percent of agricultural cash receipts received by producers nationwide, so you can imagine how important agriculture is to the 31 States with larger agricultural economies. Then there is the added value to the Pennsylvania economy of further processing and manufacture of food products and their export. Virtually every State has a stake in these negotiations. The producers of U.S. food and fiber no longer are producing for the U.S. market alone. Those days are gone forever. Our farmers are part of the global economy. In fact, because they are so efficient, they produce in excess of what the U.S. can consume and must gain access to global markets to expand sales opportunities. Yet many markets overseas remain closed to U.S. producers because of high tariffs applied against U.S. exports. Particularly egregious are the tariffs imposed by the European Union and Japan among developed economies and by certain developing countries such as India and Brazil, where they continue to claim developing status despite making major advances in certain sectors of their economies. These issues have been discussed at the WTO during the past 4 years of the current Doha Development Round, with little movement in agriculture. In an effort to move the round forward, the U.S. last month put forth in Geneva an aggressive proposal to jumpstart the stalled negotiations. Since U.S. tariffs already are low compared to our trading partners, there was little the U.S. could offer in market access to encourage comparable reductions. So the U.S. proposed to pull back its own domestic subsidies in exchange for significant cuts by our trading partners in the tariffs protecting their market access. The rationale behind the offer is that U.S. producers are so efficient that they require minimal domestic subsidies, as long as they have unfettered access to expanding markets. Those markets increasingly are found overseas where the increased prosperity of growing middle classes demands the kind of dietary diversity and convenience we have long enjoyed. U.S. producers and food manufacturers can supply both that diversity and convenience and supply it year in and year out. But not all agriculture is as efficient as that in the U.S. Rather than improve efficiency, some countries protect producers excessively with high tariff barriers to market access. And they are not forthcoming with offers of significance to begin the process of reducing those barriers. Frankly, there isn't much time left. The round ends at the end of 2006, and the initial offers for negotiation should be on the table this December at the Hong Kong ministerial meeting so negotiators are able to assemble the final package of tariff reductions and subsidy cuts in the next year. They will need every minute to do so. After last week in Europe, the Secretary of Agriculture and the U.S. Trade Representative were far from optimistic that the Hong Kong ministerial meeting would grapple with the type of formulas to be used in cutting tariffs or with the number of ``sensitive'' products that countries could declare protected behind a high tariff. And what happens if there is no agreement or a face saving agreement with minimal substance? That's what worries me and should worry American farmers. U.S. production agriculture has been a partner in the international effort of our trade negotiators to gain market access. But how long can the partnership last if the round fails? Where do farmers and ranchers put their efforts if the latest round of negotiations fails to live up to its promise? The European Union, for example, insists that dairy is sensitive and deserves special protection. How can the dairy farmers of the U.S. be convinced that overseas market access is the key to increased profitability if the European market remains unavailable behind high tariff walls? I am concerned that agriculture will lose patience with the trade negotiation process and return to familiar domestic farm programs to augment its income because the world market could not. What do responsible Members of Congress do then, facing the kind of fiscal constraints we do in 2006, just as existing farm programs expire? There is real potential under those circumstances for backlash. Testimony by commodity groups earlier this month in the House has telegraphed that already. Wheat, corn, and soy producers all expressed reservations at the degree of ambition and commitment to trade liberalization shown by U.S. trading partners, particularly the European Union and the G-20 group of developing nations, as evidenced by their counter proposals to the U.S. proposal in the WTO. U.S. producers are savvy. They see the inadequacy of those offers by our trading partners and have no intention of venturing too far in the direction of liberalized trade alone without a very strong safety net. The weaker the commitment to reform among our trading partners, as evidenced by the degree of success in the Doha Development Round, the more expensive will be the net required by our producers. That's bad news for those in Congress wishing to lead their agricultural producers toward a more productive and profitable model based on increased markets overseas, where 95 percent of the world's consumers live. A recent study by Australia, a leading member of the Cairns Group of trade-liberalizing nations within the WTO, underscores the potential loss if the more robust proposal of the U.S. in the WTO is not realized. Australia's agricultural economics bureau, ABARE, estimates the U.S. proposal would deliver an extra $17.5 billion in gross income per year to U.S. farmers from increased exports. Much of that increase would flow to producers of meat and fruit and vegetables, who would benefit from increased market access. In fact, the U.S. proposal would benefit all efficient producers in the world, according to ABARE. This is not the time to accept less than the U.S. proposal in the negotiations. ABARE estimates the European Union proposal would yield only about $3 billion, barely enough to account for assumption variables in the study, and it would continue to protect a number of its product lines where the U.S. stands to gain the most from market access. The proposal of the G-20 group would yield an extra $7.5 billion per year, a bare minimum. Moreover, the benefit to U.S. production agriculture from increased earnings under the U.S. proposal would provide latitude for writers of the next farm bill to adjust domestic programs to accommodate two important realities. Some of our domestic programs have been ruled trade-distorting under the WTO. Ultimately we will have to reform these programs. Either we change our farm programs now by negotiation in the WTO where we can get something in return for them, or we will be forced to change them by litigation by which we don't get anything for them. Here is the perfect opportunity, where we can gain market access and income to offset changes made domestically. The second reality is the cost of farm programs. That cost may not seem like much in years of little budget competition. But today we are in a budgetary climate where any policy that depends on government financing is subject for review. There is strong competition for public outlays, and an effort to reduce the deficit places new scrutiny on all programs. We all have just experienced the budget reconciliation process in Congress. In agriculture, we were obligated to find $3 billion worth of savings to accommodate budget targets. That is just the beginning, and we are well advised to know the alternatives available to us to make adjustments in important programs in advance of the need. This WTO negotiation provides the U.S. with the opportunity to convert its aggressive proposal for reform into real income for farmers and agribusiness. For instance, if the U.S. program crops like wheat, corn, rice, and soybeans continue to be under pressure in the WTO for the portions of their domestic subsidy programs that ``distort'' trade, the advent of the next farm bill provides us a chance to convert supports for those crops into a format that conforms to WTO guidelines. In return, we gain the market access from our trading partners to sell them U.S. fruit and vegetables, meat and dairy products, and other specialty crops not previously allowed into their markets in sufficient quantity. If we don't succeed in opening those opportunities for U.S. agriculture, we will have nothing with which to persuade our producers to give up the expensive domestic subsidies to which they have become accustomed. Another expensive, non-innovative, and divisive farm bill might unfortunately be the result. Mr. President, a great deal is riding on the success of the Doha Round.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I first want to start out by thanking the chairman for all the hard work he has put in on this package. The work we have done together has been at times a challenging process, but I certainly appreciate working together, particularly on a section of the bill which I will talk about more in detail and that has not been talked about on the floor, and that is the section of the bill dealing with charitable giving, part of an effort that I have been working on, and many have been working on, to try to help those in need in our society by helping those important mediating institutions of our society who are out there every day on the frontlines serving the needs of those who, in many cases, are left behind by society. I am pleased overall that we are going to be able to pass this package, hopefully soon, that will stop tax increases from going into effect. I call this bill the ``Tax Increase Prevention Act'' because but for this bill, hundreds of thousands of taxpayers in my State alone and millions across America would have their taxes go up starting in January of next year. In Pennsylvania, almost 350,000 families would see their taxes go up, some dramatically, because of the alternative minimum tax. Mr. President, 268,000 taxpayers will benefit from the low-income savers credit, which would go away but for this bill; 150,000 families and students would continue to be able to deduct college tuition, another important provision in this bill, and 142,000 teachers in Pennsylvania will be able to deduct expenses that they have in the classroom helping their students. One of the most important things about this tax bill is that it will in fact provide more certainty for Americans in providing a Tax Code and will continue the policies that have created the economic growth and the vitality that this economy has had after some of the tough blows that were dealt in the early part of this century. But the focus I wanted to talk about on this bill tonight are some things that I have been working on along in particular on the other side of the aisle with Senator Joe Lieberman. It has been a long road for us on what is called the CARE Act, Charitable Aid and Recovery Empowerment Act. It is an important piece of legislation that does a lot to incentivize people across America to give. There are several provisions in the bill I want to highlight that are vitally important in encouraging charitable giving. If we look at that in America, what we see is not necessarily a rosy story. Yes, we have seen increases in giving around events such as Katrina and the events of 9/11, but what we have seen after the publicity and after all the attention attracted by those disasters and those horrific instances, actually charitable giving pretty much flat over the past 25 years. About 25 or 30 years ago we gave almost 2.5 percent of GDP in charitable giving--2.5 percent we were generous enough to give to charitable organizations to help those in need in our society. Today, we are at around 1 percent. That is something that, candidly, I think we need to work on. There are a lot of reasons why that may happen. Some of it may be we have seen an increase in Government over the last 25 or 30 years and, as a result, we have seen some squeezing out of some of the charitable organizations that existed in the past. But the bottom line is that America is strong when our civic and community organizations are strong, and they can only be strong if they have the resources to be out there in the community to meet the needs that are so prevalent. We have done a couple things in this bill that are important. One that I am very proud of is that we have taken the opportunity, for the first time in a long time in the Tax Code, to give nonitemizers the opportunity to deduct charitable contributions. Heretofore, if you were one of the two-thirds of Americans who filled out a tax form, using the short form, and you could give 10 percent of your income--and in fact many in our society do tithe, give 10 percent of their income--but if you are a low-income person and you do not have any other reason to take other than the standard deduction, you would be denied the opportunity to take those deductions and get some support for your supporting of charitable organizations. Under this bill, you will now be able to have an opportunity, on the front of the 1040 form, to deduct your charitable contributions similar to those who itemize the deduction. That is an important incentive because there is a floor on this. For a couple filing jointly, you would have to contribute $420, and that might be changed. We are working on an amendment to maybe lower that floor a little bit. But it will be around $400 before you can claim a deduction on your tax form. So the charities we have talked to, everybody from the United Way to the Salvation Army and others, they are very excited because they do believe this will incentivize more generous giving instead of giving the deduction for giving that would otherwise have occurred without this incentive. So we think it incentivizes more generous giving both for those who do not itemize, as well as, if we also put a floor on itemizers, we will incentivize itemizers to give more and be more generous through this. A couple other aspects we have worked on. One is an IRA rollover provision. We have literally billions of dollars stored up in IRAs with some people who candidly have done well enough that they don't need the IRAs to maintain the quality of life they have. But that money is locked up for folks who want to contribute that IRA to charitable organizations. It has been estimated that literally $2 to $3 billion of charitable contributions could occur if we stop what is current law, which is the penalties and interest that would be charged to those who would donate their IRAs to philanthropic organizations. So we remove penalties and interest which I think will unlock literally billions of dollars in money for, particularly in this case, educational institutions, which I think would do more than others to receive these kinds of funds. We have a food donation provision. According to America's Second Harvest, this provision which focuses on farmers and ranchers and restaurateurs, this provision, I am told by America's Second Harvest, will encourage up to $2 billion over the next 10 years in donations of food and will feed 878 million people with meals. This is a very important provision as we try to attack hunger in America. We have a provision that the Senator from Montana has been involved in with respect to book donations, which is important to again help educational institutions, libraries, and others. So there are a variety of different provisions in this bill which are essential for us who want to see our fellow man reach into their pockets and to reach out their hands to help those in need in our society but need more wherewithal to do so. This package of bills we have put together in this legislation will help charities do just that. Now, on the other side of the coin, as many of the charities have been following this debate, there was a concern, candidly, about some ``charitable reforms'' that have been the subject of a lot of conversation in the philanthropic world that I have been working on with the chairman, to try to address some of the abuses that the Finance Committee, through several hearings that the chairman has had, that have been documented about some charitable organizations using money for, in some cases, personal gain or for transferring money to members of their family. Some of these concerns are legitimate, but one of the things that I was adamant about is that we did not want to have a series of reforms in place that were going to jeopardize the vast majority of nonprofit organizations that do incredibly good work, most of them volunteers, most of them with very little staff, certainly very little paid staff, and are the heart and soul of so many communities across America. So it has been a balancing act for the Chairman and myself as we have worked through this. We didn't quite get it right, in my opinion, in the committee mark, although the chairman went a long way in scaling back some of the more ambitious changes that he had proposed, but we have worked together, and from the mark to the amendment that will be offered by the chairman later, I think we have accomplished about 90 percent of the concerns and certainly the major concerns that not only I have had but those charitable organizations, particularly the small charitable organizations that are concerned about, if you will, more of a Sarbanes-Oxley approach to dealing with some charitable organizations that would have made it almost impossible for these charities to continue to function, particularly in smalltown America. We have now been able to come up with compromises that I think will, at least according to all of the feedback we have been getting--and I want to congratulate Melanie Looney in my office. She has done an outstanding job in making sure that the interests of the mom-and-pop charities, if you will, across America have been represented here and that we are not doing anything while, on the one hand, giving incentives for people to contribute to charitable organizations and, on the other hand, shutting these charitable organizations down because they can't survive under the burden of new regulations they would be placed under. I think we have done a great job in balancing those interests. There are still a couple of things we would like to adjust, but there is always conference and the ability to work together with the House to get that done. I thank the chairman. We have been discussing this and working on this and, in some respects, battling on this for quite some time, but I believe now that we have reached the point where we have some responsible and proper reforms that the vast majority of the charitable world embraces and understands they need to increase the professionalization in a lot of respects. That has been accomplished as a result of the reforms that we have put forward today. I look forward to working with the Chairman and ranking member and members of the Ways and Means Committee to get a bill that all in the charitable community can embrace that is responsible in improving governance, as well as a great incentive for these organizations to go out and meet the needs that are so pressing our communities across America. With that, Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member for his time. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I introduced a bill last month, S. 1816, that is vitally important to manufacturing businesses and the workers they employ in Puerto Rico. My bill extends the benefits of the manufacturing deduction, enacted last year with the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, to apply to manufacturing operations that are conducted in Puerto Rico and are subject to full U.S. tax. The new manufacturing deduction means that U.S. businesses operating in any of the 50 States will pay tax on their manufacturing income at 32 percent. Without the manufacturing deduction, U.S. businesses operating a branch in Puerto Rico will pay tax on their manufacturing income at 35 percent. This difference in tax treatment creates a disincentive for U.S. companies to conduct manufacturing operations in Puerto Rico, distorting manufacturing location choices and putting Puerto Rico at a disadvantage in terms of attracting and retaining investment. My bill makes sure that manufacturing in the 50 States and manufacturing in Puerto Rico will be taxed at the same 32 percent rate. This will level the playing field for operations in Puerto Rico and operations in the States. I have a number of constituent corporations that operate in my State and have operations in Puerto Rico, and this provision is important to them. I realize the proposal cannot be added to the budget reconciliation tax bill at this time but am hopeful it will be considered and enacted this year. I want to applaud Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas for introducing H.R. 4323, which includes this extension of the manufacturing deduction to Puerto Rico. I look forward to working with Chairman Thomas to get this important provision enacted.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge an important event that is taking place today in Philadelphia, PA and across the Nation--the 29th Annual American Cancer Society Great American Smokeout. We are all aware that cancer is one of the greatest healthcare risks facing Americans today. For years, this disease has taken the lives of our families, our friends, and our neighbors. As a member of the bipartisan Senate Cancer Coalition, I certainly understand that there are few things that would have a greater impact on the quality of life, for millions throughout the world, than the eradication of this terrible disease. Unfortunately, we are also all aware of the fact that we have not yet found a cure. And while scientists and researchers around the world work feverishly towards this lofty aspiration, the most important action we can take is the promotion of cancer prevention. The Great American Smokeout is a wonderful example of a successful program aimed at assisting those at great risk of developing cancer to change their ways. This annual event has, undoubtedly, saved lives. Since the inaugural Great American Smokeout took place in 1976, this initiative has provided a powerful platform for the American Cancer Society to encourage Americans to stop smoking. This event, which urges Americans who take the unnecessary health risks associated with the use of tobacco products to band together and make a lifestyle change, is one of the most recognized awareness initiatives in the history of the American Cancer Society--and rightfully so. Rarely does any organization touch so many with its message in a single day as the American Cancer Society during the smokeout. And rarely is the intention of the message as important as reducing the number of Americans who use tobacco products. I am also pleased that the American Cancer Society has chosen my home State to host this year's smokeout. Pennsylvania has a long history of working with the American Cancer Society, and in 2002, together with the Pennsylvania Department of Health, they established the Pennsylvania Free Quitline. This toll-free service, available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, provides advice and counseling to those attempting to quit smoking. Studies have shown that smokers who take advantage of such services are twice as likely to successfully quit smoking. By choosing Pennsylvania as the host for one of their most important events, the society is reaffirming its commitment to decreasing the prevalence of tobacco use in my state--and, in turn, improving the health of all Pennsylvanians. Mr. President, these types of efforts have helped the American Cancer Society develop a reputation as one of the most influential and effective participants in the fight to better the health of every American. The Great American Smokeout is a vital event put on by a truly impressive organization, and I thank the American Cancer Society for its leadership.