Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Yet we have heard on the floor today, have we not, that those of us who support a definition with which they agree, that Members who have criticized us for offering this, are intolerant, hateful, and gay bashers for proposing language which they say they support; is that an accurate description of what has gone on here today?

Mr. SANTORUM. I have been away for a few hours, running around the Hill, which we tend to do. I want to ask the Senator from Alabama or the Senator from Colorado, has anyone today or in the past 3 days come to the floor of the Senate and announced their support for a redefinition of traditional marriage?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 40, the Federal marriage amendment. Discussions continue as to how best to proceed to the consideration of this constitutional amendment. While those negotiations continue, Senators are encouraged to come to the floor to speak on the amendment. Friday, a number of Members came to the floor to talk on this issue, and we expect to resume the robust debate today. There will be no rollcall votes during today's session.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator from Arizona yield for a question?

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

Mr. SANTORUM. The last point my colleague made is one that is very important. A lot of people in the Senate, and even some across the country, have suggested that the Defense of Marriage Act will stand. There is a lot of legal opinion. The Senator from Utah spoke about how the Defense of Marriage Act probably will not stand. But your point is, even if the Defense of Marriage Act stands, the Defense of Marriage Act only protects States from other States forcing their laws on us. Your point is even if that State can resist that, you lose anyway. Can you explain that? I think that is a very important point. The Defense of Marriage Act really doesn't save marriage.

Mr. SANTORUM. The potential exists if DOMA is maintained and protected that you could have--let us just say some of the more liberal State courts that we have out there, whether it is Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, New York, big States--most of these are actually fairly large States that we are talking about--if marriage were defined in those States and let us say not in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Utah, or Alabama, what would be the result? How would America function? What would marriage be in America? What would be the environment in which we would be living? It is a very interesting question we are now faced with just in Massachusetts, but we have sort of seen one isolated little case that is still in question. But as an accepted matter that there are now in many States potentially couples who are married who are not traditional couples, what would be the impact on our society?

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak for such time as I may consume.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I was not here on Friday, so I did not get a chance to hear a lot of the debate going on. I commend my colleagues. I read some of their statements. I thank them for the high level of debate that has taken place so far. Whether it was Senator Smith's comments, or Senator Cornyn's comments, or Senator Allard's, and others, they are trying to bring to the debate two fundamental points, which are that every person in America, every person in this world, has worth and dignity and we should respect them, irrespective of the choices they make in their lives. That is an important concept that I hope we do not stray from in this debate; that this is not a debate about questioning the value or worth of an individual or the dignity of an individual or the rights of an individual. What this is about is the fundamental importance to our society of preserving, protecting, and promoting marriage as a union between one man and one woman. So I hope we can engage in a debate where we can keep both things in mind, because sometimes it is thought that if you are for traditional marriage, somehow you are against somebody. That is not how I see it. I think traditional marriage is good for everyone. It results in a healthier society, more stable children. I am going to refer throughout the course of my remarks over the next couple of days to a paper that was presented at Emory University on May 14, 2003, which I think is one of the best studies I have seen in looking at this issue of marriage. One of the reasons I think it is so good is, No. 1, it responds to all of the allegations or charges made against those who support traditional marriage. It is authored by two people, one of whom is gay. So you are hearing arguments from someone who you would think normally would agree that traditional marriage should be redefined; in fact, he argues in this paper, quite effectively and forcefully, that traditional marriage is important to be maintained--not because he thinks it discriminates against him, but because it is important for our culture and society. I want to read a few things from the summary of that report just to give people a sense of why this is such an important issue to be debated. In this country, we tend to take marriage for granted, thinking that somehow or another it will just happen, that people will get together and marry and will have children, whether we have an institution called marriage or whether that institution of marriage is redefined to include a whole host of other different relationships that really won't affect the basic traditional marriage. In other words, some might say, how will my relationship affect me? How will that affect your marriage? Well, let me address that because I think this summary does a pretty good job in doing this. The name of the article is ``Marriage Ala Mode; Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage,'' by Professor Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson. The summary begins: There's nothing wrong with homosexuality. One of us, in fact, is gay. We oppose gay marriage, not gay relationships. They go on to say: Most people assume that heterosexuality is a given of nature and thus not vulnerable to cultural change, that nothing will ever discourage straight people from getting together and starting families. But we argue--and this is important--that heterosexual bonding must indeed be deliberately fostered by a distinctive and supportive culture. Because heterosexual bonding is directly related to both reproduction and survival, and because it involves much more than copulation, all human societies have actively fostered it. . . .This is done through culture: rules, customs, laws, symbols, rituals, incentives, rewards, and other public mechanisms. So deeply embedded are these, however, that few people are consciously aware of them. Much of what is accomplished in animals by nature (``biology,'' ``genetics,'' or ``instinct'') must be accomplished in humans by culture (all other aspects of human existence, including marriage). If culture were removed, the result wouldn't be a functioning organism whether human or nonhuman. Apart from any other handicap would be the inability to reproduce successfully. Why? Because mating (sexual intercourse), which really is largely governed by a biological drive, isn't synonymous with the complex behaviors required by family life within a larger human society. What are they saying? Will heterosexuals continue to copulate, have sexual relations? Sure. Will they build families. Nobody is suggesting that if we get rid of the definition of traditional marriage, there is going to be a explosion of nontraditional marriage. That is not what they are saying or what I am saying. I suggest that in those countries that have, in fact, adopted whether it is same-sex marriages or civil unions, they have not seen a traumatic growth in the number of same-sex unions or same-sex marriages. In fact, there have been very few of them in the countries that have adopted those laws. But what has happened? There is a gradual and systematic decline in heterosexual marriages, not heterosexual unions. People will continue to hook up. In fact, that is what occurs more and more in cultures, even in this country, where marriage is not held up as something that is important. We see it around us. There are cultures and subcultures in America where marriage is seen to be an older, passe convention. What happens is there is actually more sexual activity, certainly among multiple partners and, what? Breakdown of the family, children being born out of wedlock, and communities and cultures in decay. That is what I see on the horizon for America. It is not the reaffirmation of marriage by including more people in it but the degradation of marriage because it becomes simply a social convention without meaning. One may say: What is the big deal? What is the problem if that happens? The problem, if we look at communities in America where marriage has broken down, we see communities that are not functioning very well. We see children who are the most at risk in our society because moms and dads are not around the home to provide for them. So we have community breakdown, we have family breakdown, and we have government intervention trying to repair this situation. There have been huge government expenditures over the last 40, 50 years trying to repair what is broken as a result of the family not being there to raise these children. I was a student at Penn State many years ago. I always like to get back to my college campus. A few years ago, I went to speak to a group of students, the editorial board of the Daily Collegian. The Daily Collegian is the college paper. I am not sure that in the 14 years I have been in public life they have ever said anything positive about me. Nevertheless, I went to meet with them. We had a very animated discussion, as one tends to have on college campuses with young people with vibrant ideas and a zeal for ideology. We were disagreeing on everything, not surprising. I do not know how it came up--I have been digging my memory banks and I cannot remember exactly how it came up--but I asked the question, What do you see as the biggest problem facing America? One young man in the back raised his hand and said: The breakdown of the traditional family. The breakdown of the family. I thought immediately when he said that, first, he must not have been engaged in the discussion for the previous half hour, and I thought he would be laughed at and ridiculed by others around the table. What I found was unanimous agreement. One after another of these young folks, who would not be considered traditionalists or conservatives, went on about how the breakdown of the family is sort of at the root of the instability or insecurity they are feeling in their lives and that the culture is experiencing at this time. They talked about divorce. They talked about how marriage was not what it used to be. In fact, there was a survey done where they asked kids in the 1970s whether divorce should be harder to get, and about 50 percent of the kids said, yes, divorce should be harder to get. They asked a similar group of kids 25 years later, in the late 1990s, whether divorce should be harder to get, and 75 percent of the kids now say divorce should be harder to get. Why? Because they realize the impact of the breakdown of marriage and family. One of the criticisms we hear from those who oppose this constitutional amendment is: Marriage is already in very bad shape. Divorce rates are high. Marriage does not work already in America. This is no big deal. You cannot really hurt marriage. I make the opposite point. I think it is obvious. They are right, marriage is already in tough shape. Many commentaries have said heterosexuals have messed up marriage as bad as they can in this country and in other countries around the world. I make the claim that further deluding and debilitating marriage is not the answer because we know of the dire consequences that a breakdown in marriage results in with respect to children. I make the opposite argument: Yes, I would argue divorce laws should be tougher. I agreed with Louisiana when they put in covenant marriages. I believe the no-fault divorce laws in the 1970s changed the essence of marriage, which is about a man and a woman entering into a selfless relationship, a union on which they would further give of themselves in the creation of new human life and nurturing that life. It was a selfless act, giving of oneself, giving up things to each other. That is how successful marriages work, and that is how successful marriages nurture successful children. With no-fault divorce and with the culture that came along with it, we have marriage being about adults, not about children. It is no longer about forming a union for the raising of children in the next generation. It is about: Am I happy in my marriage? Am I being fulfilled? It is less selfless and a little bit more selfish. So if we look at this next generation of marriage, what is that? Is it about the selfless or is it about the selfish definition? Is it about children? Certainly a change in the definition of traditional marriage to include people of the same sex is not about children, it is about adults. That further takes us away from the central principal purpose of marriage, which is the bonding of a man and a woman for the purpose of creating a union by which children for the next generation are born. So we continue to get further away from the ideal, and when we do that, children suffer and cultures die. I repeat, I do not know why people come here and insist that somehow this is not important; that somehow this discussion does not rise to the level of a constitutional amendment. That is another real funny one. I am sure that was discussed on Friday. The Presiding Officer gave an absolutely brilliant opening statement on Friday, and I commend him for his wonderful statement. I know he knows what the last constitutional amendment was. I have heard two complaints about constitutional amendments: This issue is not important enough to rise to a constitutional amendment. That is No. 1. This is not important enough. No. 2, this limits rights, and no other constitutional amendments have limited rights. The last constitutional amendment, the 27th amendment to the Constitution, limited pay raises for Members of Congress. So let's throw out the limiting rights. My rights have been limited as a result of the 27th amendment. As a Member of Congress, we cannot pass a pay raise and accept it midterm. Constitutional amendments have been used to limit rights. No. 2, this does not rise to a level of importance. I do not think in the grand scheme of things whether Members of the House and Senate can receive a pay raise during their term is one of the great pressing issues that face our culture and our country. So the idea that the Constitution is not used for issues that are not of great weight and do not limit rights is ridiculous. The second point is, I do not believe this limits rights. What this does is promote a public good. It does not limit rights. It simply promotes a public good, and it is the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of forming that union and providing for the next generation. I suggest this constitutional amendment is necessary and is important enough to be debated today. Again, I hope we can come up with some agreement that will allow the different points of view as to how we solve this problem, and maybe some other points of view from the other side of the aisle as to how we solve this problem. To get to the bottom line of this debate, the bottom line is children need mothers and fathers, and society should be all about that. Society should be all about creating the best possible chance for children to have a mother and a father. Unless the State endorses that, unless our laws enforce that, then I think it is fairly obvious that our culture will not, and that left to our own devices, as these authors say, we will simply not have these unions. In fact, if we look at other countries, Stanley Kurtz has done some research in countries around the world where this has occurred. In his article, ``Decline in Marriage in Scandinavia and the Netherlands,'' he talks about the reduction in the rate of marriage among heterosexuals. He talks about the increase in the number of children born out of wedlock as a result of the institution of a different definition of marriage. So we see in other countries that when marriage is changed, it is devalued. It does not become special. It does not become unique. It is not reinforced by society as something as the ideal. As a result, people do not engage it. For example, the countries of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway have either marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples. Sixty percent of first- born children in those countries are now born out of wedlock. Now, that is equivalent to some of the poorest neighborhoods in our society. Remember, I talked earlier about how the breakdown of marriage has affected the poorest communities in our society and our culture, and in many of those cultures marriage is not accepted, and as a result the Government has to come in and bail out those communities because there are no unions, there are no families, there is no support network for these children? In middle-class and upper middle-class, socialistic, equality-driven Scandinavia, where there are no ghettos of poverty that we see in America, 60 percent of first-born children in these countries are born out of wedlock. Why? Because marriage is not important. It has no meaning. So people simply do not get married. There is a long laundry list which I will get into in more detail. I am trying to make a general overview of some of the arguments, but I will be getting into more detail throughout the next couple of days. Marriage is about children. Marriage is about the glue that holds the basic foundational societal unit together, and that is the family. When we change the composition of that glue, we weaken the bonds of marriage and then we weaken the American family. Why a constitutional amendment? I think the Senator from Colorado said it, and I know others have, too, that if we really believed we could solve this problem short of a constitutional amendment, let me assure everyone I would not be on the floor of the Senate today arguing this issue. This is hard. It is hard to come to the Senate floor and argue for any constitutional amendment. It is doubly hard to actually pass one because 67 votes are needed in the Senate, plus three-quarters of the States. If we could come up with a legislative solution that would solve the problem that I see of runaway courts, I would be very anxious to find it. We tried back in 1996 with the Defense of Marriage Act, but just about every legal scholar who has come around has said the Defense of Marriage Act will not stand, from the left to the right, and I will get into that in further discussion. I see the Senator from California is in the Chamber, so I am not going to spend much more time, but the idea that we could pass a statute to constrain the courts from reinterpreting the Constitution I believe is folly. We cannot. The only way for us to have the American people define what marriage is, instead of State courts defining what marriage is, is through the constitutional amendment process. Some will get up and say, let us leave it to the States, let the States fight this, like Massachusetts is doing, let the States fight this battle. What we are seeing in Massachusetts is the States cannot fight this battle. Ultimately, if one looks at the Lawrence v. Texas decision and the full faith and credit clause, there is no question in my mind that the States will be powerless to defend themselves against these runaway judges. In essence, the Constitution will be amended. It will either be amended by a group of State judges who will grab from the language of the Constitution a right for anybody to be married to anybody else or the American people through the process that was established in our Constitution, which is a very difficult process. As a citizen, it is rather upsetting to look at the Constitution as a document and say, well, to create new rights under the Constitution we have to have two-thirds of the Senate, two-thirds of the House and three-quarters of the State legislatures, or four judges in Massachusetts. I looked through the Constitution many times and I never saw that four-judges-in-Massachusetts clause, but that is what goes on. We either do it that way or go through this complex process that is very hard. Why? Because constitutional rights are big deals. It is an important thing. We should not create new rights in our Constitution without a very deliberative, thoughtful process, and the American public should be engaged in that process. That is what we are about today. We are about engaging the American people in the thoughtful process of determining what marriage should be in America. I would argue that those who oppose this process are saying one thing: Let the courts do the work that I do not have the courage to stand up and fight for myself. Let's be clear about that. Let the courts do the work that I do not have the courage to articulate for myself. Oh, we will all get up and say we are for traditional marriage and we like traditional marriage. If my colleagues are for traditional marriage, there is one way to make sure it is maintained. They can say, I do not like this idea or I do not like that idea, but there is one way to make sure, if they are really for traditional marriage, if they really believe this is an important building block of our society, if they really believe marriage is about the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of the future of our culture, there is one guaranteed sure-fire way to make sure that is maintained, and that is through a constitutional amendment. Now, my colleagues can argue until the cows come home that they do not like this way of doing that, and that is fine, and that there are other alternatives to pursue, but if they really care about preserving one man and one woman in a union called marriage, there is one sure- fire way to do it, and that is to vote for a constitutional amendment that does it. Any other excuse is simply that--an excuse to let someone else do their dirty work. I do not hear any of my colleagues who say this is not the way to amend the Constitution writing letters to the litigants in Massachusetts and 11 other States who are suing to change the marriage laws in those States to allow for a redefinition of marriage. Where is the outrage? Where are they writing saying, oh, we do not think that is the way it should be changed, either. We do not hear them criticizing those who want to change traditional marriage and saying do not do this, do not file these lawsuits, do not seek to have these marriages recognized. We hear nothing. We just hear, we will just let someone else handle this. All it takes for this change in marriage in America is for well- meaning, good people to moderately, deliberately, simply do nothing-- just sit back, claim their virtue, claim their belief in one man and one woman in marriage, and allow someone else to change it, and then come and say, well, it is too late, or we cannot take marriage away; these people are already married. How can we take that right away? If my colleagues believe in their heart, for the betterment of America, that marriage must be maintained for the good of the American family as a union between a man and a woman, there is only one choice, and that is to vote yes. Anything short of that is a hollow act, is a smokescreen, to the American people and to their constituents. My colleagues cannot claim to be for something and then vote against it and let someone else do the exact opposite of what they say they want, and that is what the courts will do. So I plead with my colleagues, who I believe have every good intention, to search their souls and to think about the consequences for America. Because other speakers have arrived, I will yield the floor in a minute. I know people come with good intentions and I know people do not want to be seen as intolerant, and they do not want to be seen as hateful or mean spirited or being against anybody. It is not easy, standing up against this popular culture in which we live. But think about the future of America. Think about the future of America without the institution of marriage because that is what we are debating. It is not a matter of redefining marriage. It is simply that marriage will be a social convention which will have no meaning and therefore we will be without it. Think about the future of children in America, where we say they do not deserve a mother and a father and that we are not going to give them the legal force to encourage it and hold it up as the right thing to do. Look in the faces of those children and say: You just were not important enough for us to stand against what is very unpopular in the culture of today. I daresay, this debate, this vote, this issue will be read in history books in America--I hope in America--years from now as that turning point. I hope my colleagues are on the right side of history. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Nevada, I appreciate his offer. I suggest we continue to work together to see if we can come up with a plan on how to proceed. It would be optimal to have a vote, a substantive vote. As the Senator from Nevada may not be aware, there are different opinions on how to best address this issue. There are a couple of other proposals that have been floated out there that Members on our side would like to vote on by way of amendment to the underlying legislation. This is an important piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation on first impression here to the Senate and, given the importance of this legislation, it begs a full debate and the opportunity for different points of view to be expressed through the amendment process. While I appreciate the chance for an up-or-down vote on the Allard text, I do know of many Members who have different ideas and would like to see those ideas be reflected by way of amendment. At this point, we are not capable of agreeing to that but we would be anxious to work with the Senator to see if there is some construct we can put together to allow this issue to be fully debated for those who have different points of view with respect to how to deal with this very important issue of protecting traditional marriage, that they have their opportunity to express their language, their preferable constitutional amendment as opposed to the one the Senator from Colorado has put forth. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I appreciate the willingness of the Democratic whip to agree to having substantive votes because I think it is important to have a substantive vote. As someone who is a cosponsor of the amendment, I will assure you, I have no desire to have anything but an up-or-down vote on the amendments that have been talked about over here on this side of the aisle. The point I would simply want to make to the Senator from Nevada is, No. 1, this issue has had many hearings. There have been seven hearings in congressional committees, four in the Judiciary Committee, ranging from one that was on September 4 of last year, one on March 3 of this year, one on March 23 of this year, and one on May 13. The first three were in the Judiciary Committee. The Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space had one on May 13. The Finance Committee had one on May 5. The HELP Committee had one on April 28. And recently, the Judiciary Committee again had one on June 22. So there have been seven hearings. This issue has been studied. As a result of the study, there are predominantly two different tracks people would like to take here. You have many who are supporting Senator Allard's approach. There is another approach many Members on our side would like to take. All we are suggesting is that at least those two ideas be given the opportunity to be voted on. I do not think we are going to look for a whole long list of amendments. My guess is we would be content with one amendment to provide a little different option for Members on both sides of the aisle to look at, and maybe both sides of the aisle to be supportive of. This may be a situation where we have options available that can attract bipartisan support. Obviously, Senator Allard's amendment has bipartisan support; Senator Miller is on that amendment. It sort of bothers me a little bit when I hear the comment made--and it has been made over and over, not only here on the floor but by many pundits--about we have more important things to do. I cannot think of anything more important to America than family and marriage. I cannot think of anything more important than the basic social building block of our country, and that is what marriage is, that is what the family is. And it is in jeopardy. It is in serious, real jeopardy as a result of what the courts are doing--certainly in Massachusetts and potentially around the country--what mayors are doing, what county executives are doing, and others who are unlawfully acting. But in the case of Massachusetts, under the color of law, at least, or maybe lawfully, if you concede that, they are reinterpreting the Constitution to change the definition of marriage. Now, to me, that is a very serious issue. I cannot think of a more important issue to come before the Senate than to say: What should the future of our culture look like? I think we need to do that in a way that is thoughtful and that is open to different ideas on how to address this issue, because one person, as well meaning as he may be-- and I strongly support his amendment--he has one idea, a group of us have an idea. But there are other ideas out there that should be considered when this very important issue is debated. Why? So we can find the sweet spot, we can find what can build the greatest consensus in the Senate to do something to protect an institution which is at the core of who we are as a culture. While I would say, yes, as we say around here, we try to keep the trains running on time and passing appropriations bills, I think the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who happens to be the Presiding Officer at this time, will tell you we are not ready to pass all the appropriations bills at this point, that we are still waiting for the House to act and to do things to put us in position to deal with that. There are important issues at hand, but I cannot think of anything more important than this issue. So I say to the Senator from Nevada, I would hope he would constructively engage in negotiation with us so we can have a full and fair debate, so we can have different alternatives so the Senate can work its will and hopefully try to find some language that will accommodate a supermajority of Members. I haven't heard any Member come down here and debate the substance of this issue. I suspect I will not hear any Member of the Senate come down here in the next 48 hours or longer and say that marriage should be something other than one man and one woman. There may be, but so far I have not heard that in the Senate. Most who are opposing the constitutional amendment do so for a variety of reasons but not because they don't support the definition of traditional marriage. If that is the case, I would think we would want to work hard to try to find some way in which to protect this institution. Everybody admits, even those who are not for this constitutional amendment that has been proposed, that traditional marriage is under assault in the courts. Some would suggest this is an issue we just should not deal with. Some would suggest this is too heavyhanded a way. Let's bring some people together. Let's bring the debate together. Let's see if we can find the language that would address this issue and stop what I believe is the death knell of our society, which is the ultimate breakdown of the traditional family and the meaning of that to future generations of children. I know the sponsor of the amendment is here. I will yield the floor to allow him to speak. If the Senator from Nevada has a comment, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I congratulate both the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Texas for their excellent comments and for adding to this debate. I think one of the main facts we tend to overlook in this institution is the importance of the debate--the importance of engaging in a subject matter and having a colleague focus on an issue and having the American public focus on an issue. I think in a very short period of time the issue of marriage actually has come to the fore in America--to actually start to think about what marriage is. What is the purpose of marriage? What is it all about, and how does it fit into American culture? I told the story when the Massachusetts decision was first handed down about being questioned by college students. As the Presiding Officer knows, we are constantly bombarded by high school and college students who come down and visit with us. It is a wonderful thing when you get a chance to stay in touch with what the young mind is thinking and the popular culture they are influenced by. Once Goodridge was handed down, I would get the question, How do you feel about changing the definition of marriage? I would enter into a discussion. I came up with the idea of asking those young people, before I answered that question, What is the purpose of marriage? Absolutely without fail, for about a 2-month period of time, as I would do that almost on a daily basis when we were in session because the issue was a hot issue at the time, I would get three or four hands going up. The answer would be to affirm the love between two people. That was the answer. I would ask several other folks, generally speaking, some sort of variation on that theme. There would usually be some young man--usually a young man, occasionally a young lady, in the back, always in the back--who would put his hand up and sheeplishly say something like procreation and rearing of children. I have to tell you that for a several-month period of time, when that young man or young lady would raise their hand and would say that, the majority of the kids in the group would laugh, which somewhat startled me. Then, of course, I would say I agree with that man in the back or that young lady in the back about the principal purpose of marriage. Yet to many of our young people that was not something which was considered. The only thing that was considered was about them in a sense. Consider yourself. Why do you want to be married? Well, to make me happy, to join me with someone I love. That is what marriage is about. It is about me. I would suspect, if you went back and talked to your grandmother or great-grandmother, and you asked what the purpose of marriage is, they would probably give you a very different answer. Thankfully, I am getting a different answer now when I ask that question. More and more people are saying what that sheepish young boy or young girl would say in the back, and there are fewer and fewer laughs when they say it is about children. I can only give as a reason for that the fact that we have had this debate as to what marriage means and the importance of it to our society. It is like the oxygen we breathe. We breathe it and we know it is there. It is essential to life, but we sort of take for granted that it is just going to be there. That is our bodily function because it is just going to be there. The body politic, the body, the social body, that culture that is in America sort of takes marriage for granted. When we see places where marriage maybe has been taken too much for granted or simply been pushed aside as something that isn't necessary, we see how culture and society suffer greatly. One of the things I wanted to do in the little time I have here--and I think the Senator from Kansas is here, and I know he wants to speak-- is talk about what the purpose of marriage is. Why is this issue so central? We tend to talk about what the need for this amendment is and get sort of wrapped up in the procedure. I think one of the great blessings of the Senate is an opportunity to debate, educate, and to think through things. I earlier quoted a study by professors Young and Nathan. I will go through a little bit more of this article. But they lay out in a paragraph of the study the purpose, if you will, the reason for marriage, and why society must encourage it. As I mentioned in my earlier comments, if society doesn't encourage marriage and fidelity between a man and a woman, the natural inclination is certainly--as I think we have seen in many subcultures in America--not to be faithful, not to be responsible fathers, not to be involved with a woman for a long-term commitment. This is something which, if not nurtured by culture, could cause us to evolve very quickly into a rather self-absorbed, self-centered culture, with men being the principal stirrer of that lethal cocktail in America. But to quote professors Young and Nathan: The culture of marriage must encourage at least five things. A, the bonding between men and women that ensures their cooperation for the common good; B, the birth and rearing of children, at least to the extent necessary for preserving and fostering society in a culturally approved way; C, bonding between men and children so that men are likely to become active participants in family life; D, some healthy form of masculine identity which is based on the need for at least one distinctive, necessary and publicly valued contribution to society and is especially important today because the other two cross-cultural definitions of manhood, provider and protector, are no longer distinctive now that women have entered the public realm; and E, the transformation of adolescence into sexually responsible adults so young men and women are ready for marriage and the beginning of a new cycle. So why do we support marriage? Why do we hold up marriage as a special institution to which we give prestige and esteem, that we support with cultural and social norms, to which we give legal preferences, legal protection? Why do we do this as a culture? Why has every culture in the history of man provided the same kind of nurturing and support for husbands, for men and women to become husbands and wives and fathers and mothers? We do this for the reasons that are laid out here--at least for these reasons laid out here. Some of them are really interesting, if you dig into them as to how, without this kind of nurturing, we can see very clearly how our society would be harmed. I haven't heard anybody get up and argue that marriage between a man and a woman is bad. I haven't heard anybody get up and suggest that we should change the definition of ``traditional.'' In fact, I haven't heard anybody here, nor do I expect to hear anyone here, advocate for the States to change the definition of traditional marriage. One wonders if there is unanimity of opinion as to what marriage is. And I suspect, although I would be happy to hear people come forward and disagree with these elements that I have just laid forth--but if there is agreement as to what marriage is and the purpose and the benefits of society for marriage, why are we so reticent in doing what we know for sure will protect that institution? Again, Members can make the arguments up and down that there are other ways we can protect marriage: The States can do it, the State courts can do it, the legislatures can do it, the DOMA statute, or the House, which is looking at some sort of limitation of jurisdiction. We can look at a whole variety of different things and say this could work, this might work, this may happen, but ultimately we know for sure one thing will work. A constitutional amendment defining marriage will, without question, work. We have to ask ourselves, if marriage is this institution so critical to the future of our society, it is so foundational for our children and for men and women to build these bonds for the common good--and after the Senator from Kansas speaks, I will go through chart after chart of the benefits children gain from being in a married family--if we accept that social good, then why is there not overwhelming support for something most people even 10 years ago would have said: This is common sense. Of course marriage is between men and women. We do not have to put that into the Constitution. Everyone agrees with that. Yes, everyone agrees, but Members will stand up in the Senate and say: We all agree with that, but it does not belong in the Constitution. Marriage is not important enough. Families are not important enough to be protected by our Constitution, to be protected from rogue judges who say things like marriage is a stain on our laws that must be eradicated. I believe ultimately we will protect marriage. Let's start now. Let's come together and make some commonsense decisions about protecting the institution that is so valuable to this country, that we know is a public good. We can do that starting this week.

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, President Bush officially declared the month of June as ``National Homeownership Month,'' and with this annual tradition, America's attention was again drawn to the importance of homeownership and the stability it can bring to families and neighborhoods. It is often homeownership that financially anchors American families and civically anchors our communities. But I believe our focus on homeownership also returns our attention to the basic ideals of the American Dream. Ensuring access to homeownership, and through it access to the American Dream, is among the most significant ways we can empower our citizens to achieve the happy, productive and stable lifestyle everyone desires. Having a house of one's own that provides security and comfort to one's family and that gives families an active, vested interest in the quality of life their community provides is central to our collective ideas about freedom and self-determination. As a nation, we know that homeownership helps the emotional and intellectual growth and development of children. We know that homeowners show greater interest and more frequent participation in civic organizations and neighborhood issues. We know that when people own homes, they are more likely to accumulate wealth and assets and to prepare themselves financially for such things as their children's education and retirement. In America today, homeownership is at a record high. Unfortunately, however, there remains a significant gap between minority and non- minority populations, leaving homeownership an elusive financial prospect for many. The homeownership rate for the nation's African American and Hispanic households lags more than 25 percentage points below White households. In Congress, we have the responsibility of ensuring that the dream of homeownership is possible for more of our citizens. Last year, Senator John Kerry and I drafted and sponsored S. 875, the ``Community Development Homeownership Tax Credit Act,'' a bill that enjoys strong bipartisan support in the Senate. This legislation would give developers and investors an incentive to participate in the rehabilitation and construction of homes for low- and moderate-income buyers. This measure is aimed at reaching President Bush's goal of increasing American minority homeownership by 5.5 million families, thus making 5.5 million new dreams come true. Owning a home is an integral part of attaining the security, continuity, and comfort of living the American Dream. I will continue to advocate policies that help make this dream become a reality for our Nation's families. I ask my colleagues to join me in support- ing homeownership by cosponsoring S. 875.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I conclude by saying this is an important vote. This is not just a vote to confirm a district judge in Arkansas. I know that does not sound like a big deal to people who are hearing my voice. It is a district court, a small court, Arkansas. It is not Washington, DC, or New York City. It is not a glamourous place to serve, just like western Pennsylvania and central Pennsylvania are not glamourous places to serve. But we do justice in these communities because we get good people who are from the community, who are good, decent, moral people, who live their faith as they are allowed to do by our Constitution. If we send a message out today that living your faith, espousing your faith, exercising your religion is now cause for defeat on the floor of the Senate, if we send the word out today that unless your religious beliefs are contemporary or have been contemporized, unless you have adapted the popular culture into your faith, you are no longer suitable to hold that office, then I think we make a dangerous statement, not just to people in this country, but to the world. This is a big vote. Anybody who thinks this is not a big vote, let me assure them, I will remind people here for quite some time how big a vote this was. This is a vote about religious freedom. This is a vote about the free exercise of religion, and this is a vote about tolerance. We hear so much from the other side about tolerance--tolerance, tolerance, tolerance. Where is the tolerance of people who want to believe what has been taught for 2,000 years as truth. You have a right to disagree with that teaching. You have a right to adapt your contemporary mores to that teaching. But where is the tolerance of people who choose to keep that faith? We will have a vote on Judge Leon Holmes, but it will be a bigger vote than just on that judge. It will be a vote on the soul of the free exercise of religion clause and of tolerance to religion. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, let me first congratulate both Senators from Arkansas for their eloquent statements and their strong defense of Mr. Holmes. It speaks volumes of the qualifications and credibility of this nominee that these two Senators would step forward and speak as straightforwardly as they have and to reflect the values of the people in Arkansas who know him best. This is a man who has strong support from across the ideological spectrum in Arkansas, again, from the people who know him. I have had the privilege of standing before the Senate in the last 3 years to speak on behalf of 20 nominees from Pennsylvania who we have moved through here and into confirmation. I have seen many of these men and women come under assault through this judicial process. It has become increasingly contentious, personal, and is reaching a point where we almost have a situation where people are now unwilling to step forward and enter into this arena of judicial nominations because of this attitude that has crept up in the Senate over the last few years. I have seen really good people, who obviously otherwise would not be nominated for the Federal bench, come under assault for things they have said years and years ago, things they may have done years and years ago. I have pored through FBI records, as many members of the Judiciary Committee have, and seen blemishes, indiscretions of youth that have disqualified people from this office that heretofore would never have disqualified some of them. This is a pretty tough place to put your name in nomination these days. One person who has gone through probably as much as anyone over the past year has been Leon Holmes. His nomination has been out there for well over a year. He is someone who has had a lot of challenges made about things he has said and positions he has held. He has stood firm in defense of statements that were defensible and apologized for those that were not. That sounds to me like a pretty balanced way of approaching things. When you believe you were right in saying what you were saying, you stand by the feelings you articulated, and when you believe you made a mistake and were in error, you have the courage to stand up and say you were wrong. I don't think we could ask for any more out of someone. In the case of Leon Holmes, specifically where he said he was wrong, as referred to by the Senator from Arkansas a minute ago, was his comments about rape and pregnancy. He was in error. He made a mistake. I would argue that he has paid dearly over the past year for that statement. However, that is not what he believes and he has not believed that for quite a long time. The statement was made over 20 years ago. Again, I remind the Senate how we need to look at the whole person, not a statement made 20-plus years ago for which the person has subsequently apologized, not just to this body but has said over the years that that was a statement in error. We want to look at the whole person, as the Senators from Arkansas, Senator Hatch, our leader, has described, the whole person, with whom I had a chance to meet a few months ago, someone who is a very impressive man, a man who is obviously very gifted as a lawyer, a man who is a strong family person, believes in the centrality of the family, the importance of his role as a husband and father. He understands his role in the community. He is someone who gives to the community and is an active person in the community as well as in the bar, in his profession, and has earned the respect of people throughout his community for the tremendous effort he gives and the equanimity with which he deals with difficult situations. The one thing that struck me when meeting him was--everyone has visions of when you meet someone what they are going to look like and what they will sound like. He was just a very gentle, kind, knowledgeable, professional lawyer, someone with whom I would have felt comfortable representing me because I don't share necessarily all those qualities. He would be a nice complement to someone representing me in the courtroom. This was someone I thought: If I had to appear before a judge, I sort of would like to appear with someone who had these kinds of qualities and temperament. So he fits in very nicely with what has been described by the Senators from Arkansas, at least from my personal meeting. So what is the problem? You have the two home State Senators of the opposite party in support of him. You have the Arkansas Bar and all of his colleagues who have come out and been supportive. People who are liberal Democrats have said some of the most flattering things I have ever heard about people on the floor of the Senate. So what is the problem? Is it a statement he made 20-plus years ago? Do you think that could cause the defeat of a man who has a record and a distinguished career and service to his community and faithfulness to his family and a good father? Does that one statement 24 years ago disqualify him from being a judge? I don't think that is it. What else is out there? There are only two issues I have heard of that are out there. The second was an article he wrote, an article he wrote with his wife for his diocese, for his church, the Roman Catholic Church in Arkansas. It was an article about a particular passage in one of Paul's letters discussing marriage and the role of husbands and wives. He simply went through with his wife and described what you would see described in reading any text describing and explaining those verses from the Bible. You would see it described in any Vatican text, any text that is in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church that would use the same arguments and say the same things that Leon Holmes and his wife said in this article. What he gave was the orthodox Catholic interpretation of those sections of the Bible. It is what I have heard in many a Sunday sermon. When that section of the Bible has been read and the priest would get up and talk about it, he would give almost chapter and verse the explanation that Leon Holmes and his wife gave in that dissertation. So was Leon Holmes expressing his opinion? Yes. In some respects he was. But as a believing Catholic, he was expressing the opinion of the church. As a believing Catholic, he was merely reflecting the teachings that he has been taught over the years from the church. Now, if this were a writing by an individual who took this passage of Scripture and took it off in a different direction--something alien to the church--then you might be able to say you can criticize him for not being a faithful Catholic. You could say, look, this is a man who has his own ideas; he wants to reinterpret Scripture to mean something that is potentially degrading to men, or women, or both. But that is not what he did. What he did--and I didn't ask him this, but I suspect that he did what I would have done, which is, as a Catholic, if I am going to look at interpreting Scripture, I am going to look at what the church says about these writings in the Bible, because the Catholic Church has a very rich history of interpreting the Bible. So what I would do is go back and look and see what the church has said about this and how it interprets these passages and then reflect that in what I was going to write, because to me that is what the role of a Catholic is. Again, that is what the Catholic Church teaches; that is what I believe. That is what the Catholic Church teaches; that is what Leon Holmes believes. Now, what he is being criticized for is for holding these beliefs-- beliefs shared by a billion people. You can say that may be out of the mainstream. I don't know. But it is shared by a billion people. It is an interpretation that has been around for a couple thousand years. If you say, because you hold these beliefs that are central to the faith, that you are disqualified for writing an article for your church--not writing a political article, not writing a judicial opinion, not writing in a secular magazine, but writing an article about Scriptural interpretation for your church, that if you do that and it is not politically correct, it is not seen as being within the mainstream of political dialog today, you cannot be a Federal judge. I find that to be rather chilling. There was an article in the Washington Times. I have the quote: I will tell you, as a person with a Catholic background, that these are troubling statements for him to make. This is regarding the statements I talked about on the role of women and men in marriage. Mr. Holmes' statements reflect a narrow view of Catholic theology and do not embody contemporary standards that would be followed by any Federal judge in any State. Think about that. Because of his Catholic faith, because he holds these beliefs that the Catholic Church teaches, he cannot be a Federal judge. Is that what freedom of religion means in our Constitution? Is that what the term ``free exercise of religion'' means in our Constitution--that we are going to eliminate anybody who is nominated for a Federal judgeship who actually exercises their religious beliefs and states them for his own church, and that now disqualifies them? Let's start to take sandpaper out and scratch out ``in God we trust'' over there; let's start sanitizing this place of any faith that is not politically correct or of contemporary standards. Isn't that what faith is about, contemporary standards? It changes. If your faith doesn't change, you are out. If your faith doesn't adapt to the contemporary mores of today in America, you are disqualified. Mr. President, that is what is being said here today. If you hold a traditional religion and stand by it, live it, practice it, espouse it, you need not apply, because your religion hasn't adapted to contemporary standards and, therefore, you cannot be a judge. Imagine what our Founders would be doing right now. Imagine. Free exercise of religion. What does ``exercise'' mean? Does it mean sitting here like this? Is that exercise? How about going to church on Sunday, sitting in the pew, or staying at home and reading your Bible; is that exercise? We all know what exercise means. It means to get out and do it. They used an active word here. What was Leon Holmes doing? He was simply exercising his fundamental constitutional right to express his beliefs--not as a member of the legal community, not as a citizen of the State of Arkansas, but as a faithful Catholic to other Catholics in his Catholic community. And for that we say he cannot be a judge? Some in this body today will vote against this man because he had the audacity to practice his faith. So we now understand the religious litmus test. If you belong to a religion that has not ``adapted,'' has not stayed with the times, if you are one of these old-fashioned religions who believes the truth was actually laid out and the truth doesn't change, and we actually have people who believe--incredibly, to some in this body--that God laid out certain truths, communicated them, and they have not changed because God has not changed. But if you feel that way, you are out. You are out because the narrow views that do not embody contemporary standards--God's ``narrow view''--at least some believe that, and I argue they have the right to believe in these ``narrow views'' that have been around for a couple thousand years, but they are narrow views. That is right, the path is narrow. Maybe now it is too narrow to get you through the Senate. Imagine. Imagine that here in a country that professes, as one of its highest ideals, the freedom of religion, in a country that, as we try to build a republic and a democracy in Iraq, that we had letters signed by people on both sides of the aisle in large numbers encouraging religious pluralism in Iraq, that we now say religious pluralism doesn't necessarily apply here anymore in the Senate. This is a dangerous moment for us in the Senate. It is a dangerous moment, where a man may not become a judge simply because he holds religious tenets that have not kept up with contemporary mores. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the confirmation of Judge Juan R. Sanchez to the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I thank the President for his nomination of this excellent candidate and to congratulate Judge Sanchez and his family. Judge Sanchez is a cum laude graduate of the City College of the City University of New York. He received his law degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1981. Since 1998, he has served as a judge on the Court of Common Pleas, 15th Judicial District of Pennsylvania in West Chester, PA. Judge Sanchez brings to the bench wide-ranging legal experience. He served as a staff attorney for Legal Aid of Chester County in West Chester, PA, from 1981 to 1983. He had a general legal practice and was a partner with Nester, Nester & Sanchez from 1983 to 1990. He as a sole practitioner from 1990 to 1997. Judge Sanchez also served as a senior trial attorney at MacElree, Harvey, Gallagher, Featherman & Sebastian. Judge Sanchez serves as an adjunct professor at West Chester University, Immaculata University, and Villanova University School of Law. Judge Sanchez has served his community in numerous ways. He has served on the board of Centro Guayacan, a multicultural educational community center, Riverside Care of Chester County, Chester County Hospital, the YMCA of Central Chester County and the YMCA of Brandywine Valley, the Volunteer English Program in Chester County, and Community Volunteers in Medicine. He has also served as a commissioner for the Housing Authority of Chester County and as an advisor to the United Way of Chester County. He has received several awards for his service as a judge and his service to the community. Again, I express my strong support for his nomination. I thank Judge Sanchez for his willingness to serve Pennsylvania on the Federal bench. I look forward to his approval by the Senate and urge my colleagues to support his confirmation. In addition to what Senator Specter said, this man has made a tremendous contribution to the Hispanic community in Chester County and has done a lot in the strengthening and building of that community. He has great legal talent to go along with it. He is truly an extraordinary person, will be an extraordinary judge, and has been an extraordinary judge in Chester County.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Additionally, we are united in advocating continued support for these critical programs so we can meet our national security needs of tomorrow. The Department of Defense's S&T program provides a unique contribution to the job of equipping and protecting our men and women in uniform and defending America. S&T funding supports education and training for future scientists and engineers-- leading to technological advancements that shape defense technologies, including engineering, mathematics, and physical, computer and behavorial sciences. Throughout the decades of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the Department of Defense and other federal agencies sustained their commitments to these investments in American universities. This investment can be measured by the number of systems relied upon by America today to project power and maintain our interests around the globe.

Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator from New Mexico is correct. He has been a strong advocate for our Department of Defense S&T program for many years. It is worth noting that together, we have succeeded in raising the profile of these budget accounts and helped to influence the levels requested for the S&T program in the annual budget request submitted by this and other administrations. I also want to thank Senator Bingaman for his support for my amendment--SA 182--to H. Con. Res. 83, the Senate's Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2002, which sought to increase funding devoted to the Department of Defense's Basic Research--6.1--account. It is by investing in these budget accounts that we will reap the technology benefits that will sustain our military edge over our adversaries.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to engage the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Senator Jeff Bingaman, concerning the Department of Defense Science and Technology--S&T--program. Senator Bingaman and I are both former members of the Senate's Committee on Armed Services and have a deep appreciation for the importance of the Department of Defense's S&T program in meeting current and future defense needs.

Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator is correct in his statement and I too support the 3 percent S&T program funding goal.

Mr. SANTORUM. Senator Bingaman is correct. For over 50 years, Department of Defense investment in university research has been a dominant element of the Nation's research and development infrastructure and an essential component of the United States capacity for technological innovation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit this statement related to the Senate's unanimous confirmation of the nominations yesterday of Paul Steven Diamond and Lawrence F. Stengel as United States District Judges for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after only a brief opportunity to speak on their behalf. First, I want to thank the President for their nominations and congratulate them and their families and to thank them for their willingness to serve Pennsylvania and our country. Paul Diamond attended Hunter College-City University of New York and Columbia University where he graduated Magna Cum Laude in 1974. He received his J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1977. He served as an Assistant District Attorney in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office from 1977-1980. Paul Diamond then served as a law clerk on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to former Justice Bruce W. Kauffman, who now serves as a Federal judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He returned to the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office until 1983. From 1983 until 1991 he was an associate and then a partner at Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Kauffmann in Philadelphia. Paul Diamond was an Adjunct Professor at Temple University School of Law from 1990-1992. From 1992 until the present he has been a partner at Obermayer Rebmann Maxmann & Hippel in Philadelphia. Paul Diamond has written a book, Federal Grand Jury Practice and Procedure, and several articles on issues related to grand juries. He has extensive experience in general civil and criminal law practice areas and will be an excellent addition to the Federal bench. I also want to extend my congratulations to Judge Lawrence F. Stengel who has served as a Common Pleas Judge in Lancaster County since 1990. Judge Stengel received a B.A. from St. Joseph's College and his J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. His service on the Court was preceded by 10 years of legal practice, where he focused primarily on civil litigation matters as an associate at Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, PC, and in private practice as a sole practitioner. He has also served as an adjunct professor at Franklin & Marshall College and Millersville University. He has also served his community prior to legal practice as an English and Social Studies teacher at Lancaster Catholic High School. Judge Stengel was also a board member of Leadership Lancaster which assists young leaders with getting connected with community organizations. He has also served as a Guardian Ad-litem for abused children. As President of the Lancaster Bar Association, Judge Stengel formed a diversity task force to investigate ways to increase the number of minority attorneys practicing in Lancaster County and appointed a committee for the creation of the Lancaster Bar Association Foundation--a foundation whose primary purpose is to raise funds for enhancing the delivery of services to underprivileged clients. I am pleased that he will be serving on the Federal bench. I want to thank my colleagues for their support for these nominations and again congratulate them and their families.