Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to continue the discussion on the judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Massiah-Jackson. Within the past 24 hours, I and Senator Specter have been talking to the majority leader, to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to those who are in opposition to her nomination in an attempt to resolve a lot of issues. And what Senator Specter and I have referred to, to complete this process of consideration in what we believe is the only fair way to do so, is to have an additional hearing for her to be able to respond to the information that has been presented so publicly now to the Congress and the Senate with respect to her nomination. The majority leader is intending to come down in the next 15, 20 minutes to make a statement, which I fully support, and I know Senator Specter supports, which will, in a sense, move this nomination aside for now and have this nominee be given the opportunity to appear before the Judiciary Committee and answer this new information, or respond to the questions of members of the Judiciary Committee. That is all I have been asking for since the leader scheduled this nomination. I am hopeful that after we go out on recess next week, there will be scheduled a Judiciary Committee meeting for people who have provided the information to present that information formally to the committee, be questioned by committee members, and then for Judge Massiah-Jackson to have the opportunity to answer the charges that have been leveled against her. That will complete, in my mind, the process of fair consideration. Her nomination will remain here on the floor. It will remain on the Executive Calendar, and subsequent to the hearing, the majority leader will call the nomination up for a vote at that time. That is, again, all I have been requesting from the leader--is to give this process time to play out, fairness dictating the order of the day, and then give the Senate the opportunity to pass judgment as to whether we believe that she should be a judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. So I see this as a very favorable resolution of what I have been asking for in the past 24 hours. I thank the majority leader for his patience. This has been somewhat of a difficult ordeal having to juggle all the different sides on this issue. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his willingness to hold another hearing. He knows that he has not been formally requested to do so by the Senate but has volunteered to make the committee available to further give Judge Massiah-Jackson the opportunity to respond to this new information that has been provided. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Missouri has more to say on this nomination. He is ready to go. So I yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Pennsylvania. I too feel that we here in the Senate, when it comes to justice, really should be jurors, and that we should get all the information. The information shared, I think, as correctly stated by my colleague from Pennsylvania and by the Senator from Alabama, was well presented. But that is information that we received from the District Attorneys Association opposed to her nomination, without any rebuttal or explanation from Judge Massiah- Jackson. I will admit that some of those cases I find it hard to find out what a good explanation would be. But that is not for me to prejudge, nor as a juror should you prejudge those things. So I am willing to listen. I think she needs to be given an opportunity. The leader has not been on the floor since we brought up this nomination. I am not too sure that we are going to get a resolution today as to how to proceed with her nomination. But I am hopeful that either this evening or sometime tomorrow we will be able to come up with a plan on how we are going to proceed with her nomination and have her nomination received in a fair fashion. Again, I respect her. I think Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy mentioned that a hearing by the Judiciary Committee would accord the judge an opportunity to face this new information and respond to it, and give the police and the prosecutorial community an opportunity to present such evidence and such testimony to the committee that they believe is important for us to consider. So I hope that a full committee hearing goes through, if necessary. I am not on the committee. So I can charge them with whatever I please because I don't have to sit through it; but at least take a number of these cases as a representative sampling of these cases and go through them one by one and make a determination as to the justification that Judge Massiah-Jackson had in making these decisions. So I am hopeful that that is the next order of business, that somehow or other we can come to some accommodation with the leader, who I know wants to vote on this nominee as quickly as possible in response to the President's urgings of up-or-down votes on his judges. I know that many here, as you heard, would like to vote on this judge today. We are not going to vote on this judge today. Senator Specter and I don't want to vote on this judge today, and I believe there are many Members on the other side of the aisle who don't want to vote on this judge today. But we would like the judge to be given a chance and then to have a vote. Let's let the string run out, if you will, give her an opportunity to respond, have a vote somewhat promptly thereafter, and then let the Senate act as the jury, which we know it is very good at doing. Mr. President, with that I will yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to support what seems to be a growing notion on the floor that we not vote on this nominee today, that we take an opportunity for the sake of fairness to give Judge Massiah-Jackson the opportunity to respond to the new information provided by the district attorneys association. I had to leave the floor for the past few minutes, and I missed most of the remarks of my colleague from Pennsylvania. There were some folks from Core State who wanted to talk about the Core State-First Union merger which is a very important issue in my state. I have been informed that Senator Specter went through some of the history of how this nomination came to this point, and I think it serves us well to understand that this information has come out late, that the opportunity was made available to anyone to not only testify in Philadelphia--Senator Specter and myself and Senator Biden held a hearing in Philadelphia to seek information, as well as the Judiciary Committee held its hearing. Information could have been provided. I must admit that for a period of several months prior to the nominee coming up before the committee I was provided a whole bunch of information slid under the door, thrown over the transom, but not information that was in fact stood behind by anybody willing to come forward and say this is what the record indicates and go on the record. It led me to have some very serious concerns about the nominee, but, as Senator Hatch said, I am not going to make a decision on a judge based on information that someone is not willing to stand up in the public light and testify to. Senator Specter and I have a joint committee that reviews nominees to be district court judges in Pennsylvania. We both have an equal number of representations--a bipartisan committee. They review the qualifications of a judge, basically resume and other kinds of information. In fact, we ask several questions of the judge, but the judge provides us with the information, and we make a decision based on that information we receive. Judge Massiah-Jackson was approved by that commission. As a result, my policy is to support anybody who gets approved by the commission and then subsequently nominated by the President, to support that nominee's right to come out of committee and come to the floor of the Senate. I have on occasion not too long ago actually held judges and objected to judges being considered by the committee and coming to the floor of the Senate from the State of Pennsylvania because the commission that Senator Specter and I have did not find that individual to be qualified. They did find Judge Massiah- Jackson to be qualified. Therefore, I agreed to support her through this process until it reached the floor. I always left open the opportunity, and still do, to judge as to whether I believe that person should be finally approved by the Senate. In the case of Judge Massiah-Jackson I have very serious concerns that she is in fact going to be a good judge on the Eastern District in Pennsylvania. The charges that have been put forward by the district attorneys association and others I think are very serious. The cases you have heard from Senator Hatch and I know others will be talking about today raise very serious concerns about her respect for law enforcement and her treatment of criminals on both her record as far as a finder of fact in nonjury trials as well as her sentencing as a result of being the finder of fact. So those things I have very grave concerns about, but having said all that I don't think it is fair for the Senate to move forward and vote on a nominee who has not had the opportunity to respond. I just think that would be unprecedented. These allegations, unfortunately, came in at the last minute, came in almost after the last minute. Judge Massiah-Jackson actually almost was approved before we left at the end of last year but an objection was raised by two Senators for that approval. Otherwise, she would have been approved by unanimous consent here. Two Senators objected to that approval. It was only after that-- in fact not immediately after that because that happened in November. It was 2 months later that this information came out--not 2 months but almost 2 months later that this information came out in a letter from the district attorney of Philadelphia and the neighborhood who voiced her concern and her opposition and obviously the district attorneys association followed suit, or I guess about the same time came forward and said they objected. Subsequently, the fraternal order of police in Philadelphia objected, then the State and then the national. So we had this sort of drip, drip, drip of opposition come out, and I am not questioning whether it is legitimate or not. These are, obviously, very important substantive issues, but I must admit I am a bit concerned and bothered by the fact it came out at such a late time and in such a, I think, unprofessional fashion. We needed to have this information before the committee when the committee brought her nomination up for confirmation. It was only fair to the judge to do that. And I think these allegations coming out at the time they are have not been fair to her, so I think for the Senate to move forward at this point would be an additional unfairness to this candidate. And so I would encourage my colleague, the Senator from Utah, as well as the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, to coordinate, whether we have to do it by some formal action in the Senate or preferably by some informal action, that we delay this nominee today, give her the opportunity to come before the Judiciary Committee and have an opportunity to be heard and to respond to these allegations, and they are serious, but I frankly think the more serious the more I feel compelled to give her the opportunity to respond. If they were not so serious, then I would say, well, let's just move forward. But the fact they are serious I think fairness requires her to come before the committee and give her accounting of these fact situations. And what are they? Well, 50 cases have been brought to our attention here in the last few weeks, 50 cases that have been delivered to us for the last year in which she was a judge. I believe she was a criminal court judge about 7 years. I could be wrong by a half year or so. The last year they went through her records and of 400 some cases, they pulled 50 to show what they believe is conduct that shows a disrespect for the rule of law and a very soft approach on crime. I must admit I have read the summaries of all 50 of those cases and I am troubled by not all of them but certainly most of them. I also understand that is the synopsis of the district attorneys association as to what the facts were in the cases, and I would think it is only fair that we hear what the judge's perspective is as to what the facts at least alleged in these summaries are before we make the decision in the Senate. And so again I think on that count the judge deserves an opportunity. Other information has been brought forward as to her sentencing record. Again, that was somewhat reviewed by the committee. They are taking a little different angle. But these are nuances that I think are important, when it comes to sentencing, she have an opportunity to provide at least some light on the subject. There is the issue of her acquittal rate. According to the district attorneys association, her acquittal rate is much higher than the average judge. When I say acquittal rate, acquittal when she sits as finder of fact in a nonjury trial--that her rate of acquittal is higher than the average rate of acquittal, on all charges I might add, on all charges of the average judge in Philadelphia. In fact, in the last 4 years it is three times the rate of the average judge in Philadelphia. Again, I am not an expert in the way the court system functions in Philadelphia. I don't know what division of the court she was sitting in. I don't know what that means. Is it maybe as the result of the kind of cases she was hearing? I think those are important questions we have to ask her and, frankly, ask the district attorneys association or the district attorney of Philadelphia at a hearing so we can understand in a little broader picture what the facts are with respect to her acquittal rate. So those are just some of the things that while on the face of it I must admit are troubling and may continue to be troubling if the response, Judge Massiah-Jackson's responses are not satisfactory, I think the opportunity to respond is imperative. So I rise to support what hopefully will be the order of the day here which is to give everyone an opportunity to be heard but hopefully then give Judge Massiah-Jackson the opportunity to be heard. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a distinguished public servant upon his retirement as President Judge of the Philadelphia Traffic Court. Born and raised in Philadelphia, Charles Cuffeld devoted his life to the city. Charles will be sincerely missed not only for the vision and leadership he brought to his office, but also for his integrity and character. On December 24, 1991, Governor Robert Casey appointed Charles President Judge of the Philadelphia Traffic Court. Charles became the first African-American President Judge to serve in either the Traffic Court or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Prior to this appointment, he had served as an elected Traffic Court judge since 1982. Early in his tenure, President Judge Cuffeld established goals to improve the Court's productivity, increase public accessibility, and foster public respect for the law. Most would agree that great strides were achieved in each of these areas. For instance, President Judge Cuffeld modernized the Court's operations. Internal communication was enhanced through technological improvements. A clear chain of command was established for the Traffic Court departments. Supervisors were educated on personnel regulations. Several departments were reorganized, and employees were cross-trained in all departments. Even the judges were sent to annual training and recertification programs. Likewise, the Traffic Court under President Judge Cuffeld developed working relationships with other law enforcement agencies, interdepartmental units, and the local media. Other initiatives made Traffic Court more accessible. Expanded payment operations, night court, motion court, and outreach court, in which surrounding neighborhood police stations hosted Traffic Court, were among these important programs. Finally, President Judge Cuffeld strengthened traffic law enforcement programs. In fact, some initiatives have been so successful that Canadian and other foreign officials have expressed interest in duplicating them. Beyond his judicial service, Charles has participated in many community-oriented organizations. He has served on the Mayor's Office of Community Services Advisory Board and the Boy Scouts Unity District Council. Currently, Charles is a member of the Salvation Army Advisory Board and a Director of Concerned Black Men, Inc. I am also very proud to note that Charles serves on my own Military Academy Review Board. An even more revealing testament of Charles' commitment to public service is the fact that organizations across the political and ideological spectrum have honored him. Both the V.F.W. and the N.A.A.C.P. named him Man of the Year. For outstanding community service, he received a Congressional Certificate of Merit. He is a two- time recipient of the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Highway Safety Award. WCAU-TV Channel 10 presented him the Spirit of Philadelphia News Award. He has received a Certificate of Appreciation from the Philadelphia Police Department. Finally, Charles has also been honored with the North Philadelphia Youth Investment Award. In closing, Mr. President, Charles Cuffeld set a new standard for the Philadelphia Traffic Court. He worked to raise awareness of the law, to enforce the law, and to bring justice to the people. During his tenure as President Judge, Charles bought the same passion for the law to his work as an administrator. He skillfully modernized the court, handled personnel matters, ensured his judges kept up to date on legal developments, and improved communication operations. Equally important is the care and compassion he has shown for the community. Charles is the product of hard work, focused determination, and a strong sense of civic responsibility. He is a fine role model for those who have been fortunate enough to know him. As President Judge Charles Cuffeld retires from public life, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending the Senate's best wishes to him and his family.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to offer a measure to revise the Honey Research, Promotion and Consumer Information Act, the statute under which the National Honey Board is organized. Briefly, my bill would impose a penny per pound assessment on handlers and importers of honey. This will increase the research budget of the Honey Board by approximately $500,000; and enable the industry to fund research programs aimed at addressing the serious problems caused by viruses, parasitic mites, and Africanized bees. The bill also changes the constitution of the National Honey Board to improve packer representation on the board to reflect the imposition of a new assessment on honey handlers. Under my amendments, packers would have a total of four seats versus the current two. Producer and importer representation on the board will not change. In developing my legislation, I worked the American Beekeeping Federation, which represents more than 1,400 honey producers nationwide. The amendments have the support of a broad coalition including producers, packers, and importers, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort by approving this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will phase out the peanut quota program over 6 years, with the quota system being eliminated beginning in crop year 2002. I am joined in this effort by my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, as well as other original cosponsors. Under our legislation, the price support for peanuts grown for edible consumption is gradually reduced each year from the current support price of $610 per ton to $445 per ton by 2001. In the year 2002 and ensuing years, there would be no quotas on peanuts and the Secretary of Agriculture would be required to make non-recourse loans available to all peanut farmers at 85 percent of their estimated market value, consistent with the non-recourse loan program available for other agricultural commodities. In year 2002, and thereafter, the non- recourse loan is capped at the current world price of $350 per ton. In determining quotas for the crop years 1998 through 2001, the Secretary would be required to consult with representatives of the entire industry. The Secretary would also be required to consider stocks in Commodity Credit Corporation's inventory at the beginning of the new crop year as well as a reasonable carryover to permit orderly marketing at the end of the crop year. The bill also authorizes the complete sale, lease or transfer of poundage quotas across county and state lines. It abolishes the current limitation that now restricts sales, leases, and transfers to no more than 40 percent of the total poundage quota in the county within a state. Under current law, additional peanuts (those produced in excess of the farmers' poundage quota) may only be sold for export or crushing. The bill would permit additional peanuts to also be used for sale to the Department of Defense, as well as to other federal, state or local government agencies, including for use in the school lunch program. Mr. President, the federal peanut program is an anachronism. Born in the 1930's during an era of massive change and dislocation in agriculture, the program is sorely out of place in today's vibrant agricultural sector. While other farm commodities are seeking new export opportunities abroad, building new markets and helping to improve our national balance of trade; the peanut industry is building new barriers to protect its rapidly diminishing industry. Certainly imports are a factor, but the true threat to America's peanut farmer is the very quota system that he so stubbornly protects. Industry statistics show that the quota program is causing the demand for peanuts to fall sharply. 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 $500 million annually, and adds to the cost of feeding programs for low-income Americans. This program must be changed. As sponsors of this measure, however, my colleagues and I recognize that the peanut program cannot be repealed overnight. That is why we are proposing a fair transition period to 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. I am pleased that Senators DeWine, Chafee, Coats, Gregg, and Feingold have joined Senator Lautenberg and I as original sponsors of this measure, and I encourage my colleagues to support swift enactment of this important legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to offer a measure to revise the Honey Research, Promotion and Consumer Information Act, the statute under which the National Honey Board is organized. Briefly, my bill would impose a penny per pound assessment on handlers and importers of honey. This will increase the research budget of the Honey Board by approximately $500,000; and enable the industry to fund research programs aimed at addressing the serious problems caused by viruses, parasitic mites, and Africanized bees. The bill also changes the constitution of the National Honey Board to improve packer representation on the board to reflect the imposition of a new assessment on honey handlers. Under my amendments, packers would have a total of four seats versus the current two. Producer and importer representation on the board will not change. In developing my legislation, I worked the American Beekeeping Federation, which represents more than 1,400 honey producers nationwide. The amendments have the support of a broad coalition including producers, packers, and importers, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort by approving this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Chester-Wallingford chapter of the American Red Cross. The third oldest Red Cross chapter in the United States, this organization will, in 1998, celebrate 100 years of continuous service to the community. With 400 volunteers and 4 staff members, the Chester-Wallingford Chapter carries out the Red Cross's mission of ``providing relief to victims of disasters and helping people prevent, prepare for, and respond to emergencies.'' Following disasters, the Red Cross supplies victims with groceries, clothing, temporary housing, transportation, and medicine. Blood drives are another important initiative. Every 2 seconds, somebody needs a blood transfusion. The Chester-Wallingford chapter proudly helps satisfy this need by providing thousands of gallons of blood to area hospitals. As members of our Nation's Armed Forces serve overseas, the Red Cross facilitates communication between the soldiers and their families. Other public services provided by this organization include first aid, CPR, and swimming lessons. The Chester-Wallingford chapter has helped soldiers and veterans of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm in times of need. The Red Cross has provided financial assistance to servicemen and servicewomen for emergency travel, health needs, and in some cases, burial assistance. Likewise, dedicated workers and volunteers have helped many veterans settle benefit claims. Finally, the Chester-Wallingford chapter has provided numerous supportive services to patients in VA hospitals. Mr. President, I commend the Chester-Wallingford chapter of the American Red Cross for its commitment to the people of southeastern Pennsylvania. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending the Senate's best wishes for continued success to the staff and volunteers as they prepare to celebrate the chapter's centennial.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I rise today to congratulate the Defense Industry Initiative on Business Ethics and Conduct for its 11 years of active effort in creating high standards of business ethics, business conduct, and compliance in the defense industry. I know that many of my colleagues in the Senate are not familiar with the unique DII effort. In 1986, the DII was created as an outgrowth of the work of the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, known as the Packard Commission. At that time, a number of leading defense contractors drafted a set of DII Principles. These Principles obligated signatory companies to have written codes of conduct, to distribute the codes to all of their employees, to have ethics training programs which made certain that employees understood the codes, to have a hotline or ombudsman system, to have systems to make voluntary disclosures of violations of law or regulation to the Government, to attend annual best practices forums, and to participate in a public accountability process. The group of DII signatory companies has grown over these 11 years to 48 companies, including virtually all of the largest defense contractors. To be frank, I would think that at least all of our hundred largest defense contractors should be willing to sign up publicly to the Defense Industry Initiative Principles. Therefore, I call upon those companies that are among this group which, for whatever reason, are not presently signatories to sign this statement in order to pledge themselves to the Defense Department and to the public as being committed to these ideals. On June 5 and 6, 1997, in Washington, DC, the DII conducted its 12th Best Practices Forum. This session included some 160 representatives of the signatory companies and 40 senior Government officials. The program was a state-of-the-art exploration of best practices in corporate ethics and compliance programs. I understand that the Defense Industry Initiative is the only industry ethics initiative of its type. There are any number of other industries which have had sufficient ethical problems and should consider something equivalent. I will conclude by saying that all the evidence available to me suggests that the participation of these 47 companies has had a very positive impact on their levels of compliance, as well as in the tone of the relationship with the Government. I am certain that we all recall the events that gave rise to the creation of the Packard Commission--things such as high price spare parts or improper labor charging. It is my understanding that the Government audits show that the level of such problems has dropped dramatically among these DII signatory companies. Furthermore, I believe that the DII effort has forged a true partnership in the best sense of the word between Government officials responsible for procurement and those in industry who design, develop, and manufacture the items necessary for our national defense. So that the contribution that has been made and the excellent work that has been done can be fully recognized, I would like to place into the Congressional Record a list of those companies which are signatories to the DII. All of these defense contractors are to be congratulated for the leadership they have shown and their accomplishments to date. I am sure that we can count on them to continue this exemplary work in the future. And I hope other defense contractors can be counted on to join this important effort.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Madam President. Hopefully this will provide an opportunity for the chairman to get some of the Members to the floor, and break up this discussion which is using all of your time. Let me first rise, having sat in the chair for the last hour. I listened to much of the debate. As someone who has been listening and who voted against NAFTA, someone who had some of the same concerns that the Senator from South Carolina voiced about the structure of the Government, judicial system, and other things, and as a result I felt very comfortable voting against NAFTA. But in the House I voted for fast track because I believe that it is important for us to continue to expand our trade horizons. We are not debating the trade agreement. We have seen lots of things about the trade deficit, balance of trade, and all of these other things. But that is not really at issue here because we are not debating a trade agreement. We are debating really a process--not an agreement. And the process is for the ability of the President to be able to sit down and negotiate a deal that is going to open up markets around the world, hopefully in South America. The Senator from South Carolina said he was ready to vote for an expansion of NAFTA to Chile possibly. We may have that opportunity. I don't think we get to that opportunity, which I think is an important one for this country, unless we have fast-track authority for this President. I would like to see the same frankly for Argentina and Brazil. I think it would be a tremendous opportunity for this country to expand our markets in the hemisphere to countries that are capable of competing on a fair basis with this country. Those are great opportunities for American workers as well as for better economic and diplomatic relationships between the countries in North and South America. So, I see this not only as economic but also as a cultural and diplomatic opportunity for us. But it does not happen unless we put the process in place for the President to negotiate these agreements. I know the Senator said there are lots of other agreements that have been negotiated. That is true. But these are major negotiations. These are negotiations that without a structure such as fast track I don't believe you are going to get an honest negotiation with one side sitting across from the other and saying, ``Let's put together our best agreement. Let's work on give and take. You give. I give. We work on all of the details on how we structure a formalization of free trade between to two countries.'' And say, ``Oh, by the way, after I have given up some and you have given up some, and we have been able to negotiate as best we can to a final agreement, I am going to take it back to the Congress, and they can change it and put it all back in our favor.'' I don't know of too many countries that are going to be willing to do that, who are going to be willing to sit down in the first place and say, ``We are going to negotiate with you in good faith, and, by the way, your good faith means nothing because you cannot stand behind your word because the Congress can come, amend, and change what we negotiated in a final agreement.'' That is what makes this debate somewhat vexing in my mind because we are talking about all of these horrible inequities that have resulted as a result of our trade policy. The people who are arguing against fast track want to continue our trade policy. This policy they say is so bad, they want to keep it in place by not allowing the President to negotiate better agreements with other countries or in the world bodies to be able to open up trade to create a better trade opportunity for us around the world. So I don't understand, and frankly, I am a little disturbed that we keep hearing the rhetoric of bad trade and horrible agreements at the same time not wanting to change those to make them better for this country. I think fast track is the opportunity to do that.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am accepting the Senator's arguments as true--that in fact what you are signifying happened is true. By staying there and not changing things does the Senator think things would get better? To me that is the sin of when you believe that you tried the same thing, and you are going to get a different result by trying the same thing. Then you start to wonder what the thinking is.

Mr. SANTORUM. I voted against NAFTA. So I think I have some legitimacy here. I am not debating that some of the agreements we have entered into in this country--you can't say only the ones entered into under fast track. We have entered into a lot of other agreements that have had an impact. But I am not debating that there are agreements that have not been beneficial to the balance of trade to this country. What I am debating is that by not changing any of those agreements somehow things are going to get better. That is really the argument here--unless we make change in those agreements things will not get better. We cannot make those changes unless we have fast track.

Mr. SANTORUM. Certainly. I am happy to yield.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his kind comments earlier, as well as for his tremendous support of the issue which I rise to talk about in the bill. He has been very cooperative, to the nth degree, in making sure this funding is in the bill. What I am talking about is actually an increase in the amount of funding for a national park that I think is one of the most significant and important national parks we have in this country, the Gettysburg National Battlefield, a battle which represents the high-water mark of the confederacy. It is in my State of Pennsylvania. I have had the privilege of being there on many occasions and, for the most part, they have been very sad occasions. They are times when I have to go up and look at the state of disrepair of the battlefield, the absolute horrendous conditions in which some of the most significant Civil War artifacts are kept. They are kept in basements that are damp. There is rot on most of the artifacts, uniforms, soldiers' diaries, archeological artifacts, and historical photographs. They are rotting away because we have absolutely no place to put them. We also have many farmhouses that were there used during the battle, which are crumbling and falling apart because we don't have any money to fix them. Mr. President, there was an article in the Washington Post today on Gettysburg, and there was one in USA Today also on Gettysburg. One referred to the ``next battle of Gettysburg,'' which is the attempt by the Park Service--I think a very important attempt--to relocate the visitors' center, which sits on Cemetery Ridge right in the middle of the Union line. New facilities are desperately needed given the condition of the artifacts I mentioned, to restore the battlefield to its intended condition, which should be its condition at the time of the battle, and to move the visitor center to another location in or near the park. The proposal referred to in the news articles is to move the visitors' center to a location in the park where there was no fighting that occurred and where no one died. The primary reason for the Park Service seeking a public-private partnership to build the new facilities is, No. 1, the current facilities are located in a place where they should not be and to provide better preservation and restoration of the artifacts and monuments. I visited the battlefield a month ago and reviewed some of the cannon carriages. There are some 400 cannons of which 380 are in absolute horrible condition. In fact, they are breaking apart, cracking, and the paint is chipping off. You have little kids running around on the battlefield climbing on top of the cannons with paint peeling away. If that happened in a city, or in a house, all the inspectors in the world would say that you have to do something to repair these cannon carriages. But we don't have the money, at least not until today. As much as the funding today will help, Gettysburg also needs the new visitor center, and they need the private-public partnership because there just isn't enough money in the budget to build a new facility. We can't get the capital funds. This new proposal, however, is meeting with some controversy from preservationists who feel we should leave things alone. If we leave things alone, though, Gettysburg won't be here very much longer--at least the historical documents and artifacts and monuments. I was at the Pennsylvania monument recently, one of the largest at the park. It is a grand thing. It is a dome-shaped monument. You can walk through it and under it--but not when it rains because it leaks, the water drips right down on you. You walk around and you see monuments that you can't even make out who it is a monument to anymore because they are just worn. That is no condition for this hallowed ground to be in. I, again, thank the Senator from Washington because I came to him with this plea after being, frankly, shocked and emotionally moved, after having been to that battleground on several occasions, and pleaded with him to do something about this state of the battlefield. He said, ``Tell me what you need and we will make sure that we fight for it.'' And through the process he was there every step of the way and did fight valiantly, and we have succeeded in getting an additional million dollars. But I will be very honest with you. That is a start. We also need to move forward with this new visitor center. I know it may be controversial. I know people are saying we have to wait and see. I am willing to listen to the preservationists and to those who have concerns about the new location being proposed by the Park Service. But we cannot delay long. We need to move forward to construct, No. 1, a suitable place for us to keep these artifacts. If we do not move forward and build a new facility that has the kinds of conditions, whether it is humidity, temperature, sunlight, and other things, to adequately display the park's treasures, they will be lost. One such treasure is the cyclorama painting that was painted back in 1880's. Today, the canvas is rippled. It is being destroyed, damaged by time, by humidity, by the misconstruction of the building when it was first put in. We need to act now to preserve and restore it. Today is a first step. I commend the committee and the Senator from Washington. We have made a first step today. We need to be vigilant on this. We need to come back and work further for more aid for this park and others to make sure that we can keep these hallowed grounds in a condition that we can be proud of and that we can preserve for posterity. So I rise to make my colleagues aware of the reasons for which this appropriation was targeted, and I encourage the President to be supportive of this additional appropriation. I also encourage him to do all he can to make sure on the Executive side that we move forward with the Park Service in some way quickly to get this new visitor center constructed, so we can begin to turn this park around to preserve our terrific assets, as well as to present a much better historical educational opportunity for people who come to visit the park. I thank the Chair. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the professionalism, dedication, vision, and public service of Mr. R. Noel Longuemare, who is retiring from the Department of Defense [DOD] after serving 4 years as the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, and most recently as the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. Mr. Longuemare's tireless support for improved acquisition management practices, work force empowerment, and reduced life cycle support costs dramatically improved the DOD's acquisition management. He was instrumental in establishing Integrated Product Teams [IPT's] in all acquisition decisionmaking activities within the acquisition community. As the acquisition work force has been significantly reduced, IPT's have enabled commands to focus their expertise and to empower their managers in ways unmatched by traditional, functionally aligned organizations. Through his emphasis on IPT's, he has generated a climate of cooperative problem solving between industry and its DOD customers. Along with IPT's, Mr. Longuemare led the efforts to redefine the ways in which DOD specifies the products it acquires. He was the driving force in the shift to performance specifications for complex defense articles. Through his emphasis on what new systems should do rather than how they should look, industry has enjoyed unparalleled opportunities to bring technical creativity to bear on the most complex requirements. Mr. Longuemare successfully ushered the reform of military specifications and standards. In fact, nearly 2,700 specifications and standards have been rescinded as formal acquisition requirements since the program's inception. Thus, barriers to industry's own rate of technology acceleration have eroded, and industry continues to improve the way they do business with the Department of Defense. In addition to his leadership through difficult institutional changes, Mr. Longuemare personally pioneered many innovative acquisition concepts such as cost as an independent variable [CAIV] and the single process initiative [SPI]. CAIV provides program managers and engineers a practical method for treating cost as a true systems design criterion, and it directly supports the DOD transition to performance specifications. The SPI approach, which replaces separate Government and commercial processes, is one of the most powerful techniques available for reducing overhead and accelerating process proficiency. Mr. Longuemare has been a champion within the DOD for more effective communications. He initiated a systems engineering directorate to better define this crucial, but often elusive, discipline within the acquisition system. He advocated continuing education for the acquisition work force and fostered significantly improved coordination between the military departments, particularly in the requirements definition process. Mr. President, the work of this exceptional public servant will continue to have a lasting impact on the DOD for many years to come. Mr. Longuemare has rightly earned the highest respect of all who know him in Congress, the DOD, and private industry. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending the Senate's best wishes to Noel, his wife Julie, and their daughter Maria.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War [SUVCW] is a congressionally chartered organization dedicated to preserving the memory of Union veterans and their sacrifices on behalf of our Nation. Today, I rise to recognize an exceptional Pennsylvanian, Mr. Richard D. Orr, who was recently elected commander- in-chief of the SUVCW. Richard's forefathers answered the call to duty during the Civil War. His great-great-grandfather, Pvt. Peter Paul Gallisath, served in the 5th Pennsylvania Cavalry. Another great-great-grandfather, Sgt. Martin Schaefer, served in Pennsylvania Militia of 1863, which defended the arsenal at Pittsburgh during the Gettysburg Campaign. His great-great- grandfather, Sgt. David Orr, was a member of the 14th Pennsylvania Cavalry. Other Union veterans in Richard's family include his great- great-great uncle, Capt. Bardele Gallisath of the 5th Pennsylvania Cavalry, and Medal of Honor recipient Col. Robert L. Orr, of the 61st Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry. Since joining the SUVCW on April 11, 1981, Richard has been very active in the organization. A life member, Richard has served the Pittsburgh Davis Camp as camp commander and treasurer. After attending his first department encampment in 1982, he immediately took an active role at the department level. He has served the Pennsylvania Department as patriotic instructor, junior vice commander, senior vice commander, counselor, department council member, and department commander. In the national organization, Richard has held the positions of committee chairman, trial commissioner, national treasurer, national counselor, junior vice commander-in-chief, and senior vice commander-in-chief. I am pleased to note that Mr. Orr is equally active in his community. A former Eagle Scout, the new commander-in-chief continued his affiliation with the Boy Scouts of America as a volunteer for more than 35 years. In fact, Richard was awarded the District Award of Merit for his many years as a volunteer with the Boy Scouts. Similarly, the Boy Scouts' National Court of Honor presented him the Silver Beaver Award-- the highest honor that can be conferred upon a volunteer. Likewise, the National Catholic Committee on Scouting recognized his contributions to youth with the St. George Award. Mr. Orr is employed as an environmental health administrator by the Allegheny County Health Department [ACHD]. He has worked for ACHD for the past 19 years in a variety of programs including public drinking water, waste management, food protection, housing, community environment, and emergency response. Currently, he is responsible for evaluating, acquiring, and coordinating the training needs for all ACHD employees. Richard has earned the respect of colleagues and subordinates alike for his uncompromising dedication to sound principles of environmental health and environmental protection. Others outside the ACHD have taken notice as well. Richard received two community service citations from the Allegheny County Board of Commissioners. Also, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers presented him with the Planning Excellence Award for his role in the development of an intragovernmental plan to provide an uninterrupted supply of drinking water during environmental emergencies. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending the Senate's best wishes for continued success to Mr. Orr and his family.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, let me first address the issue the Senator from Massachusetts was referring to with respect to deportation of immigrants in this country. I am a very strong supporter of the Mack amendment. I believe people are entitled to due process and the right to be heard. Promises were made by many administrations and Congresses. These people were welcomed into this country as a result of the political strife that was going on in various countries in Latin America. I think it would be a true injustice for us to have changed the rules in midstream for many, literally thousands of people who are awaiting deportation hearings right now, to deport them in lieu of that hearing. So I stand with Senator Mack and Senator Graham from Florida, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Abraham from Michigan in support of the Mack legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the chairman of the Rules Committee for one of the most difficult tasks that any Member will be called upon to take in the U.S. Senate, and that is to look into the election of another Member of the Senate. It immediately has partisan overtones and can take a very ugly turn. I can say that having sat through many of the hearings, both open and closed hearings, having sat with the chairman and seeing the efforts of this case and seeing the level of detail to which he took personally getting involved in this investigation and trying to ferret out the validity of the charges that were alleged, I am very proud of Senator Warner's work on this investigation. He did it with the skill of the trained lawyer that he is. He did it in a way, really as the Senate's counsel, if you will, and also did it with, I believe, an extraordinary air of bipartisanship when, in fact, the partisan wranglings had boiled over far beyond what he actually deserved. He did an excellent job. He did a thorough job. He used the resources that he had to the greatest extent that he possibly could. He took lots of arrows, in many cases in the back. But he stood tall and kept his eye on the ball, and that was to find out what happened in Louisiana, whether these charges that were put forward were, in fact, legitimate. He is determined, as well as the other members of the committee, that at this point there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that there was a systematic case of fraud in Louisiana, and so the investigation must come to a conclusion. I support the chairman in that decision. I supported him, as did every other member of the Rules Committee, in the decision that he came to after this thorough and thoughtful investigation of the information that was presented to him. I just wanted to take the floor today to commend him for a job well done. No doubt he will be criticized by many for ending this investigation, but I want to stand with him in saying that I think he reached the conclusion that was the only conclusion that could be reached at this point. Having said that, obviously, just like with any of us, if information comes out subsequent that is a smoking gun or that is really problematic, then that evidence can be brought before the Rules Committee and we can take a look at it. To this point, that has not occurred, and I think the chairman has acted judiciously with respect to the evidence before him. I wanted to stand and offer my gratitude for his excellent work and state my support for his effort. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. The subject matter on which I want to spend the majority of my time speaking on is the issue of campaign finance reform. As Members have gotten up to discuss the issue, I think one might be led to the impression that those of us who oppose McCain- Feingold are not for any changes in campaign finance rules and that we don't see that there are some problems there. I want to make it very clear that, as a Senator who is on the Rules Committee, which is the committee that has the jurisdiction on this subject matter--we have been bypassed by these floor maneuvers but we do have jurisdiction and have looked into this subject quite extensively--that I don't know of anybody on the Rules Committee on either side who does not believe the current campaign finance system has some problems with it and there are things that we can do to fix it. We disagree on how to do that. Let me just, if I can, draw the differences between how one side wants to do it and the other side; sort of the big picture, not really talking so much about specifics but a general philosophy. Then I will get into more specifics. The general philosophy of those of us who oppose the McCain-Feingold approach is that we believe that we can fix the campaign finance system in this country by making it purely voluntary, so that no one is going to be forced to contribute to an election. That is something that you would think is as fundamental as any right that we have in this country, that you should not be forced by your employer, by your union, by your association, or by your family to contribute to anyone the resources that you have worked hard to earn. So, one general tenet is that contributing to campaigns must be completely voluntary. I think that is a tenet you would suspect would be universally shared. It is not universally shared. People in support of McCain-Feingold, by and large--there are some exceptions, but few--do not support the concept that campaign contributions should be voluntary. That is one difference. Second, that we achieve a better campaign system, a better campaign and a better campaign financing system, by increasing participation, by having more voices in the political discourse, not fewer. Those of us who oppose McCain-Feingold strongly hold to that reading of the first amendment that ensures, guarantees, one of the highest guarantees in the Constitution, the right of speech, political speech, and political discourse. In this country today, political speech does not mean--it means this, what I am doing. But it does not only mean standing up on the street corner and sounding off on what you believe in. These days, if you are standing on the street corner sounding off on what you believe in, basically you are labeled some sort of freak. We believe the first amendment covers organized political speech, that is, people who ban together, who want to speak on a particular issue and marshal whatever resources they have, whether it is resources in manpower to distribute fliers that they print at a half a cent apiece, or to buy a radio ad on a local radio station or to, in fact, hold public meetings and public debates. Whatever medium they want to use, I think is appropriate to be protected by the Congress and by the first amendment. On the other side, you have people who want to limit that activity. They want to limit people's ability to speak in the political arena because they find certain kinds of speech offensive, like people who advertise in opposition to a Member of Congress or a Senator saying that they voted in such a bad way and don't vote for them, and they do it within 60 days of the election; that is bad; somehow people getting together and expressing their opinion in a public forum is a bad thing that has to be prohibited by the Congress. I don't believe that. I don't like it when someone does it to me, and it's been done to me and it will be done to me unless we pass one of these bills that says you can't. By the way, even if we did do that, I believe the Supreme Court would strike it down in a heartbeat. But I believe it will be done again. I don't have a problem with it, even though it happens to me, because I think people have a right if they don't like what I am doing to speak up about it, even if I think the attack is unfair, because I trust the American public. I know a lot of people around here on a pretty regular basis don't trust the American public, but I trust the American public and the voters of America to sort of figure out all of those things on their own with the help of all the other information that they are going to get from networks like C-SPAN2, as we are on today, and other independent sources, that that ad, as nasty as it is, as horrible as it is, is not going to change somebody's opinion overnight. People are smart enough to take all that information, realize it is an ad, discount it to the degree they usually do and filter it into the mix, as we do with all speech. But the other side believes that it is dangerous speech. I believe that there is nothing inherently dangerous about speech; there is something inherently dangerous about limiting speech, because once we start to limit speech, then that takes freedom away from the masses, from the people and gives that freedom and control to a bunch of people in Washington, DC, who think they know what is best for you. You probably hear many Senators talk in those terms when it comes to a variety of other subjects in Washington, DC. I suggest that this attempt to take power away and freedom away from people and centralize it in Washington is consistent with what the other side of the aisle generally wants to do when it comes to every decision in your life. As a result, we have the huge Government that we have in Washington, DC. We have grown and grown and grown because we have taken more and more freedom away from people, whether it is in the form of freedom to use the money that you have earned by higher and higher taxes, or whether it is freedom in the form of regulation on regulation on every aspect of business and your life. We have taken that responsibility, we have taken your freedom and have centralized that decisionmaking in Washington, DC. This is another attempt to do that. This has the salutary effect, from those who believe in big government, of stifling your criticism of big government. This is a win-win. This allows them to continue to grow government without you being able to speak out against it. So they can stifle you at the same time they continue what they want to do in the first place. I think that is very, very, very dangerous to the future of this country. Columnist George Will called the filibuster--I don't know whether that is what it is or not, but let's use that term--that the filibuster of the McCain-Feingold finance reform is the most important filibuster in the history of America. I don't know if I agree with that, but I would say it is certainly one of the most important because it goes to the heart of our democracy, it goes to the heart of the political discourse in this country and how free are we going to allow this country to be at its most fundamental core, its democratic core. How free are we going to allow you to be, the average citizen in America? There are those who say, ``Well, you are just too free right now and you have too much power right now. We need to take some of that back for your own good. For your own good we're going to take some power away from you so you don't go out and do things that are going to hurt you.'' My, my, and believe it or not, you have the national news media just along for the ride. They think this is great. And why not? Because if we limit your speech, the speech of those who are speaking everyday on the network news and in the newspapers and on the radios becomes that much louder, because the din of your speech has quieted down, and so their speech becomes much more important to the whole debate. You have the media very much for squelching other input, so they become much more powerful and much more important in the political discourse. I suggest that if Congress were proposing a law to limit the amount of speech that newspapers and radios and television reporters can speak, there would be an absolute hue and cry of ``freedom of the press''; ``How dare you restrict''; ``It is the most essential element of our democracy.'' ``The first amendment''-- ``Oh, I'm sorry, just this part of the first amendment,'' because when it comes to the other part of the first amendment, they are all for shutting you up. They want to shut you up, but they don't want to be even in the least infringed upon. That is the hypocrisy that is going on in the national media today. Let's get down to the bottom line here. What do those of us who would like to see campaign finance reform see as a solution to some of the problems? No. 1, I suggest we make sure the system is voluntary; that there should not be a system where any individual in America is forced to contribute against their will. That is not the law of the land today. There are tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of workers in this country who are forced to contribute money to campaigns in which they do not believe. That should be an embarrassment to every single Member of the Senate and should be an outrage to every member of our society. When it comes to union dues being used for political purposes, that is exactly what occurs. So we have a very simple provision that says you can't do that anymore, it has to be voluntary. Poll union members--not the union bosses, union members--and ask them whether they would like the right to be able to give money voluntarily instead of having it taken out of their dues. By overwhelming numbers-- I just saw a poll in California--by a 4 to 1 margin, union members themselves said they want that choice. Yet--and I always find this really funny because people for McCain- Feingold say, ``well, we have to fight the special interests; it's the special interests that are the problem.'' Then they stand up here and fight against a bill that says all contributions should be voluntary. Why? Because the unions and their big money backing them in their campaigns won't allow them to do what's right. This just exposes it for what it is. This is about power. They just want to make sure that they can keep all the money funneling toward them, and then go about taking away power from you. Keep the money flowing on that side and then take the power away from you. I don't necessarily think that is the right approach to take. When it comes to union dues being used involuntarily for political campaigns-- there is absolutely no excuse for not having the voluntary campaign finance system. That should be at the fundamental core. The only reason it is not is because of the special interests supporting the other side of the aisle, the special interests that they get up and rail against: ``Oh, this is horrible; special interest money and, by the way, we're going to stop campaign finance reform because of the special interest money we get from involuntary contributions being maced out of the people who work in unions. Maced is actually too kind of a word because some people get maced when they don't go along, because they have no choice. It is not a matter of being maced and losing your job. You just have to go along. You can't even say no. So No. 1, it has to be a voluntary system. No. 2, a goal of a campaign finance system should be to increase participation by the people who are most affected by the election, and that is your constituents. The goal of the bill that I am going to be introducing is to increase the amount of influence--I use that term advisedly--influence that constituents within the State in which you reside, such as my State of Pennsylvania, to influence the election disproportionate from anybody else, whether they be political action committees or people from California--I like people from California but they are not from Pennsylvania and, frankly, the people from Pennsylvania should have more of a say who the Senator is from Pennsylvania than the people from Washington State, Maine or anyplace else. What I have suggested in my bill is we are going to increase the amount of contributions that can be given by people in Pennsylvania. The proposal that I have is to take the $1,000 limit and increase it to $4,000 per individual per election for people who reside in the State in which you run. Everybody else is kept at the $1,000 limit. But people in your State are going to have more of an ability to contribute. I know, because I was a challenger twice. I am a rare breed of cat around this place. I defeated an incumbent Congressman to get into the House and defeated an incumbent Senator to get into the Senate. There are not very many of us around who have that honor, I guess, or burden, one of the two. So I know what it is like to be a challenger. I know what it is like to be the big underdog. I know what it is like to be outspent 3 to 1, and I didn't like it. But I will tell you what I didn't like more than anything else. I didn't like the fact that my opponent, who was a sitting Congressman, had the ability to raise money all over the country. Because of being in Congress, he had connections. He could raise money from all over the place. He was known, not only all over the country, but all over the State. Nobody knew who I was. I remember when I first ran for office, they took a poll 6 months before the election in 1990, and my name recognition in my district was 6 percent. I thought that was pretty great; ``Yea, it is 6 percent.'' Then my pollster informed me that usually when they put somebody's name on the ballot, they get about 8 percent, because about 8 percent of the people are afraid to answer that they don't know the person, figuring if they were on the survey, they should know the person. So I got below what Mickey Mouse would get. Nobody knew me. It was hard for me to raise money. I didn't have any money. And it was harder only because I could raise $1,000 at a time. If I was lucky enough to find someone who would support me who had any kind of resources, all I could get was $1,000. That makes it very, very hard for a challenger. You have to find a lot of people to help you, to get at least a bit of seed corn to build a campaign organization. There was a comment from a person who was going to run for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania next year. She was headed toward running, but she announced abruptly she was not going to run. The reason she gave for not running was that she found it incredibly hard to find so many people to give her $1,000 at a time. She just couldn't find that many people to build up the seed corn necessary to start a campaign. Once you start a campaign, you can broaden out your search, you can get, as I have done--I have 35,000 donors, I believe, to my committee. And that is a lot of donors. I am very proud of that. The average contribution is well under $100. But you have to get to there. And it takes time. It takes some money to start. Unless you are a millionaire, which I plead guilty of not being, then it is very difficult for the average Joe Citizen to get enough resources together to start a campaign when you have to raise it $1,000 at a time. When you consider the fact that in a Senate race in Pennsylvania it is going to cost about probably $9 or $10 million, someone giving you $4,000 hardly warrants notice in the big scheme of things. So to suggest that somehow, you know, this person has inordinate influence is ridiculous. And you are going to get hundreds of people to give you that kind of money. I guarantee you, within those hundreds of people there will be hundreds of different opinions on probably the same issue. So to suggest you are going to do one for one--it just doesn't work that way. Anybody who believes--this is another fallacy of campaign financing-- that Members of Congress get donations to do favors for people, I mean, that is just ridiculous. I mean, it is absolutely absurd. And that is why I am for limits on contributions, and I am for low limits. I think $4,000 is a low limit because I don't want someone to be able to give $100,000 or $200,000 or $500,000 because then, whether it occurs or not, the appearance of impropriety is there. With a small donation, relatively small, I am talking in terms of a $10 million campaign, $4,000 does not, I think, stick out to say they are buying a more disproportionate interest here. The fact of the matter is, we have low limits. I think we should keep them relatively low, but they should be high enough so people can have some ability to form a little bit of seed corn to start a campaign if they want to run for office. So I believe that raising the limit, oddly enough, would help challengers and open-seat candidates more than it will help incumbents. Incumbents can raise money now. They are one of the few who can raise money now. This is to help challengers. The other thing--follow me on this concept--what I believe has happened over the past 25 years and why campaign reform has come to be such a ``scandal,'' although I think it is a somewhat created scandal in some respects; in many respects it is a scandal because people are breaking the laws--is what we did in 1974. It was well-intentioned. It was to limit the influence of special interests and limit the influence of big donors. Remember, $1,000 was set in 1974. If you index that to inflation, it would be over $3,000 today. That is why we increase it from $1,000 to $4,000. And campaigns have increased by 10 or 20 times as far as expenses since 1974. What we have done--if I can give an example of a heart--you have a main artery that flows into the heart that provides the blood for the heart muscle so the heart can pump. What we did in 1974 was we occluded partially, we blocked that artery. We said, we are no longer going to allow a free flow of resources, blood, into the heart muscle, the candidate; we are going to block it. It was an artificial block. It was artificial in the sense that the heart still needed the resources, but you have limited the ability for direct resources to flow into that heart. If you are lucky, what happens if you are a human being and that happens? What happens is, you build up what is called collateral circulation, other circulation to feed the heart, to keep it alive and going and working. Collateral circulation in politics is called soft money. By limiting the amount that you or anybody can give directly to a candidate, you have not stopped the need for the money to get to the candidate; all you have done is stop the main, most efficient, most disclosed, most apparent way of feeding that heart muscle, of feeding that candidate. So what has happened is the money still wants to get there because the candidate needs it to run a race, and so what has happened is these collateral sources have been built up. We have built up all these soft money trees to feed the candidate behind the scenes, undisclosed or disclosed not as efficiently or not as readily as the direct pipeline to the heart or to the candidate. So what I want to do is do a little angioplasty. Let us clear out the heart artery to allow some more resources and blood to flow so you can watch it. What I propose in my bill is to require monthly reporting-- not quarterly, but monthly. Let us have more disclosure. Let us have more prompt disclosure. Let us find out who is giving the money and how much they are giving. So we have, by doing that, and by raising the limits of people who live in the State, you will reduce the need for this other circulation for this other money to come into the system. I think the best way to cure soft money is not Government to restrict it because, you know, we restricted hard money, that money, that direct pipeline, that main artery going into the campaign, we restricted it, and what happened? They figured out another way, constitutionally another way. We try to restrict that, and guess what will happen? They will figure out some other way. I mean, look, the big problem here is that Government is too big, it spends too much, and it regulates too much. It is involved in everything. We have this huge Government that people want to have some say in how the Government governs. They want to have some say in who is elected to make those decisions. And they have every right to do so. What the folks who are for McCain-Feingold say is, ``Well, we don't want you to have that right. We want to limit your right to do that.'' I think that is ridiculous. I think that is, frankly, undemocratic, certainly undemocratic, and I will go as far as to say it is un- American. We are a country that fought hard, we fought wars, we fought a Revolutionary War and many others to maintain our freedom. And first among them--the first amendment--first among them is the freedom of speech. What this debate is fundamentally about is the freedom of political discourse, of your right to influence the course of an election, and, therefore, the course of the country. It is your only chance. This is a Republic, not a democracy. We are not all gathered here in the Senate-- we do not get all 250 million people in the room and everybody says ``aye'' and ``no.'' That is not how we do things. You elect me for better or for worse. You elect a Member of the Senate, two Members in the Senate from each State, and however many House Members you have, and those people represent you. If you want to be represented here, you have to work through the electoral process to influence the decision as to what Member of Congress is elected and what Senator is elected. That is your outlet. What the people in this room, many who are for McCain-Feingold, want to do is limit the people's ability to impact that election. When I say ``people,'' I don't just mean individuals, but associations and others who have every right under the first amendment to be heard. So when you hear all this talk about, ``Oh, special interests,'' remember one thing, the biggest special interest that is holding up this bill is labor unions who do not want voluntary contributions to be the law of the land. That is No. 1. So anytime you hear ``special interests'' from people who support McCain-Feingold, ask this question: ``Are you for voluntary contributions for every member of society?'' When they say, ``No,'' then you say, ``Don't talk to me about special interest because I know what special interest is buying you. So don't talk to me about, `Oh, we need to get rid of special interests when your first vote is to defend it and to exhibit the power.' '' Voluntary contributions, increased participation, particularly from people who are within the boundaries of the district or your State, and increased disclosure. It is much easier for the cardiologist to be able to find a problem with the flow of blood to the heart by looking at one source where it is supposed to be. It is much easier to determine where the problem is than looking at all the other different sources that may be feeding that heart. So if we allow the resources to be channeled, and we have disclosure of those resources promptly--monthly--then you are going to have a system that I think everyone will be proud of that will encourage participation, that will be voluntary, and that will be disclosed. I yield the floor. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Certainly.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding citizen from Allison Park, PA. On October 3, Lt. Col. Thomas Miller will retire from his position as the joint program office site director at the Software Engineering Institute [SEI] of Carnegie Mellon University. Thomas was born in Valley View, PA. He earned an undergraduate degree in computer science from Utah State University. Later, Thomas received a M.S. degree in systems management from the Florida Institute of Technology. In 1974, Thomas received his Air Force Commission from the Reserve Officer Training Corps. Since then, he has had an exemplary military career. Lieutenant Colonel Miller has served as a computer systems acquisition engineer at the Air Force Electronic Systems Division for the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System Joint Program Office; the computer systems acquisition manager for the seismic portion of the Atomic Energy Detection System; the software division chief at the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar Systems [JSTARS] Joint Program Office; and the chief of the Advanced Medium Range Air- to-Air Missile Systems Division at Eglin AFB. Lieutenant Colonel Miller became the joint program office site director at the Software Engineering Institute in 1992. During his tenure at SEI, Lieutenant Colonel Miller earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues. A proven leader, Thomas will be sincerely missed. Mr. President, after many years of service to his country, Lieutenant Colonel Miller is retiring to private life. In honor of his service, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending the Senate's best wishes to Lt. Col. Thomas Miller, his wife Colleen, and their three children.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Bryan amendment for a lot of reasons. But the one I want to focus on is what I believe is the fiscally irresponsible nature of this amendment. This is being put out as a budget-cutting measure. But the fact of the matter is, by having a fund that says we are going to hold the counties harmless--and I appreciate being held harmless. We have a national forest in Pennsylvania and our counties rely upon that money. That is going to cost money in the sense that by reducing the amount of roads built, you are going to reduce the revenues in the fund. That money is no longer going to be there to fund those counties in the money that they traditionally have received, and the Federal Government is going to have to come up with that money in exchange to fund the counties. That is, in a sense, almost a welfare payment from the Federal Government because we have eliminated the funding source of timber harvesting from those counties and those communities. So not only have we hurt them economically, hurt their counties economically, but we are now creating welfare for those counties by giving Federal dollars to them in place of the jobs they have. This is not only bad, I think, from a policy perspective, but also bad from a fiscal perspective. Despite the assertions of the amendment's sponsors, the timber sales program and the purchaser credit program are not subsidies. Since 1964, roads needed for timber harvest have been built by timber purchasers and the U.S. Forest Service has permitted the use of purchaser credit for road building. In fact, this program is entirely off-budget and this appropriations bill contains no funding for it. In President Clinton's budget request to Congress, elimination of the program results is no savings to the Federal government. Rather, the costs of the credits are explicitly absorbed by timber purchasers in the contracting and bidding process. According to a report by Price Waterhouse, ``Economic analysis shows that the forest roads program does not contain a subsidy for timber purchasers; it provides an efficient and effective mechanism for financing road construction and reconstruction.'' Second, eliminating the Purchaser Credit Program would harm local communities near national forests--including Warren, Forest, McKean, and Elk Counties in Pennsylvania. Counties containing forest lands receive 25 percent of gross Forest Service receipts. In 1996, these counties received a total of $6.2 million, three quarters of which went directly to local school districts. Finally, the amendment would effectively cripple efforts to meet the stewardship needs of our national forest land by cutting the funding by which we maintain its infrastructure. Eliminating this program would not only cut funding for road construction, it would cut funding for road reconstruction and maintenance to fix environmental and safety problems remaining from an era when construction standards were far less rigorous. A well-developed road system is indispensable to forest plan implementation, fire suppression and forest health. As many of my colleagues know, the General Accounting Office has just released a report which identifies questionable policies and practices that nearly caused the Forest Service to default on revenue sharing payments to rural counties in fiscal year 1996. The report raises fundamental accountability issues for both Congress and the Forest Service, and I believe that these issues will be exacerbated by the Bryan amendment. Specifically, the GAO found that reductions in Federal timber sale receipts, coupled with increased obligations to spotted owl counties, and an apparent lack of sound financial controls over the National Forest Fund resulted in a shortfall in revenue-sharing funds available to rural counties. Receipts from the resource sales are deposited in the National Forest Fund, which is a receipts-holding account from which the Forest Service obligations are distributed. After normal county payments were paid, the Forest Service used the National Forest Fund in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 to make additional spotted owl guarantee payments in certain counties in California, Oregon, and Washington. This caused two problems. First, there were insufficient moneys in the fund to pay counties because of the dramatic drop in timber sales receipts. Then, the Forest Service was forced to borrow from other funds and the Treasury to pay the obligations to the counties in a fashion that GAO found ``was an unauthorized use of the funds.'' It is my understanding that Congressman Bob Smith, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, has written Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman requesting a full accounting of the specific steps he will take to ensure that the Forest Service advises Congress when such shortfalls occur and properly manages these funds in the future. Mr. President, the amendment before us will only make this dire financial situation worse for the Forest Service. Senator Bryan's amendment will again modify the formula for sharing Forest Service receipts with the counties. I understand that it is the sponsors' intent to protect counties from fiscal harm as the result of this amendment. Included in the amendment is a provision to make up for the inevitable shortfall in payments to counties that will occur as the direct result of a $10 million reduction in spending for new forest road construction and the elimination of the purchaser road credits. Since Pennsylvania has four counties that benefit from timber sale receipts, I commend Senator Bryan for his concern about the effects of his amendment. But I must point out, Mr. President, that the concern of the Senator from Nevada betrays the folly of this amendment. You see, should this amendment be enacted into law, timber sale receipts will go down sharply at the same time that our payments to counties will be held constant or even increase. This is the very same tortured accounting formula that helped to lead the Forest Service to brink of default recently over the spotted owl payments. In fact, let me point out for the benefit of my colleagues that the GAO found the Forest Service had shifted money originally intended for trust funds for reforestation and forest health in order to cover the deficit in the National Forest Fund. While I hope the Forest Service will be successful in addressing the serious accounting shortcoming that led to the crisis, I must caution my colleagues that passage of the Bryan amendment makes it more likely that the National Forest Fund check will bounce again during fiscal year 1998. The amendment directs the Forest Service to compute the costs associated with road construction by timber purchasers and give the counties an equivalent of 25 percent of these costs from the National Forest Fund. This is ludicrously impractical. First, we do not have enough money in the National Forest Fund to meet our current obligations to the counties. Second, the task of calculating private sector costs is a complex accounting task for an agency. Further, the amendment directs the Forest Service to collect private sector costs, that in many cases, are proprietary. In view of the GAO's very critical report, this is not the time to add to our obligations to the counties. Nor is it appropriate to burden the Forest Service with additional financial responsibilities. I urge my colleagues to defeat this fiscally irresponsible amendment. It is imperative that we maintain funding for Forest Service road construction and maintenance and the Forest Service's Purchaser Credit Program. It remains the most efficient and cost-effective method we have to help maintain our national forests and serve the needs of the surrounding populations.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Let me put the information out, and then I would like the Senator to respond to it. I can do it in the form of a question. But the Senator from Minnesota makes the assertion that this comes right on the heels of a Teamsters strike when they were successful in negotiating some changes in their contract. The Senator talks about the chronology. Let's also talk about the chronology of when Barbara Zack Quindel, who is the overseer of the election, came out with her order following the strike. That didn't occur 3 months ago. That didn't occur 6 months ago. It occurred 3 or 4 weeks ago over the break. The first opportunity for us to address this issue is this bill. To suggest that we somehow waited until after this Teamsters strike to do this is ridiculous. The timing is perfectly appropriate. It is appropriate because it is the first legislative opportunity to address this issue after the overseer ruled on the election. If we waited 6 months and there happened to be a strike and we happened to come forward with this after that successful strike by a union, then you can make the argument. But that is not what is happening here. To suggest and imply and impugn the integrity of the Senator from Oklahoma and his motives I think is really below the dignity of this Senate given the chronology that the Senator from Minnesota is well aware of. I hope that given that knowledge--and maybe he did not have that knowledge--but given the knowledge that this in fact was right after this decision was handed down by the overseer of the election, and that this was in fact timely, and had nothing to do with the Teamsters strike, in fact one might add that the fact that Ms. Quindel sat on this report for a couple of weeks might have had something to do with the Teamsters strike. But that is not the issue here. What is at issue is the Senator from Oklahoma addressed this issue expeditiously right after the decision was made on the first legislative vehicle to do so. And I think any other construction of motivation really does not hold water very well. So I would be pleased with a response, given that information.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have a question for the Senator from Minnesota. It is not about the subject matter at hand. It is about this rather disturbing assertion by the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Massachusetts about the motives behind the Nickles amendment. It is disturbing. And I think the Senator from Texas is right when he said that in fact this borders on a violation of rule XIX. Let me make a statement. And then I would like the Senator to respond.