Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise as a member of the Banking Committee to, first, express my support for the bill. I think the chairman has done an admirable job in trying to fashion a bill that takes what was a very complicated, overly complex measure last year and simplified it and streamlined a lot of the organizational structures and dealt with things in a much more straightforward fashion. I think as a result, we have a much cleaner and much better, more understandable, from an administrative point of view, proposal than what we were dealing with last year. I commend the chairman for that. Just like every other Member here, there are certain parts of the bill of which I am less supportive. In fact, some parts of the bill I am not supportive of at all and feel it is an obligation of mine to come forward and do what I can to make some of those changes. One section of the bill that I do not support is section 304. Section 304 extends for 3 years the differential that savings institutions, thrifts, have to pay vis-a-vis banks on what are called FICO obligations or FICO bonds. That is the Financing Corporation bonds that were issued to resolve the Federal Savings and Loan Corporation during the savings and loan crisis a few years ago. These bonds were necessary. The industry that was involved--more responsible, some will argue--the thrift industry, was assessed a higher assessment to pay those bonds. The banking industry, which had less problems, was assessed a lower assessment, five times lower. Without this bill, in a year's time, the amount of money, the amount of assessment would equalize. Instead of the thrifts paying 6 basis points and the banks paying 1.2 basis points, both the banks and thrifts would pay 2.2 basis points. I think that is fair. It should be equalized. Certainly the thrifts have paid their fair share, and then some, with respect to resolving the crisis that occurred in their industry. To continue this competitive disadvantage I think is not wise, given, in particular, the fact this bill has a lot in it for large banks, has a lot in it for the banking industry, and a lot of my small banks and thrifts have said there really is not much in it for the smaller, more community-oriented banks and for thrift institutions. While we are providing more opportunities for the larger banks, under the chairman's bill, the committee bill, we keep this additional disparity between savings institutions and banks. So I think it is a fair way to move forward given the state of play. The problem is that I do not think it is fair enough. Striking that section--I know there are several amendments out here to strike that section and allow the equalization of the assessments to go on--I think is a good step but, frankly, it is not a step that goes far enough. And the reason I say that needs a little explanation. Right now the interest that we need, the amount of money that we have to pay for the FICO bonds, the Financing Corporation bonds, that runs about $780 million a year. That is to pay the obligations on the FICA bonds. That money is paid by this assessment on thrifts and banks. Thrifts and banks also historically have another assessment that paid money into a reserve account, as is prudent, so we have a reserve fund that can pay on the guaranties for deposits in banks and savings organizations. That capital fund is overcapitalized. There is more money in that account than is necessary to meet the reserve requirement of 1.25 percent of deposits. And so as a result, the assessments on banks and savings institutions have been basically eliminated with very few exceptions. But they continue to be assessed to pay the FICO bonds. What I have found, in looking at these accounts, is that there is far more money in the reserve accounts than is needed to meet the 1.25 percent of deposits that we need in that reserve account. In fact, that reserve account, that money that was paid to capitalize the reserve account, is invested in Government bonds--should be invested, of course--and it is invested in Government bonds. The interest on that reserve account, through the investment in Government bonds, is about $2 billion a year. That is about how much interest we are bringing in and adding to the reserve account every year. And it is growing, by the way. Every year it continues to grow. We are adding about $2 billion a year in interest. So the reserve account, which is already overcapitalized, continues to grow. In fact, if you look at where this account has grown--remember, we are supposed to have in this reserve account 1.25 percent of deposits. In 1996, it was 1.3 percent; in 1997, it was 1.36; in 1998, it was 1.39. That is in the SAIF fund, which is the savings account fund. In the BIF fund, which is the bank, it is 1.34; it is going up to 1.38 in 1999. We are seeing a growth in both of those funds, and that is projected to continue to grow. You may ask the question, Why are we letting it continue to grow? Well, because there are no failures in banks. We are not having to insure the deposits and pay the money. But it is well in excess of the amount that we need. And it is earning $2 billion a year, thereby growing. What I am saying is that we have more than we need in this account; it is growing at a rate of about $2 billion a year, and yet we are still assessing banks and savings institutions money to pay FICO bonds. Why don't we use the interest that is being spun off from the investment in the reserve account to pay the FICO bonds and that way eliminate the assessment on banks completely, which is basically a $780 million tax, when we have a fund that is growing far in excess of what we need in the reserve accounts? That is what my amendment would do. It would basically say that there isn't any reason to continue to assess banks and savings institutions to use that capital to pay FICO. Let the capital stay with the banks, stay with the savings institutions, be used to lend, to create more money, more capital available for more credit. It is estimated that with my amendment next year alone it would make $10 billion of credit available--$10 billion of new credit available if we pass my amendment. That money, again, which has already been generated in excess of what we need, would be used to pay the FICO obligations. I sort of like what is going on here with respect to the deposit insurance funds, the reserve funds, what goes on in a lot of trust funds in Government. We had almost the identical situation with the highway trust fund, and we had the courage, through the leadership of Chairman Shuster over in the House, to stand up and say, ``Look, we're paying all this money in gas taxes. It is going into the highway trust fund. But we are only appropriating a fraction of the money that is actually coming in.'' In other words, consumers--taxpayers--were paying much more money in taxes going into the trust fund than was ever going to be used in the trust fund. What was happening to the difference? What was happening to the difference was we were just building up this highway trust fund money that we would never use. Why would we want to do that? The same question here is, if we already have enough money to pay the FICO bonds with interest on the reserve accounts, why do we need to continue to assess banks? Well, there is only one reason why we continue to assess banks and savings institutions. It is because it counts as money to the Federal Government and it scores for the budget. Wait a minute. What does that mean? What that means is that we can show a lower deficit because we have $780 million coming in. That money will never be spent. It will never be spent. It will just continue, in some way, to grow within the reserve account, which money will never be used because we have far in excess of what anyone has anticipated. By the way, that number continues to grow. So we have in a sense here in the banking bill the identical situation as we had in the highway trust fund; which is, we are assessing somebody, ultimately the consumer, because they ultimately pay these taxes or these assessments, we are assessing them $780 million a year to go into a fund that does not need the money, that is used purely--purely--to hide the deficit so we can spend money somewhere else. So what we want to do is say, let's do here what we did with the highway trust fund. The reason I am withdrawing my amendment--this is a good amendment. It is what we should do. This is truth in budgeting. We always talk about truth in budgeting and the Social Security trust fund and the highway trust fund. Here is another, in a sense, trust fund that we are putting money into that is never going to be used, simply to hide the deficit. But if we take that money out of the revenue stream, there will be some who will come down here to the floor and say, ``Aha, you're going to raise the deficit and thereby take money out of Social Security or thereby not have enough money for us to do a tax cut or thereby not have enough money to do whatever else we want to do.'' The fact is, this is money that we should not be assessing because there isn't the need to assess it. But it is there. It is a tax. It is a tax going into a trust fund that does not need the money. But we are going to put it in there anyway because then we can issue bonds. Does this sound familiar to Social Security? We do not need the money in Social Security. We have enough money to pay, but we continue to charge people higher FICA taxes, higher Social Security taxes. We have a surplus. And what do we do with that surplus? We buy Government bonds. What does that surplus do? It hides the real deficit. What are we doing here with this FICO? It is interesting--FICA-FICO. What are we doing with FICO? We are charging banks and savings institutions more money than is needed. To do what? To buy Government bonds. To do what? To hide the deficit. To do what? So we can spend the money somewhere else. The trust fund scams that go on here in Washington, when we set up these separate accounts--but we count them in the general fund. We count them in the overall budget calculations and create some very troubling policies. It is a policy that we fixed when it came to gas taxes in the highway trust fund. It is a policy we are going to try to fix when it comes to Social Security. It is a policy that we should fix when it comes to banks and savings institutions, although it is very difficult to come to the floor and say, we should reduce taxes on banks and thrifts because they are paying too much in taxes. It is not a very popular tax cut, if that is the way you are going to look at it. But this is not a tax cut; this is an assessment to make sure there is adequate money in reserves to pay the guarantee. These are banks putting money in there to make sure there is money available to pay insured deposits. That is what this is about. There is more money than we need in there right now, far in excess of the requirements, and yet we continue to assess it. That is wrong. That is not a tax to pay for government. That is not a tax to pay for something else. It is an assessment to do a specific thing. There is more money than we need to do that specific thing. Yet we continue to assess. Why? Because it counts in the general budget, and we do not want to reduce the amount of money coming into the general budget, even though that money doesn't go to the general fund; it goes to this trust fund. The trust fund then buys bonds and then we use the money. That is wrong. We should not allow that to happen. I will support the motion to strike section 304 because it is all we can accomplish, but I will continue to work, not just with this trust fund but with the other trust funds we have here in Washington that have been integrated into this budget, that hide the real cost of government. That is what we are dealing with here. We are hiding the real cost of government. We are making banks, savings institutions, pay money that there is no need for them to pay to hide the cost of government. That is wrong. That is not truthful budgeting. If we want to tax banks more money, if we want to go out there and tax them, say you are not paying enough in taxes, we are going to tax you $780 million a year so we can have more money in Washington, then let's be straightforward. Let's just go tax them and have a debate on that. But to continue to have them pay this assessment--don't call it a tax; it is an assessment--when there is plenty of money in there that would alleviate the need to pay that assessment is wrong. I am very disappointed that this amendment is subject to a budget point of order, which means I would have to get 60 votes to allow this amendment to go in. Why is it subject to a budget point of order? Because this assessment counts as revenue to the Government and would throw the budget out of balance, if we passed my amendment. Some will claim, you are going to take this money out of this, or this, or whatever. The fact is, this is not a tax; it is an assessment for a particular purpose, to capitalize a reserve fund to make sure there is money there to pay guaranteed deposits. There is more money. The reserve requirement is 1.25 percent. In the current accounts, it is almost 1.4 percent. There is almost a billion dollars more in the accounts than is necessary to pay to meet the minimum reserve requirement, yet we continue to assess more and more and more. Again, I can't tell you how disappointed I am that we continue this fraudulent budget practice. It is certainly my intent, while we will not be successful today with this amendment, to fight this battle and other battles for truth in budgeting where fraudulent trust funds are used to subsidize other government spending. That is not right. It is not right to this industry. It is not right to those who want available credit, because we are driving credit by having these assessments. It is certainly not right with respect to Social Security and the other trust funds that are being abused by the general government to hide deficits for this country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution recognizing Jim Thorpe as the Athlete of the Century. Born to an impoverished family on Sac-and-Fox Indian land, Jim Thorpe overcame adverse circumstances to excel as an amateur and as a professional in three sports; track and field, football and baseball. Thorpe, who was voted ``Athlete of the First Half of the Century'' by the Associated Press almost fifty years ago, is the only American athlete ever to excel at this level in three major sports. As a student at Carlisle Indian School in Pennsylvania, Thorpe prooved his athletic ability early on. One anecdote recalls how the 5- foot-9\1/2\ inch, 144-pound Thorpe almost single-handedly overcame the entire Lafayette track team at a meeting in Easton, Pennsylvania, winning six events. Also while attending the Carlisle Indian School, Jim Thorpe established his amateur football record playing halfback, defender, punter, and place-kicker. In 1911, he was named an All American. In 1912, he represented the United States and the Sac-and-Fox Nation in the Olympic Games in Stockholm, Sweden. To this day, Thorpe is the only athlete to win gold medals in the pentathlon and decathlon. After his Olympic feats in Sweden, Thorpe retured to Carlisle's football team and was named an All-American again. In 1913, Thorpe left amateur athletics and signed a $5,000 contract to play baseball with the New York Giants. As an outfielder with the Giants, and later with the Cincinnati Reds and Boston Braves, his best season was his last one, when he batted .327 in 60 games for Boston. In 1915, Thorpe agreed to play professional football for the Canton Bulldogs. Thorpe went on to become a key part of this team as it was recognized as the ``world champion'' in 1916, 1917, and 1919. Thorpe's professional football career later included stints with Cleveland, Rock Island, the New York Giants, and the Chicago Cardinals. In 1920, Thorpe became the first president of the American Football Association, which was later to become the National Football League. Today, he is recognized as a founding father of professional football. Recently, I had the privilege of attending a luncheon honoring Jim Thorpe's daughter, Grace, at the Jim Thorpe Memorial Hall in the Carbon County, Pennsylvania, a town named for the great athlete. Grace Thorpe has traveled around the country asking people to sign petitions declaring her father athlete of the century. She plans to send the petition to cable sports networks and national sportswriters. As Jim Thorpe Area Sports Hall of Fame president, Jack Kmetz has noted, Thorpe unfortunately missed out on the modern-day media blitz that surrounds popular athletes today. Nonetheless, I promised Ms. Thorpe and the people of Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania that I would introduce this resolution which I hope will raise awareness of this true legend's achievements and give him the recongnition he deserves.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate one of the many employers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which, through innovation and dynamic business planning, has recently received prestigious recognition. The W. Frank Barton School of Business at Wichita State University and the University of Nebraska at Omaha Aviation Institute have ranked US Airways number one in their annual ``Airline Quality Rating'' study. I congratulate the over 16,000 Pennsylvanians who work at US Airways on their dedication and hard work. I also make special note of President and Chief Executive Officer Rakesh Gangwal, whose ongoing commitment to excellence has had a major impact on this airline, to the great benefit of our Commonwealth. In my eight years of service in the U.S. House and Senate, I have watched as US Airways (formerly USAir) has struggled through some very difficult times. For this airline to be recognized as number one in quality only a few years after its financial struggles is a true testament to the energy and skill of its workforce and executives. An indication of this is Mr. Gangwal's first comment after learning of the quality rating, ``While we are very proud of our No. 1 ranking and its reflection of accomplishment, there is more to be done in meeting the needs of the traveling public and we are focused on achieving this goal.'' Again, I offer my congratulations to US Airways and its many employees. I look forward to continued work with its executives, management teams, and labor unions.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. This bill is identical to the legislation endorsed by the American Medical Association (AMA) and vetoed by President Clinton in October, 1997. This bill is narrowly written to prohibit one particularly gruesome, inhumane, and medically unaccepted late term abortion method, except when the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. Also known as Intact Dilation Evacuation or Intrauterine Cranial Decompression, a partial birth abortion is performed over a three day period during the second or third trimester. After the cervix is dilated over a two-day period, the doctor begins the actual abortion on the third day. Once the doctor turns the baby into the breech position, he delivers all but the head through the birth canal. At this point the child is still alive. Then, the doctor stabs the baby in the base of its skull with curved scissors and uses a suction catheter to remove the child's brain. This procedure kills the baby. After the skull collapses, the doctor completes the delivery. Partial birth abortions are performed as outpatient procedures in clinics. They are usually done on healthy 20-25 week olds with healthy mothers. Estimates suggest as many as 5000 are performed annually in the U.S. We know of 1500 per year in one New Jersey clinic. The American public finds this procedure repugnant. A growing consensus in the medical community considers it unnecessary and even unethical. Yet the reason this horrific procedure is still legal in the United States is because President Clinton has twice vetoed legislation that would have outlawed partial birth abortion, except in cases of maternal life endangerment. The lies propagated by proponents of partial birth abortion have taken on a life of their own. First, we were told--and by we I mean Congress--there was no such thing as partial birth abortion. Three years after Dr. Martin Haskell, a pioneer of this technique, described it to the National Abortion Federation (NAF), the NAF sent a letter to Congress denying its existence. Then Congress was assured the fetus feels no pain during the procedure because anesthesia given to the mother induced ``neurological fetal demise.'' Such was the testimony of Dr. James McMahon, another pioneer of the partial birth abortion, to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. After pregnant women across the country started refusing necessary surgery, Dr. Norig Ellison, President of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee to set the record straight. He told the Committee women would have to be anesthetized to the point where their own health was endangered to achieve ``neurological demise'' of the fetus. By the way, ``neurological demise'' refers to the ``brain death,'' not literal death. Not to be deterred, proponents of partial birth abortion circulated a third lie-- anesthesia kills the fetus. Yet we know from Dr. Ellison's testimony and Dr. Haskell's own statements that the baby is alive during the procedure. Lie number four asserted partial birth abortions were ``rare.'' Then, a small newspaper in New Jersey discovered that 1500 of these ``rare'' procedures were performed each year in one clinic. This one clinic was performing three times the supposed national rate of partial birth abortions. Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, suggested as many as 5000 could be performed annually. Another egregious lie asserted this technique was only used in cases where the mother's life or health were at risk, or when the fetus was deformed. Ron Fitzsimmons helped spread this misinformation. He would later admit that he ``lied through my teeth.'' The last lie, which the President continues citing in defense of this procedure, proports that partial birth abortion is necessary to protect women's health. A group of more than 600 doctors, most of whom are OB- GYNs or perinatologists, call this lie the ``most serious distortion.'' In reality, partial birth is never medically necessary. That is the opinion of doctors across this country. The AMA says it is ``not medically indicated,'' ``is not good medicine,'' is ``ethically wrong'' and ``is not an accepted `medical practice' ''. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who has 30 years of experience in pediatric surgery, has publicly denounced this procedure. Dr. Warren Hern, who wrote the most widely used textbook on performing abortions admitted he ``* * * would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use.'' The Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT), a group of over 600 doctors, emphatically states that partial birth abortion is never medically necessary and ``should be banned in the interests of women, their children, and the proper practice of medicine.'' There is absolutely no evidence that partial birth abortion is a safe procedure. There are no peer reviewed scientific studies. It is not mentioned in medical textbooks or taught in medical schools. The facts, as reviewed by doctors, suggest this technique is in fact dangerous for women. Because of the deliberate breech positioning and the blind procedure of stabbing the baby at the base of its skull, partial birth abortion subjects women to risks beyond those normally encountered in conventional late term abortions. Furthermore, it could not be used in the two most common life endangering conditions during pregnancy, infection and hemorrhage, because it puts women at greater risk for both. Conditions such as hydrocephaly, trisomy, Downs Syndrome, and development of the organs or brain outside the body have been cited as instances in which partial birth abortion was recommended to preserve a woman's life, health, or future fertility. There are tragic situations that require separation of the child from the mother. But it is never necessary to kill the child during that separation to preserve maternal health. I have met families who were advised to have a partial birth abortion after their child was diagnosed with a disability. These mothers faced many of the same struggles, such as concerns for their other children, concerns about whether they would be able to care for a handicapped baby, and finding a doctor who was willing to deliver the child. As the Senate considers the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, I will tell the stories of these families and the children. In closing, I ask my colleagues to examine this issue with their hearts. We know of two baby girls, one born in Phoenix and the other in Ohio, who survived this brutal procedure. Baby Phoenix overcame cuts and a skull fracture sustained during a partial birth abortion procedure. Today, she lives with her adopted parents in Texas. Baby Hope lived only three hours and eight minutes. She was born prematurely during the first dilation stage of a partial birth abortion. Her life was short, but she personalized this issue for the hospital staff who gently nursed her for those few hours. I ask that my colleagues consider whether these little girls deserved to be subjected to partial birth abortions. I ask them to consider that these children were not catch phrases, slogans, or concepts. These babies, and other candidates for partial birth abortions, are human beings. They are being killed with a procedure that would not be legal for use on animals. I ask my colleagues to do the right thing and vote to outlaw this horrific procedure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1999 be inserted into the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. This bill is identical to the legislation endorsed by the American Medical Association (AMA) and vetoed by President Clinton in October, 1997. This bill is narrowly written to prohibit one particularly gruesome, inhumane, and medically unaccepted late term abortion method, except when the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. Also known as Intact Dilation Evacuation or Intrauterine Cranial Decompression, a partial birth abortion is performed over a three day period during the second or third trimester. After the cervix is dilated over a two-day period, the doctor begins the actual abortion on the third day. Once the doctor turns the baby into the breech position, he delivers all but the head through the birth canal. At this point the child is still alive. Then, the doctor stabs the baby in the base of its skull with curved scissors and uses a suction catheter to remove the child's brain. This procedure kills the baby. After the skull collapses, the doctor completes the delivery. Partial birth abortions are performed as outpatient procedures in clinics. They are usually done on healthy 20-25 week olds with healthy mothers. Estimates suggest as many as 5000 are performed annually in the U.S. We know of 1500 per year in one New Jersey clinic. The American public finds this procedure repugnant. A growing consensus in the medical community considers it unnecessary and even unethical. Yet the reason this horrific procedure is still legal in the United States is because President Clinton has twice vetoed legislation that would have outlawed partial birth abortion, except in cases of maternal life endangerment. The lies propagated by proponents of partial birth abortion have taken on a life of their own. First, we were told--and by we I mean Congress--there was no such thing as partial birth abortion. Three years after Dr. Martin Haskell, a pioneer of this technique, described it to the National Abortion Federation (NAF), the NAF sent a letter to Congress denying its existence. Then Congress was assured the fetus feels no pain during the procedure because anesthesia given to the mother induced ``neurological fetal demise.'' Such was the testimony of Dr. James McMahon, another pioneer of the partial birth abortion, to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. After pregnant women across the country started refusing necessary surgery, Dr. Norig Ellison, President of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee to set the record straight. He told the Committee women would have to be anesthetized to the point where their own health was endangered to achieve ``neurological demise'' of the fetus. By the way, ``neurological demise'' refers to the ``brain death,'' not literal death. Not to be deterred, proponents of partial birth abortion circulated a third lie-- anesthesia kills the fetus. Yet we know from Dr. Ellison's testimony and Dr. Haskell's own statements that the baby is alive during the procedure. Lie number four asserted partial birth abortions were ``rare.'' Then, a small newspaper in New Jersey discovered that 1500 of these ``rare'' procedures were performed each year in one clinic. This one clinic was performing three times the supposed national rate of partial birth abortions. Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, suggested as many as 5000 could be performed annually. Another egregious lie asserted this technique was only used in cases where the mother's life or health were at risk, or when the fetus was deformed. Ron Fitzsimmons helped spread this misinformation. He would later admit that he ``lied through my teeth.'' The last lie, which the President continues citing in defense of this procedure, proports that partial birth abortion is necessary to protect women's health. A group of more than 600 doctors, most of whom are OB- GYNs or perinatologists, call this lie the ``most serious distortion.'' In reality, partial birth is never medically necessary. That is the opinion of doctors across this country. The AMA says it is ``not medically indicated,'' ``is not good medicine,'' is ``ethically wrong'' and ``is not an accepted `medical practice' ''. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who has 30 years of experience in pediatric surgery, has publicly denounced this procedure. Dr. Warren Hern, who wrote the most widely used textbook on performing abortions admitted he ``* * * would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use.'' The Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT), a group of over 600 doctors, emphatically states that partial birth abortion is never medically necessary and ``should be banned in the interests of women, their children, and the proper practice of medicine.'' There is absolutely no evidence that partial birth abortion is a safe procedure. There are no peer reviewed scientific studies. It is not mentioned in medical textbooks or taught in medical schools. The facts, as reviewed by doctors, suggest this technique is in fact dangerous for women. Because of the deliberate breech positioning and the blind procedure of stabbing the baby at the base of its skull, partial birth abortion subjects women to risks beyond those normally encountered in conventional late term abortions. Furthermore, it could not be used in the two most common life endangering conditions during pregnancy, infection and hemorrhage, because it puts women at greater risk for both. Conditions such as hydrocephaly, trisomy, Downs Syndrome, and development of the organs or brain outside the body have been cited as instances in which partial birth abortion was recommended to preserve a woman's life, health, or future fertility. There are tragic situations that require separation of the child from the mother. But it is never necessary to kill the child during that separation to preserve maternal health. I have met families who were advised to have a partial birth abortion after their child was diagnosed with a disability. These mothers faced many of the same struggles, such as concerns for their other children, concerns about whether they would be able to care for a handicapped baby, and finding a doctor who was willing to deliver the child. As the Senate considers the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, I will tell the stories of these families and the children. In closing, I ask my colleagues to examine this issue with their hearts. We know of two baby girls, one born in Phoenix and the other in Ohio, who survived this brutal procedure. Baby Phoenix overcame cuts and a skull fracture sustained during a partial birth abortion procedure. Today, she lives with her adopted parents in Texas. Baby Hope lived only three hours and eight minutes. She was born prematurely during the first dilation stage of a partial birth abortion. Her life was short, but she personalized this issue for the hospital staff who gently nursed her for those few hours. I ask that my colleagues consider whether these little girls deserved to be subjected to partial birth abortions. I ask them to consider that these children were not catch phrases, slogans, or concepts. These babies, and other candidates for partial birth abortions, are human beings. They are being killed with a procedure that would not be legal for use on animals. I ask my colleagues to do the right thing and vote to outlaw this horrific procedure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1999 be inserted into the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would establish the Lackawanna Valley American Heritage Area. This legislation recognizes the significance of Pennsylvania's Lackawanna Valley, the site of the first state heritage park in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Nearly nine years ago, people in the Lackawanna Valley pursued their vision to recognize the cultural, historical, natural, and recreational values that existed within the region. As such, partnerships were formed among federal, state, and local governments, in addition to local business interests, to move this idea forward. As those partnerships evolved, that cooperation produced ``The Plan for the Lackawanna Heritage Valley.'' With the credo of ``community development through partnerships,'' the LHVA began developing a wide agenda of community projects that would come to define the term ``heritage park.'' Specifically, the LHVA was instrumental in creating the National Institute of Environmental Renewal, a ``living laboratory'' founded with the intention of identification and clean-up of the Lackawanna Valley's scarred industrial landscape. Through an adaptive re-use of a former school building, there now exists a 100,000 square foot Education and Training, Research and Development, and Technology Transfer Center. Other projects taken on by the Authority include: construction of the Lackawanna Trolley Museum; designation of the Lackawanna River Heritage Trail; development of the Olyphant Elementary School housing project; and the ``Young People's Heritage Festival.'' One of the most significant undertakings by LHVA partners has been a research document commissioned by the National park Service and the PA Historical and Museum Commission. The study, ``Anthracite Coal in Pennsylvania: an Industry and a Region,'' concludes that, ``the anthracite industry of northeastern Pennsylvania played a critical role in the expansion of the American economy during the second quarter of the nineteenth century.'' The legislation that I am introducing today, with the support of Senator Specter, encourages the continuation of local interest by demonstrating the federal government's commitment to preserving the unique heritage of the Lackawanna Valley. It would require the Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority to enter a compact with the Secretary of the Interior to establish Heritage Area boundaries, and to prepare and implement a management plan within three years. This plan would inventory resources and recommend policies for resource management interpretation. Further, based on the criteria of other Heritage Areas established by the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, this bill requires that federal funds provided under this bill do not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the program. Mr. President, this legislation is a culmination of the hard work and diligence of many parties interested in preserving the cultural and natural resources of the Lackawanna Valley. I believe this bill represents the positive impact public and private institutions can have when given the opportunity for collaboration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would establish the Lackawanna Valley American Heritage Area. This legislation recognizes the significance of Pennsylvania's Lackawanna Valley, the site of the first state heritage park in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Nearly nine years ago, people in the Lackawanna Valley pursued their vision to recognize the cultural, historical, natural, and recreational values that existed within the region. As such, partnerships were formed among federal, state, and local governments, in addition to local business interests, to move this idea forward. As those partnerships evolved, that cooperation produced ``The Plan for the Lackawanna Heritage Valley.'' With the credo of ``community development through partnerships,'' the LHVA began developing a wide agenda of community projects that would come to define the term ``heritage park.'' Specifically, the LHVA was instrumental in creating the National Institute of Environmental Renewal, a ``living laboratory'' founded with the intention of identification and clean-up of the Lackawanna Valley's scarred industrial landscape. Through an adaptive re-use of a former school building, there now exists a 100,000 square foot Education and Training, Research and Development, and Technology Transfer Center. Other projects taken on by the Authority include: construction of the Lackawanna Trolley Museum; designation of the Lackawanna River Heritage Trail; development of the Olyphant Elementary School housing project; and the ``Young People's Heritage Festival.'' One of the most significant undertakings by LHVA partners has been a research document commissioned by the National park Service and the PA Historical and Museum Commission. The study, ``Anthracite Coal in Pennsylvania: an Industry and a Region,'' concludes that, ``the anthracite industry of northeastern Pennsylvania played a critical role in the expansion of the American economy during the second quarter of the nineteenth century.'' The legislation that I am introducing today, with the support of Senator Specter, encourages the continuation of local interest by demonstrating the federal government's commitment to preserving the unique heritage of the Lackawanna Valley. It would require the Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority to enter a compact with the Secretary of the Interior to establish Heritage Area boundaries, and to prepare and implement a management plan within three years. This plan would inventory resources and recommend policies for resource management interpretation. Further, based on the criteria of other Heritage Areas established by the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, this bill requires that federal funds provided under this bill do not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the program. Mr. President, this legislation is a culmination of the hard work and diligence of many parties interested in preserving the cultural and natural resources of the Lackawanna Valley. I believe this bill represents the positive impact public and private institutions can have when given the opportunity for collaboration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce four pieces of legislation I introduced in the 105th Congress. Building on the support I've received for these bills, I look forward to passage this Congress of much needed liability protection for those who donate goods and services to charities. Over the past thirty years, courts have consistently expanded what constitutes tortious conduct. Regrettably, fault is often not a factor when deciding who should compensate an individual for damages incurred. This has had an impact on charitable giving. Today, individuals and businesses are wary of giving goods, services, and time to charities for fear of frivolous lawsuits. This legislation is designed to free up resources for charities by providing legal protections for donors. Generally, these bills raise the tort liability standard for donors, whereby they are liable only in cases of gross negligence, hence eliminating strict liability and returning to a fault based legal standard. By allowing businesses to once again become good Samaritans, I look forward to seeing a massive increase in the donation of goods and services to charities. Specifically, I have introduced four bills, each of which accomplishes one of the following four objectives: first, to limit the civil liability of business entities that donate equipment to nonprofit organizations; second, to limit the civil liability of business entities that provide use of their facilities to nonprofit organizations; third, to limit the civil liability of business entities that provide facility tours; and fourth, to limit the civil liability of business entities that make available to nonprofit organizations the use of motor vehicles or aircraft. Clearly, where an organization is grossly negligent when providing goods or the use of its facilities to charity, that organization should be fully liable for inquiries caused. These bills merely require this to be the standard in cases arising from certain donations to charities. In late 1996, the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act was passed into law. This law now protects donors of foodstuffs to charities from liability except in cases where the donor was grossly negligent in making the donation. I was proud to join Senator Bond in passing this Act. The bills I introduce today draw from my successful work with Senator Bond years ago. Each of these bills is modeled on the legal framework of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. I hope my distinguished colleagues who supported the Food Donation Act will help further these efforts by supporting the Charity Empowerment Project. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce four pieces of legislation I introduced in the 105th Congress. Building on the support I've received for these bills, I look forward to passage this Congress of much needed liability protection for those who donate goods and services to charities. Over the past thirty years, courts have consistently expanded what constitutes tortious conduct. Regrettably, fault is often not a factor when deciding who should compensate an individual for damages incurred. This has had an impact on charitable giving. Today, individuals and businesses are wary of giving goods, services, and time to charities for fear of frivolous lawsuits. This legislation is designed to free up resources for charities by providing legal protections for donors. Generally, these bills raise the tort liability standard for donors, whereby they are liable only in cases of gross negligence, hence eliminating strict liability and returning to a fault based legal standard. By allowing businesses to once again become good Samaritans, I look forward to seeing a massive increase in the donation of goods and services to charities. Specifically, I have introduced four bills, each of which accomplishes one of the following four objectives: first, to limit the civil liability of business entities that donate equipment to nonprofit organizations; second, to limit the civil liability of business entities that provide use of their facilities to nonprofit organizations; third, to limit the civil liability of business entities that provide facility tours; and fourth, to limit the civil liability of business entities that make available to nonprofit organizations the use of motor vehicles or aircraft. Clearly, where an organization is grossly negligent when providing goods or the use of its facilities to charity, that organization should be fully liable for inquiries caused. These bills merely require this to be the standard in cases arising from certain donations to charities. In late 1996, the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act was passed into law. This law now protects donors of foodstuffs to charities from liability except in cases where the donor was grossly negligent in making the donation. I was proud to join Senator Bond in passing this Act. The bills I introduce today draw from my successful work with Senator Bond years ago. Each of these bills is modeled on the legal framework of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. I hope my distinguished colleagues who supported the Food Donation Act will help further these efforts by supporting the Charity Empowerment Project. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation pertaining to the federal excise tax on beer. Many people are not aware that they pay enormous hidden taxes when they purchase any number of consumer products. The beer tax is one significant example of such a hidden tax. Bearing a disproportionate tax burden, forty-three percent of the cost of beer is comprised of both state and federal taxes. The federal government doubled its tax on beer eight years ago. Today, though it is one of the more regressive taxes, the 100 percent beer tax increase remains as the only ``luxury tax'' enacted as part of the 1991 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. While taxes on furs, jewelry, and yachts have been repealed through subsequent legislation, the federal beer tax remains in place with continued far reaching effects, including the loss of as many as 50,000 industry jobs. My legislation seeks to correct this inequity and will restore the level of federal excise tax to the pre-1991 tax rate. Mr. President, I offer this bill as companion legislation to H.R. 1366 introduced by Representative Phil English. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would bring common sense reform to the federal peanut commodity program. This legislation would phase out the peanut quota program over three years, with the quota being eliminated in crop year 2002. I am joined today by several colleagues in this reform effort. Under this legislation, the price support for peanuts that are grown for edible consumption is gradually reduced each year from the current support price of $610 per ton to $500 per ton by 2001. In the year 2002 and ensuing crop years, there would be no quotas on peanuts, and the Secretary of Agriculture would be required to make the non-recourse loan available to all peanut farmers at 85 percent of their estimated market value. This measure is consistent with the non-recourse loan programs available for other agriculture commodities. Another component of this peanut reform bill would allow additional peanuts, those produced in excess of the farmer's quota poundage, to be used for sale to the school lunch program. Mr. President, the federal peanut program, born in the 1930's during an era of massive change and dislocation in agriculture, is sorely out of place in today's agricultural sector. Other farm commodities are seeking new export opportunities abroad, building new markets and helping to improve our national balance of trade, however, the peanut industry is building new barriers to protect itself. The quota system stifles freedom for farmers, and it fosters a set of economic expectations that cannot be sustained without continued government intervention. Moreover, failure to reform this program costs consumers between $300-500 million annually, adding to the cost of feeding programs for low-income Americans. In short, this program must be changed. As we have learned from changes made to other commodity programs, reform does not happen overnight. This proposal provides for a fair transition that will enable farmers and lenders to adjust their expectations to the marketplace. Following completion of the phase-out period, the peanut program will operate like most other agricultural commodities. Mr. President, I am pleased to have many of my Senate colleagues join me today as cosponsors of this measure, including Senators Chafee, DeWine, Feingold, Gregg, Brownback, Specter, and Collins. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Jim Thorpe as he is being considered in the selection of Athlete of the Century. Pennsylvania has a historic affiliation to this great man, of whom a borough in Carbon County Pennsylvania is named for. Jim Thorpe is the only American athlete to ever excel, as an amateur and as a professional, in three major sports; track and field, football and baseball. As an amateur in track and field, Thorpe won the pentathlon and the decathlon at the Amateur Athletic Union's (AAU) National Championship Trials in Boston, prior to the 1912 Olympics. He went on to represent Sac, Fox Nation and the United States in the 1912 Olympic Games in Stockholm, Sweden, and became the first U.S. athlete to win the decathlon and the only athlete in the world to win both the decathlon and the pentathlon during one Olympic year. These athletic feats and the subsequent worldwide publicity helped to establish the viability of the Olympics. Thorpe's major league baseball career consisted of playing with the New York Giants, the Cincinnati Reds and the Boston Braves, in which he ended the 1919 season with a .327 average. His amateur football record was established while he was a student at the Carlisle Indian School in Pennsylvania and was chosen to Walter Camp's First Team All American Half-Back in 1911 and 1912. A founding father of professional football, Thorpe became the first elected president of the American Professional Football Association, now known as the National Football League. He was voted America's Greatest All- Around Male Athlete and chosen as the greatest football player of the half-century in 1950 by an Associated Press Poll of sports writers. He was also named the Greatest American Football Player in History in a 1977 national poll conducted by Sport Magazine. Because of his outstanding sports achievements, Thorpe was inducted into the National Indian Hall of Fame, the Helms Professional Football Hall of Fame, the Professional Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio, the National Track and Field Hall of Fame, and the Pennsylvania and Oklahoma Halls of Fame. Mr. President, Jim Thorpe's immeasurable sports achievements have long been an inspiration to America's youth, as well as to the youth of Pennsylvania. I ask my colleagues to join with me in paying tribute to Jim Thorpe for his renowned accomplishments, as he is considered for Athlete of the Century in 2000.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would bring common sense reform to the federal peanut commodity program. This legislation would phase out the peanut quota program over three years, with the quota being eliminated in crop year 2002. I am joined today by several colleagues in this reform effort. Under this legislation, the price support for peanuts that are grown for edible consumption is gradually reduced each year from the current support price of $610 per ton to $500 per ton by 2001. In the year 2002 and ensuing crop years, there would be no quotas on peanuts, and the Secretary of Agriculture would be required to make the non-recourse loan available to all peanut farmers at 85 percent of their estimated market value. This measure is consistent with the non-recourse loan programs available for other agriculture commodities. Another component of this peanut reform bill would allow additional peanuts, those produced in excess of the farmer's quota poundage, to be used for sale to the school lunch program. Mr. President, the federal peanut program, born in the 1930's during an era of massive change and dislocation in agriculture, is sorely out of place in today's agricultural sector. Other farm commodities are seeking new export opportunities abroad, building new markets and helping to improve our national balance of trade, however, the peanut industry is building new barriers to protect itself. The quota system stifles freedom for farmers, and it fosters a set of economic expectations that cannot be sustained without continued government intervention. Moreover, failure to reform this program costs consumers between $300-500 million annually, adding to the cost of feeding programs for low-income Americans. In short, this program must be changed. As we have learned from changes made to other commodity programs, reform does not happen overnight. This proposal provides for a fair transition that will enable farmers and lenders to adjust their expectations to the marketplace. Following completion of the phase-out period, the peanut program will operate like most other agricultural commodities. Mr. President, I am pleased to have many of my Senate colleagues join me today as cosponsors of this measure, including Senators Chafee, DeWine, Feingold, Gregg, Brownback, Specter, and Collins. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation pertaining to the federal excise tax on beer. Many people are not aware that they pay enormous hidden taxes when they purchase any number of consumer products. The beer tax is one significant example of such a hidden tax. Bearing a disproportionate tax burden, forty-three percent of the cost of beer is comprised of both state and federal taxes. The federal government doubled its tax on beer eight years ago. Today, though it is one of the more regressive taxes, the 100 percent beer tax increase remains as the only ``luxury tax'' enacted as part of the 1991 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. While taxes on furs, jewelry, and yachts have been repealed through subsequent legislation, the federal beer tax remains in place with continued far reaching effects, including the loss of as many as 50,000 industry jobs. My legislation seeks to correct this inequity and will restore the level of federal excise tax to the pre-1991 tax rate. Mr. President, I offer this bill as companion legislation to H.R. 1366 introduced by Representative Phil English. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I ask that Senator Torricelli be added as cosponsor to the resolution. Mr. President, this is an amendment that is a sense of the Senate to extend reauthorization for the Farm Preservation Program. Senator Boxer and I were able to put in an amendment for $35 billion for farmland preservation in the Freedom to Farm bill 3 years ago. That authorization of $35 billion was supposed to last 5 years. It lasted 3. There is no more money for this program, and there is a tremendous need. The backlog of applications is immense. Nineteen States have participated in this. We have saved over 123,000 acres of farmland. We have so much debate about urban sprawl. This is an amendment to do something in a responsible way by preserving farmland and preserving agriculture communities that are under stress from urban sprawl and development. I hope we will have a resounding favorable vote.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address the suffering of victims of repeat offenders. My legislation, ``Aimee's Law,'' is named after Aimee Willard, a college senior from suburban Philadelphia who was raped and murdered by a man released from prison in another state after serving time for a similar offense. This tragedy has made me aware of some very disturbing facts about sentencing and recidivism. For instance, more than 14,000 murders, rapes and sexual assaults on children are committed each year by felons who have been released after serving a sentence for one of those very same crimes. Moreover, convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters who are released from prisons and cross state lines are responsible for sexual assaults on more than 1,200 people annually, including 935 children. Furthermore, recidivism rates for sexual predators are the highest of any category of violent crime. Despite this, the average time served for rape is only five and one half years and the average time served for sexual assault is under four years. Also troubling is the fact that thirteen percent of convicted rapists receive no jail time at all. With this in mind, I propose to use federal crime fighting funds to create an incentive for states to adopt stricter sentencing and truth- in-sentencing laws. Specifically, Aimee's Law will redirect enough federal crime fighting dollars from a state that has released a murderer, rapist, or child molester to pay the prosecutorial and incarceration costs incurred by a state which has had to reconvict this released felon for a similar crime. Indeed, laws regarding the horrific crimes of murder, rape and sexual assault are best enacted at the state level. However, the federal government bears a responsibility to ensure that federal taxpayer dollars are spent in such a manner as to reflect national views on national issues. This legislation uses federal monies to create incentives without intruding into a state's right and need to legislate on the problem of repeat offenders. Representative Matt Salmon introduced this legislation last Congress and earlier this Congress. Representative Salmon's bipartisan bill currently has 66 cosponsors, including Majority Whip Tom Delay and Democratic Caucus Chair Martin Frost. Moreover, it has been endorsed by Ms. Gail Willard, Aimee's mother, and numerous organizations such as the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Rifle Association, the KlassKids Foundation, Justice For All, the National Association of Crime Victims' Rights, the Women's Coalition, and Kids Safe. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and help protect our communities from repeat offenders. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address the suffering of victims of repeat offenders. My legislation, ``Aimee's Law,'' is named after Aimee Willard, a college senior from suburban Philadelphia who was raped and murdered by a man released from prison in another state after serving time for a similar offense. This tragedy has made me aware of some very disturbing facts about sentencing and recidivism. For instance, more than 14,000 murders, rapes and sexual assaults on children are committed each year by felons who have been released after serving a sentence for one of those very same crimes. Moreover, convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters who are released from prisons and cross state lines are responsible for sexual assaults on more than 1,200 people annually, including 935 children. Furthermore, recidivism rates for sexual predators are the highest of any category of violent crime. Despite this, the average time served for rape is only five and one half years and the average time served for sexual assault is under four years. Also troubling is the fact that thirteen percent of convicted rapists receive no jail time at all. With this in mind, I propose to use federal crime fighting funds to create an incentive for states to adopt stricter sentencing and truth- in-sentencing laws. Specifically, Aimee's Law will redirect enough federal crime fighting dollars from a state that has released a murderer, rapist, or child molester to pay the prosecutorial and incarceration costs incurred by a state which has had to reconvict this released felon for a similar crime. Indeed, laws regarding the horrific crimes of murder, rape and sexual assault are best enacted at the state level. However, the federal government bears a responsibility to ensure that federal taxpayer dollars are spent in such a manner as to reflect national views on national issues. This legislation uses federal monies to create incentives without intruding into a state's right and need to legislate on the problem of repeat offenders. Representative Matt Salmon introduced this legislation last Congress and earlier this Congress. Representative Salmon's bipartisan bill currently has 66 cosponsors, including Majority Whip Tom Delay and Democratic Caucus Chair Martin Frost. Moreover, it has been endorsed by Ms. Gail Willard, Aimee's mother, and numerous organizations such as the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Rifle Association, the KlassKids Foundation, Justice For All, the National Association of Crime Victims' Rights, the Women's Coalition, and Kids Safe. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and help protect our communities from repeat offenders. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would reauthorize the Farmland Protection Program that was originally authorized with passage of the 1996 Farm Bill. Every year more than one million acres of our nation's most productive farmland is lost to urbanization. This is land that produces three-quarters of America's fruits and vegetables, and more than half of our dairy products. While state and local governments have taken the lead in preservation efforts, the demand for assistance continues to grow. Considering the importance of agriculture to our nation, and to generations of families throughout our country, I was proud to take a lead role in the United States Senate to assist farmers and communities in confronting the obstacle of growing pressure on the use of farmland. As such, I, with the support of many Senate colleagues, established the Federal Farmland Protection Program to stem the loss of valuable farmland, and to provide states with adequate tools to accomplish that goal. Those efforts resulted in a $35 million authorization in the 1996 Farm Bill. This money has been used to help states leverage dollars in order to purchase development rights, and keep productive farmland in use--all through voluntary efforts. In just three short years, the funds were exhausted due to the overwhelming response by farmers and state governments. In fact, by the end of fiscal year 1997 the original $35 million authorization had been spent, and the demand outstripped funding availability by 900 percent. The legislation that I'm introducing today, the Farmland Protection Act of 1999, would provide a $50 million per year authorization for the much-needed funds to carry out the important work of farmland preservation. In addition, my bill would allow non-profit organizations to participate in the program--where there is no established government program--as they are currently precluded from doing so in certain states. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce this legislation that will enable us to take another giant step forward in protecting a valuable resource to many Americans. To date, nineteen states have capitalized on this opportunity to augment their preservation efforts, and hopefully, the Farmland Protection Act of 1999 will give more states the tools to assist their local farming community. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would reauthorize the Farmland Protection Program that was originally authorized with passage of the 1996 Farm Bill. Every year more than one million acres of our nation's most productive farmland is lost to urbanization. This is land that produces three-quarters of America's fruits and vegetables, and more than half of our dairy products. While state and local governments have taken the lead in preservation efforts, the demand for assistance continues to grow. Considering the importance of agriculture to our nation, and to generations of families throughout our country, I was proud to take a lead role in the United States Senate to assist farmers and communities in confronting the obstacle of growing pressure on the use of farmland. As such, I, with the support of many Senate colleagues, established the Federal Farmland Protection Program to stem the loss of valuable farmland, and to provide states with adequate tools to accomplish that goal. Those efforts resulted in a $35 million authorization in the 1996 Farm Bill. This money has been used to help states leverage dollars in order to purchase development rights, and keep productive farmland in use--all through voluntary efforts. In just three short years, the funds were exhausted due to the overwhelming response by farmers and state governments. In fact, by the end of fiscal year 1997 the original $35 million authorization had been spent, and the demand outstripped funding availability by 900 percent. The legislation that I'm introducing today, the Farmland Protection Act of 1999, would provide a $50 million per year authorization for the much-needed funds to carry out the important work of farmland preservation. In addition, my bill would allow non-profit organizations to participate in the program--where there is no established government program--as they are currently precluded from doing so in certain states. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce this legislation that will enable us to take another giant step forward in protecting a valuable resource to many Americans. To date, nineteen states have capitalized on this opportunity to augment their preservation efforts, and hopefully, the Farmland Protection Act of 1999 will give more states the tools to assist their local farming community. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I object to further consideration of the measures at this time.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for their second readings.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. Under the previous order, Senator Durbin, or his designee, will be in control of the time between 10:30 and 11:30 a.m., and Senator Frist, or his designee, in control from 11:30 to 12:30 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will recess until 2:15 p.m., to allow the weekly party caucuses to meet. Upon reconvening at 2:15, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 280, the education flexibility partnership bill, for debate only, until 4 p.m., at which time the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Jeffords substitute amendment. Senators are reminded that, pursuant to rule XXII, second-degree amendments must be filed by 3 p.m. in order to qualify postcloture.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I, too, want to welcome Reverend Kelsey today and thank him for his inspirational prayer. He is one of the truly distinguished leaders of the church community here in Washington, DC. Welcome back to Washington. You have been away for a while. It is good to have you back here, and it is terrific to have you here in the U.S. Senate. Thank you for being here today.