Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. That is correct.

Mr. SANTORUM. That is correct. Just like next year. When we appropriate money this year, when we appropriate money for next year, we will have in the FEMA budget money for anticipated disasters. That is what we will be putting money aside for. That is what we appropriate the money for in FEMA, for anticipated disasters and for spending on those disasters. What we are saying is, we now have a leg up. We know what money we need to spend this year, so we are going to include it in that budgeted amount. So, yes.

Mr. SANTORUM. That is correct. Under the legislation, that is correct.

Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to.

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, first, I say to the Senator from Alaska, he is absolutely right. I do not think either Senator Gramm or I are intending, or what the Appropriations Committee did here, is somehow outside the Budget Act or illegal or against the law. Absolutely not. The chairman and the committee followed the Budget Act to a ``t.'' They declared the emergency. The President asked for emergency spending. They went ahead and spent the money outside of the parameters of the budget that we have for the country this year and for future years. We just do not agree that we should do that. I think we do have the right, because we have done it in the past, to make that spending this year, frankly, for future years, to stay within the caps and to allow some reprogramming to be done within those accounts. So my argument has never been, and I think the Senator from Texas would admit that his argument has never been, that what they have done is somehow wrong. Not wrong; certainly it is within the law. But to suggest that it is the right thing to do is another matter. I understand the problems that the Senator has with the defense budget. I have as many concerns as he does with the top line number of defense. I think we are at a very tight defense budget for this year. I serve as a subcommittee chairman on the Armed Services Committee, and I understand the tough choices that have to be made. I do not have as big a budget to oversee in my authorization. I have about $9 billion to oversee. But I have to make tough choices, and sometimes projects in Pennsylvania do not make it on there. They did not make it on there because they are not worthy projects, not because they are from Pennsylvania or from North Carolina or Texas or anywhere else. And I will assume and I will hope that the appropriations process is a similar one; that we look at the merits of the projects that are on there being requested by the Department and we sort it out on the basis of merit. That is what I will continue to do and that is what I hope the Appropriations Committee will continue to do. It is a tough job. The resources are very slim. I accept what the Senator from Alaska is saying, that if we adopt this amendment, it will make that job somewhat tougher to do--next year by the tune of about $1.6 billion, and the following year $391 million, and then it sort of trails off to a couple million. But I understand that is a difficult task. The point we are trying to make is, we did not require you to do it this year because you are halfway through the budget year and it would be very difficult to reprogram that money having been put in a cycle where you had a certain expectation of money, you spent to that level, so you spent half your money and then you are basically taking savings out of the last half of the money that is there, which requires a commensurately higher percentage of cuts than the overall amount. So I understand that problem. That is why we tried to avoid that problem by saying, if you spend the money this year, you do not have to reprogram it. You can declare the emergency and you can spend it above the budget level. I find it somewhat curious that the Senator from Alaska would attack our amendment by saying it creates an incentive to spend the money unwisely this year and that he opposes this amendment because we are going to have money being forced out of the pipeline prematurely so it can be spent on an emergency basis as opposed to being kept under the caps in future years. The only reason we have released the pressure valve, if you will, for this year is because we know the objections that the Senator from Alaska would have if we put the caps on it this year. He would be opposed to it, I suspect, even more vociferously if we made the relevant departments stay within the caps every year as opposed to just future years. So I am not too sure that is necessarily a valid argument. The bottom line here is very simple. What we are suggesting is to take the money that we know is going to be there for the surplus and use it for Social Security, not for emergency spending, particularly given the fact that I understand from the cloakroom there is another $1.6 billion to throw on top of this bill. It is going to be spent out over the next few years, money that the President has just asked for. I have voted against disaster bills in the past. In fact, I stood on the floor of the Senate just a few years ago and said I would vote against a disaster bill when most of the money for that bill was going to Pennsylvania--my State. And I said I would do so unless we did something to make sure that that money was offset within the budget, because I feel it is that important. I think there is not truth in budgeting with this administration and with our budgets in the past when it comes to disaster assistance. We chronically have this problem that we do not appropriate enough money. Again, I do not point to Senator Bond and his subcommittee as the problem. I point down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to a President who just willy-nilly, in many cases, declares items eligible for assistance and expands the definition beyond what congressional intent is as to what is covered. Not that he declares disasters willy-nilly. In fact, they are very serious disasters. But what should be and is eligible to be paid for by the Federal Government is, in fact, where I think we have a problem with this administration, which I think the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, is attempting to correct. So I give credit to him. But we still have the problem. The problem has shown up in huge amounts of outlays that we spend every year on disasters because we continue to pay ever-increasing amounts from the Federal level on disasters around this country. That is a problem. All we are doing is allowing that spending to continue and not keeping within the discipline that we promised the American public. We promised, us right here in the Senate, we promised the American public that we would stand here and stick to our agreement, that we would not continue this stream of red ink, we would not just continue to spend money like there was no tomorrow, that we were going to put a budget agreement in concrete, we were going to stick to it, and, as a result of that, we would have surpluses, we would have a balanced budget, and we would have surpluses and, as a result, the economic prosperity that would come with that. Right here today we are just saying, oh, we didn't mean it. You know, we had an unexpected--not so unexpected--expense so we have to break the deal. We are going to break the deal. We are just going to say, fine, we are going to spend more. I am surprised there is just $1.6 billion more in the cloakroom ready to come down here to be spent. Let us throw in some more. I mean, this is open season. We have lied once. We have broken our promise once to the American public. We said we were going to keep the deal. Now we are not going to keep the deal. Why just 1.6 billion? Let us throw in a few more billion. Once you break it--I mean, it is like being a little bit pregnant--let us really have a party. Let us spend it all. Let us throw some more money down here and find out how much more we can throw on that we can consider an emergency that all we have to do is declare. We do not have to follow any law here. For those of you who think that there is a law that we follow that says ``this is actually an emergency'' and ``this isn't an emergency''--no, no, no. We just have to say it is. That is all. We just say it is, and it is an emergency. So let us bring all the turkeys out. Let us start flying around and shooting everything around here. And, by the way, there is lots of stuff in here that is not emergency, just supplemental spending that we are just going to throw out here and say, ``Well, we'll just include it in. It's something we really wanted to do. Couldn't fit it in last year's budget, may not be able to fit it in this year's budget. It's going to fly. It's going to pass and we can help out some of our Members.'' It is just not the way we should do business.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas did an excellent job of outlining the amendment. I think his comments are very persuasive. Let me add one element to the veracity of the comments of the Senator from Texas. He said this bill has some $2.5 billion for offset emergencies. He said but on average, about this fiscal year, that we will get up to five. There was discussion in the Cloakroom about an amendment to add another $1.6 billion of emergency spending. So maybe before the day is out, as opposed to before the year is out, we will get to our $5 billion in emergency spending for this year. When I say ``emergency,'' people tend to think when you hear the term ``emergency,'' an ambulance, or something that has to be done right away. A lot of these things don't have to be done right away. As the Senator from Texas laid out, a lot of this spending doesn't get spent right away. It gets spent in the long term. What we are trying to do is say, look, if you have an emergency now, we have to spend the money now. We are in the middle of the fiscal year. We understand that to go back and ask to try to offset this money within the FEMA budget, or the Defense Department, or wherever the other spending proposals come from, would be very difficult. We understand the difficulty in these departments. But there is no reason why our good friends, the appropriators, cannot within the context of this year's budget for this additional spending that we are going to pass today and appropriate today--whether they can't put it within their appropriations amounts for the fiscal year. That is responsible budgeting. That is, in fact, truth in budgeting. The Senator from Texas is right about the issue of Social Security. I chair the leader's task force on the issue of Social Security here in the Senate. I was one of those people who stood up and applauded the President for saying ``Save Social Security First.'' Use that money, use that surplus out there to direct the Social Security to save the Social Security system in the future. If we are going to box this money, remember, we said we are going to put this money and set it aside. Well, here is the money. Here is the money. Here are those first few dollars that we had planned to set aside. They want to spend it right now. That is not a good-faith promise to the American public. We know the President is not going to keep his promises. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep our promises. I noticed, because I was watching across the aisle, that every single one of my Democratic colleagues jumped up when the President said ``save Social Security first.'' Use that money that is there, that surplus that is coming down the road, and use that to save Social Security. They jumped up, and said, ``Yes; we are going to use that money to save Social Security.'' Here is the first vote of whether we are going to use the surplus to help transition for future generations the Social Security system, or whether we are going to use it for current political needs. I will be honest with you. These are not emergency needs in the real sense of the word. These are not unpredictable needs. As the Senator from Texas said, with respect to defense, I think most Members of the Senate knew we were going to be in Bosnia. I certainly believe the President knew we were going to be in Bosnia. He certainly knew the costs associated with being in Bosnia. I think the President and the people at FEMA and the people here in the Senate knew that the money we appropriated for disasters was not going to be sufficient to be able to fund it. It has not been for the past 7 or 8 years that I can recollect since I have been here. We have always, or seemingly, had some money-- some years more, some years less--for disasters, natural disasters that are out there because we never adequately appropriated. I have to say I took my hat off to the Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond. That is his subcommittee. He has done a tremendous amount of work in trying to get FEMA to come forward with reforms so we don't have this open spigot where the money just flows out of here for natural disasters in some places not particularly well-accounted for. He has done a great job, and, in fact, has a bill before the Environment and Public Works Committee, I believe, to make some reforms in FEMA so we aren't back here every year with the President having this wide latitude to declare emergencies and spend all sorts of money outside of the confines of what we believe emergencies should be. So we have hopefully in place some tools in the future to control the growth or the expansion of these emergencies we have to end up dealing with. But the issue before us now is a very simple one. It is one that I hope we can agree to because it does not affect current outlays, it does not affect the current year budget, and it doesn't put any pain on the administration to come up with money in this year's budget cycle. I had a meeting the other day with the Chief of Naval Operations. He told me that as a result of the operations they deployed--whether it is the gulf, Korea, or Bosnia, or whatever--because of these extended deployments that they have had they have had to continually reprogram-- not money; they can find the money other places within the Defense Department--he is spending more of his time doing bookkeeping or reprogramming money than he is out there leading our sailors. That is not a good position for our CNO to be in. We want him to pay attention, not just to the accounting within the service, but how we are going to be an effective fighting force. So I understand the problems and the concerns. Senator Gramm's amendment and my amendment deals with the issue of not making the CNO go back and find money and shift it all around, but it says: Declare the emergency. You have the money this year, but in future years when we do have an opportunity to put it in context, keep it under the caps. I know the caps are tough. I know Senator Gramm and I, as well as every Member of the Senate, will come to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and say: Mr. Chairman, I am going to need help for this project, or I am going to need this--and I understand that. But I also expect him to do it within the caps, as I expect him to do this within the caps for future year funding. If we do not do that, then that downpayment on transitioning Social Security, that downpayment on creating that pool of money that is going to be so crucial for us to begin to develop a system in Social Security which is going to allow that transition for future generations of Americans to have some hope, some hope that Social Security will be there when they retire, will be frittered away, and all the promises that were made about how we are going to put Social Security first will go by the wayside when some other thing comes up first. I suspect this will not be the last time we do this. We will be back with another emergency bill, I am sure, before the end of the year, and we will have other plans. The President in his budget already has spent some of the surplus with overprojecting his revenues and underprojecting his expenditures, and so the surplus has already been eaten up. Look, I think there is a sincere feeling in this Chamber actually to take the surpluses that we are expecting in the next few years and use them for Social Security. I believe my colleagues, when they say that is what they would like to do with it, that they would like to save Social Security first, we can say that and we can mean it, but we have to do something to ensure that it is there. We have to make sure we are not robbing future generations with appropriations bills, year-to-year appropriations bills, spending more than the caps and thereby winnowing away that surplus. This is our first opportunity to stand up and say we are going to live within the budget and thereby, living within the budget, we will have money available to do what is right for the American public and that is create a Social Security system that will be there for future generations. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. No, I am not.

Mr. SANTORUM. No. Roughly a third is discretionary.

Mr. SANTORUM. Roughly a third. So roughly a third of the $1.7 trillion. So you are talking about around $550 billion. And we are talking about $1.5 billion out of $550 billion.

Mr. SANTORUM. I say to the Senator, I would expect in a $1.6-some trillion budget, that we can in fact find in this case for disasters some $2-plus billion, of which it is not even $2 billion. I think in our opinion it is $3.1 billion--no; less than that--it is $2.5 billion overall. And we are allowing this year's to go as an emergency. So I think $1.5 billion. So we can find $1.5 billion out of the next 5 years'--out of the next 5 years--spending. I think we can do that.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to.

Mr. SANTORUM. Yes. Part of it does come out of defense within our amendment, yes, absolutely. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the issue that was going to be voted on tomorrow, the nomination of Judge Massiah-Jackson to the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania. As you know, she withdrew her name today from consideration for that position. She did so, I believe, in light of the information that has come forward, the controversy surrounding her nomination, and what looked to be very little hope for that nomination to succeed here on the Senate floor. In fact, it has come to my attention that there would have been very strong bipartisan opposition to her nomination and the chances of it succeeding were not very good. So I think, under those circumstances, she decided to withdraw her name. For her sake, I think she did the right thing. I think she has acquitted herself, as an individual, very well and was very restrained under this rather arduous process she has gone through. I know it has been a very difficult time for her and her family. For that she has my empathy and my sympathy, for the difficult time that she had in what turned out to be a very prolonged process that somehow looked more like a Supreme Court nomination as opposed to an eastern district court nomination. That being said, I think it was the right thing for her to withdraw. As I said publicly last week, I was not going to be supportive of her nomination. All in all, what I tried to accomplish from the very beginning of this process was to give Judge Massiah-Jackson--as I would any person nominated from my State by President Clinton--the benefit of the doubt, No. 1, and, No. 2, a fair process--that she would have a fair process, or anybody would have a fair process, when it comes to the commission that I set up with Senator Specter to review judicial nominees or potential judicial nominees from all across Pennsylvania for the district courts. We have what I believe is a stellar commission that is made of terrific people who work very hard to review those nominees. They are, in fact, hamstrung, however, by the limited amount of information that they have. In the case of Judge Massiah-Jackson and others, they are given information, frankly, provided by the candidate--by the person who is interviewing for the position. There is--at least has been--very little done in the way of background checks beyond what the candidate provides or references given. If I can be self-critical here of that process, our process, I would say that probably has to change in the future, that we have to do a little better job of delving deeper into the background of some of the potential nominees for the court. So, in that sense, the process maybe didn't work as well as it should have. The second step in the process was the process of nomination by the President. Again, I suggest the President's process probably did not work as well as it should have, because a lot of information continues to come out. Even today more cases have come forward. The commission, in part, can take blame, but, in part, the White House has to take a little of the blame for not doing a thorough check of the record and finding these problems so these issues would not be coming up so late in the game, that we would have had all these issues before us when we were making the initial decision. In fact, it wasn't done, or, if it was done, it certainly was kept from me and other Members of the Senate until a very late date. So, again, the process, in a sense, failed. Having said all that, we had a nominee in the committee. The committee, I believe, gave Judge Massiah-Jackson a fair hearing at the time given the information that they had. Again, more information continued to come to light, some because, I suspect, it was difficult to ascertain; others, I don't know why. But information continued to come to light and information that, frankly, we had to look at. That was statistical evidence as to the judge's abilities in office, or potential abilities in office. Again, what I was striving for, for this nominee, as I do for all, is to give her a fair hearing, a fair process. That is why Senator Specter and I fought and persuaded the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as well as the majority leader, to withhold any vote on the Senate floor, to allow Judge Massiah-Jackson to go back to committee after these more recent allegations came forward, to be able to respond--in a sense, almost redoing the process again and, in a sense, starting de novo from the second hearing to begin to set the record straight, if you will. In that regard, I thank Senator Lott for his willingness to stand by both Senator Specter and me in support of that second hearing. I think it has to be said that Senator Lott had the right--and, frankly, any other Member in this Chamber had the right--to come forward and ask to table her nomination. When the nomination was before the Senate, anyone could have come out here on the day when it was before the Senate and could have asked for that nomination to be tabled. We would have had a vote, and I think it would have been unfortunate and untimely at that point because she would not have been given an opportunity to respond, as many Members were passionate in opposition to her and felt there was no way by what she said or did at that hearing that she could redeem herself in their eyes. But they were willing to defer to both Senator Specter and myself and to the leader, and to Senator Hatch, to give her an opportunity to respond to her critics. In the end, she did not do so adequately. There were many issues brought up, and, to some, she was able to shed some light on some of the disconcerting information. In the end, at that hearing, she decidedly did not address the grave concerns that had been brought forward on a variety of different subjects, on a variety of different cases, a variety of extrajudicial activities that she was involved with in her courtroom. At that point, I think my sense was, while this process took longer than it should, and certainly the way in which this information came out and all the other oddities with respect to this nomination, I think, in the end, she was given the opportunity to address those issues. I do not believe she did so to the satisfaction--certainly she didn't to my satisfaction, and I don't think she did to a very strong bipartisan majority in the U.S. Senate to overcome the opposition of so many in my State. I received over 500 letters, the vast majority of which were in opposition to her nomination. I received letters from a variety of law enforcement agencies, as well as prosecutors and others in opposition, which I take very seriously. These are officers of the court who do not normally speak out on such issues. I have to take that kind of correspondence and that kind of communication very seriously. I thought they brought out some very relevant and cogent issues with respect to her nomination. I considered those. I wanted to give Judge Massiah- Jackson an opportunity to shed some light on those and perhaps change my perception of those issues. She did not do so in that hearing, in the final analysis. So, as a result, I announced late last week that I would end up opposing her nomination. I did so. It was a very difficult decision. It was very difficult for me to arrive at that decision, as I said earlier in my remarks. I wanted to give, as I do with all nominees of the President--they are not my nominees; they are not people I would have selected. I understand he is the President, opposite party, opposite philosophy. I don't expect him to appoint people I would appoint. So I provide a lot of latitude to his nominees, but within certain range, within certain bounds. In this case, while I tried to give the benefit of the doubt throughout the process, in the end, she was outside the bounds of what I believe to be reasonable conduct and temperament. As a result, I thought it better to oppose her nomination to be promoted to the Federal bench. I will say in closing, I wish Judge Massiah-Jackson well. I, again, have great sympathy for what she went through in the process. Even though Senator Specter and I tried to make it a fair process, it was, nonetheless, a difficult process, one that became somewhat national in scope. Certainly in the city of Philadelphia, it was a very contentious and, unfortunately, overpoliticized atmosphere surrounding this nomination. I understand the difficult time she went through. She, again, has my sympathy. In the end, the withdrawal of her nomination was probably the best thing for all concerned. Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment being offered by Senator Specter, myself, and Senator Moseley-Braun to the transportation bill before us, the mass transit section. Over the past several years, when I was in the House and then here in the Senate, on the issue of welfare reform, one of the great concerns I had with putting time limits on welfare and requiring work was the ability of people, particularly in the inner city, urban areas, to be able to find job opportunities. We know that the urban core is not a job center and a lot of urban poor neighborhoods are not economically well off in the form of job creation. So people who live in these poor urban areas have to have some sort of transportation access to get to the jobs. It has worked in the past fairly well when from the urban neighborhoods outside the center of town--in many cases where the job centers were--people could hop on transportation, a bus, rail, whatever, and go into the downtown area for jobs. That had worked well in the tourism industry, hotel/motel, et cetera. A lot of those jobs are not particularly high skilled because a lot of the urban poor don't have a lot of job skills starting out. The problem with the current economy is that, in many cities, Philadelphia being one of them, the job creation boom is not taking place in the inner city; it's taking place in suburban corridors. In the case of Philadelphia, it is taking place in what's called the Route 202 corridor. In fact, we are not an anomaly. Two-thirds of all new jobs are being created in the suburbs. So you have a very odd situation happening. You have the dramatic increase in jobs; in fact, there is very low unemployment in most areas of the country. But there is still chronically high unemployment in the inner cities and, as a result of the new job creation happening in the suburbs, no transportation link for people in the urban neighborhoods out to the suburbs. Now, they can get to maybe a train station in the suburbs, or a bus station, as the bus that went into town for the commute comes back out of town. But they can't get from that station to their job, which may be in an industrial park somewhere. So that creates a real problem for the suburban business because the suburban business--and I have talked to a lot of suburban manufacturers who tell me they cannot find workers to get to their job sites. Yet, we have a great pool of workers in the inner city. So what Senator Specter and Senator Moseley-Braun and I have sponsored is an authorization of $100 million to be used to encourage and develop reverse commutes. It's a very flexible program. It's a program that says the money is designated by the Secretary, and the Secretary can accept bids from a variety of different regional organizations. The transit organizations, different communities, a whole variety of entities can apply, which will create a tremendous amount of, I believe, and a very positive competition for these dollars and will require innovative plans to get people to the workplace. I believe if we are going to follow through with our commitment of requiring work-- and we are reaching that time now with the bill--and stating that there is a 5-year time limit on benefits where people are going to exhaust that 5-year period of time and they are going to lose their cash benefit--and if there is no opportunity for a job in their own neighborhood or there is no opportunity for a job within transit distance, then we are, in a sense, locking these people into a desperate situation. I don't think that was the intention of the U.S. Senate. It certainly wasn't my intention. So I believe that at least one of the keys to unlocking that situation is to create the opportunity to get out to the suburbs, to get out to where the job growth is occurring, and to provide a transportation network in the area of a reverse commute to do that. I hope that we will get strong bipartisan support for this initiative. This is something that is essential if we are going to follow through. I speak specifically to the Members on this side of the aisle, many of whom are not big fans of mass transit. But mass transit is the lifeblood for millions of people who live in urban America. Millions of people could not go to work; they can't own cars; they don't have the money; they can't afford it in many of the neighborhoods because of insurance rates and everything else, not just the cost of the car. Mass transit is the only way for these people to get to work, and it is essential for us to provide the link. Particularly in the time that we are going to be forcing people off the welfare rolls, it is essential for us to provide the link for those people to get to the job site. We are doing the right thing with welfare reform. We have done the right thing. But now we need to follow up and make sure that those people who want to work, who have in many cases worked hard to get the skills to get into the job market, now have the access to take those jobs. So I thank my colleagues, Senator Specter, Senator Moseley-Braun, and others who are supportive of this amendment. As I said, I hope that we can get very strong bipartisan support for this amendment to be added to the mass transit title. If we do not, then I think we are going to see a lot of big city mayors and a lot of activists descend upon Washington in a couple of years when that 5-year time limit is up, and they are going to say, ``You are telling us to cut these people off and there are no jobs where they live, no jobs within commuting distance of where they live, and we can't do it.'' Welfare reform will have failed. We can't let the transportation issue be the reason for that failure. This money will create incentives for businesses and other people in the suburbs and the city to create a network that doesn't exist now. Once that network is created, then I think we can begin to see, and, in many cases, employers will begin to see, the profitability of having this network in place. I think this money will go a long, long way in inspiring and instituting these kinds of plans. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1931

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I support the McConnell amendment. I believe the constitutional arguments are persuasive. As a member of the Renewal Alliance, I must say that the substitute or the replacement program Senator McConnell put forward is a step in the right direction. I disagree with Senator McCain, who said it is not sufficient. I believe it is. It is, in fact, a good step. Also, if we are able to not table the McConnell amendment, I will be working with Senators Abraham and Coats to see if we can do more, in fact, to put an agenda in place that really will do something for economically disadvantaged areas, and particularly urban areas in this country, so we can in fact create more hope and opportunity in those neighborhoods. That is really the ultimate goal, and I think the McConnell amendment begins to go in that direction.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a very special group of young men from one of the oldest African American Boy Scout units in the nation. On February 7, 1998, eleven members of Troop 358 were officially honored as Eagle Scouts. Troop 358, sponsored by Grace Baptist Church of Germantown, Pennsylvania, has a proud tradition of achievement. In 45 years, Troop 358 has produced a total of 33 Eagle Scouts--including this year's class. To put this in perspective, consider that only 2.5 percent of the nation's 4.5 million scouts ever become Eagle Scouts. Moreover, only about 1 percent of African American scouts reach this goal. Eagle Scouts learn valuable lessons in leadership, honor, and pride in their communities. In fact, the community service projects that the Scouts completed to earn their badges are as extraordinary as the young men themselves. For instance, one new Scout set up a workshop for inner city kids who wanted to prepare for the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Another young man wrapped up his Eagle service project painting a school. Still another ploughed through months of paperwork to complete 8 of his 29 merit badges in one week. Mr. President, these 11 new Eagle Scouts--Jarrett Coger, Jerece Barnes, Askia Fluellen, Bruce Frazier, Andre Kydd, Jared LeVere, Sean Long, Kyle McIntosh, Robert Redding, Ernest Stanton and Anwar White-- are a credit to their families and to their scoutmasters, A. Bruce Frazier and Charles M. Whiting. They are also living tributes to the late Earl Grayson, who led Troop 358 through both good and bad times for 36 years. In closing, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending the Senate's best wishes for continued success to the new Eagle Scouts and to all those who have sustained Troop 358 over its 45 year history.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe. The Senator's amendment will ensure that federal funding is available to construct and operate a nationwide monitoring system for fine particles, and it will allow future designation decisions to be based on three complete years of monitoring data. The amendment would also provide Governors with two years to consider regional transport issues prior to submitting new ozone redesignations. This amendment will not, as some opponents may contend, roll back or delay the new standards. On the contrary, the amendment does not change the new standards and adheres to the President's own time table for achieving them. In fact, this amendment may actually strengthen the new standards by establishing a legally certain schedule for putting them into place. Moreover, this amendment is critically important because it will make sure that future Clean Air Act designations will be based on actual air quality data rather than guesswork and extrapolation. In view of the anticipated costs associated with meeting the new standards, we must take this very simple step. Last summer, when the President announced new air quality standards for soot and smog, he also promised that the Federal Government would work closely with states and local communities to implement these standards in a fair, flexible and cost-effective manner. For many communities in Pennsylvania, the imposition of new standards has been a very bitter pill to swallow, but the promised implementation plan has offered a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. While the President's pledge has been appreciated, it is my view that this amendment is necessary in order to give states and communities reassurance that the promised implementation plan will be followed. Thank you, and I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this amendment codifies a time line for the Administrator to promulgate final designations under the new ozone and PM standards. Is it the Senator's intention that areas in violation because they are heavily impacted by dirty air from other states should be ``held harmless'' in the interim period or not be penalized with more air-pollution controls by being ``bumped up'' to a higher nonattainment status?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if I may, I would like to briefly inquire with my colleague how his amendment will affect areas of my state. It is my understanding that this amendment will not in any way interfere with or delay efforts currently underway by EPA and various states to address the issue of pollution transported across state lines. Is that correct?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, first, I commend the job that the Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, has done this year on this debate, today on this debate, and for his stalwart defense of the first amendment. Let me make a couple of comments about the Snowe-Jeffords amendment and then move on to more general debate. First, let me say about my colleague Senator Snowe, she is constantly here in the U.S. Senate trying to find areas to bring people together to try to solve problems and issues that she has concerns about. She has worked tirelessly, I know, on this and on a variety of other issues to try to find common ground and make things work. I commend her in her effort. I don't agree with the approach she has taken, but I think it is a sincere and honest attempt to meet what she perceives is a great problem in this country. We just happen to disagree on what the problem is, and, thereby, the solution she perceives doesn't meet up with what I see as the problem. We see a different problem. The Senator from North Dakota, maybe unwittingly, said something which I think is exactly the way those who want to restrict the first amendment--to restrict speech--see speech, as other than speech of the candidate. He said, and I am fairly sure I wrote it down at the time, he said, ``Those who want to interfere with Federal elections.'' I just found that remarkable. ``Those who want to interfere with Federal elections,'' as if the election between me and the guy or lady I am running against is really just the two of us and anybody else who wants to speak is interfering with our election: How dare you interfere with my election. Really, that is what this is all about. If I was just concerned about me and my election, I would vote for the Snowe-Jeffords amendment. It is a great thing for me, because what it says is the labor unions, who are going to be salivating to run nasty ads against me in my election, can't do so. That would be a wonderful break for me. And the other groups that want to get together and run nasty, horrible things about me--and I am sure they can find nasty, horrible things to say about everybody in this Chamber--can't do so. That is a wonderful thing for me. I would like this to apply to the newspapers and everybody else so nobody can criticize me and I can get up and say what I want and the other guy can say what he or she wants. That is fine; it is just the two of us. But that is not the way democracy works, nor should it work that way. I think the problem this amendment tries to address is a nonexistent problem. The problem is, as the Senator from North Dakota eloquently said, that they believe there are too many people interfering with our elections. I don't believe there are too many people. I think that is part of the public discourse. It is something I don't like. When my kids see a nasty thing about their daddy on television, I don't like them to see it. Their mom doesn't like to see it. My parents don't like to see it. But I am going to defend on the floor of the U.S. Senate to my dying day the right to say it, because that is how democracy works best. When plenty of people interfere with the election, the more people we can get to interfere the better, because the public is then heard. It is not always pleasant, not always to my advantage, certainly, but it is important to be heard. So I stand up today and say, yes, labor unions should be able to run ads, they should be able to run ads right up until the day of the election and voice for their members who voluntarily contribute to their PAC their concerns about issues and their concerns about the candidates for election. It is their right to do so. In fact, I believe it is their obligation to do so. On the broader issue of the McCain-Feingold bill or the Snowe- Jeffords amendment and others, what they try to do is put up roadblocks. What this reminds me of is a tax bill. You say, ``How does this remind you of a tax bill?'' Do you know what it does when Congress passes a tax bill? What it does is employ a lot of lawyers and accountants to figure out ways to try to beat the bill, because this is what it is about. We put up little roadblocks here and there to catch money to fill in the cracks to fill our coffers. That is how the tax bills work, to try to plug these loopholes or get rid of this subsidy, or whatever, that was ``unintended.'' That is pretty much what they are saying. These were ``unintended things.'' We didn't want all this speech out there, so we just need to plug the loopholes. By plugging the loopholes, all you do is put a lot of smart people to work figuring out how to beat it. That is how soft money was created. Soft money was created because we have a limit on how much money you can give directly to a candidate. In Pennsylvania, we have Governor races and attorneys general races, statewide races. There is no soft money in Pennsylvania. You don't need soft money in Pennsylvania. If you want to contribute to a candidate, you can give any amount you want. It is reported, everybody knows about it, but there is no need to give money to XYZ organization to indirectly spend the money on something to benefit the candidate. You can give it directly to the candidate. The reason soft money has grown in importance is because we have a limit of $1,000 per person in each election cycle set 25 years ago. I can tell you some have suggested inflation has tripled during that timeframe. I can tell you campaigns have probably gone up tenfold or more in expense during that timeframe, and we have kept the contribution limit the same, thus the need for some way around the system. The original campaign finance reform put barriers in place, and so smart people figured out how to get around the barriers. We can stand up here and say, ``Oh, well, we need to plug this loophole and we need to stop here.'' All we are going to do is create some other legal fiction out there to walk their way around it, in so doing, hiding from the public people's participation in the process. The greatest campaign finance reform we can do is dramatically increase the limits on contributions. Do you want to solve in great measure soft money? Do you want to solve independent expenditures and all those other things? Dramatically increase at least three or fourfold the amount an individual can give directly to the candidate, increase the disclosure of that amount so it has to be much more prompt than it is today, and I will tell you what you are going to do. Soft money will be a thing of the past. Oh, there will still be some around here and there, but it will not be the big factor that everybody thinks it is now, because the money will go directly to the candidate. I guarantee it. That is where they want it to go now, but it can't go there, so they find the loophole. I guarantee you, if you plug one loophole, another one will come along, if, in fact, the Court allows you to plug the loophole in the first place, which I don't believe it will. So we have well-intentioned people here who see this as a problem of money, too much money. I hear this when I go back home: ``Don't Members of Congress spend all this time raising money?'' I might be wrong, maybe Senator McConnell has a number on this, maybe we have taken a survey within the Senate, but I would bet that roughly half the Members of the U.S. Senate don't pick up the phone and raise money as a rule. Maybe Members won't pick up the phone and raise money. They hire people to do that. I occasionally pick up the phone and raise money. I probably do so more than most. Usually, I am not raising it for me; I am trying to raise it for other folks back home who need help or other Senators running in other places, and I try to help them out. But I will tell you, if it takes at most a half hour out of the week--at most a half an hour out of the week--that is a busy week on average for me raising money. If you find that to be too much time on the phone raising money, I would beg to differ with you. I can think of lots of things I can do for a half hour a week that is a greater waste of time than raising money on a telephone, that I could use my time more productively. Again, we sort of prop up these straw figures and say, ``Here is the problem, here is the problem; there is too much money.'' I think democracy is important, I think what we do here is important, and I think people should have a right to express their opinion. Yes, people can go out on the street corner and talk all they want, but if nobody hears them, that really isn't very effective speech. I don't think we should put any limits on people being able to take out a newspaper ad or to sign onto an Internet provider and post something up on a bulletin board somewhere saying, ``Rick Santorum voted the wrong way on this, and you folks who are concerned about [whatever issue] should know this.'' I think that is fine. I don't like it, but I think it is fine. It is essential--it is essential--for us to be accountable to the people. What we are trying to do with all these restrictions and all these limits is isolate the people. I hear this talk that this is not about speech; this is about power. I agree. There is no comment--I heard it yesterday--there is no comment I agree with more. You are right; this is about power. It is where the power is going to rest, in the citizens of the United States, or the power is going to rest right here or in the boardrooms of NBC, ABC and all the other affiliates and newspapers and media outlets around the country, because that is where the power is going to go if things like McCain-Feingold and other measures pass. They are going to go out--this great sucking sound; that is a common thing we hear now--it is going to come out of your ability to speak and right into the corporate boardrooms that own media outlets. Senator Roberts was absolutely right, the reason the media is foursquare behind this is because when they shut you up, their voice becomes more important. It is as simple as that. If you can't speak, what they write in their newspapers becomes much more important, because it is one of fewer things out there. It is not overstating the fact, the case, that this debate is central to democracy in this country, and that those who, well-intentioned as they are, want to solve the money problem, it is not by muzzling people in the process. Give people the right to speak and democracy will be just fine. Thank you, Mr. President.

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 just want to thank the majority leader, again, for his willingness to cooperate with both Senator Specter and me in our request that Judge Massiah-Jackson's nomination not be voted on here in the next few days but that the process be able to be worked out and worked through, a hearing to be held. I know Senator Specter, who cannot be here right now, fully supports this process that we now have begun to get her a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. And then I hope very promptly to bring her back to the floor of the U.S. Senate for a vote. I would not like to see this nomination hang out for a long period of time after the hearing. I don't think that would be fair, again, to her or to the process, or to the President who I know, in having conversations with the White House, they would like to see this matter be dealt with in an expeditious fashion after the hearing takes place. A hearing will not be able to take place until the week after next because we are not in session next week. So I am hopeful we can bring this judge up for a final vote here in the U.S. Senate within a 3-week period of time, maybe a 4-week period of time. I think that would be appropriate for her and I think appropriate for the Senate at some point to pass judgment on this nominee. I think it is important when the President puts a nominee up who has had, certainly, the amount of attention that this nominee has had, that the Senate, all Members, get an opportunity to express their opinion as to whether this nominee has the credentials and qualifications and qualities necessary to serve on the Federal judiciary. With that, I again thank the majority leader and thank my colleagues for allowing this procedure. There are things that could have been done. I talked to several of my colleagues about those things that could be done. The Senator from Missouri and others would have liked to vote today. In fact they could force a vote today. It is within the right of any Senator on this nomination to offer a tabling motion, which would bring the debate to a stop and cause a vote. They have agreed to not do that and I appreciate that very much. They could have derailed this effort. But their indulgence in allowing what two home State Senators believe is a fair process, their indulgence in allowing what we believe to be a fair process, in acquiescing to those desires, is noble indeed and very much appreciated. So I thank the Senators from Alabama, Missouri, and others who have expressed a willingness to expedite consideration of this nominee, for their willingness to withhold and allow the process to work out just a few more weeks. And then take the nominee back to the floor. There will be no vote in committee. She will not be recommitted to committee. There will be no action necessary by the committee. Her nomination will remain on the floor of the U.S. Senate and will be eligible to be recalled by the leader at his discretion, which is our understanding, subsequent to the hearing in the Judiciary Committee. So that is the state of play, if you will, of this nomination, and it is one I find wholly acceptable at this point. I know my colleague, Senator Specter, does also.