Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is an amendment I am offering on behalf of Senator Coleman as well as Senator Collins and Senator Snowe on the CDBG Program. This is an amendment I worked with Senator Coleman on last year. He offered it last year, and I want to thank him for his cooperation in allowing me to step forward. This is an important issue to my State. It is an important issue to most States across America. This is a program that is, I believe, one of the most effective programs we have in the Federal Government to help localities deal with housing problems, local economic development problems, and community problems we have. In Pennsylvania we get well over $50 million a year for this program. I don't know of anything that unites Republicans and Democrats on a local level more than the CDBG Program. The Community Development Block Grant Program, CDBG, is a program that takes money from the Federal Government and distributes it into the local communities for local priorities. There is a broad degree of discretion in this program and it allows the local communities to leverage Federal dollars to attract, in some cases, private dollars and, in some cases, other State dollars or philanthropic dollars that are used for projects that are vital to the local community. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the President has reduced the funding allocation for this program. Last year we were able to put back some of that money into CDBG. We ended up with about $3.7 billion for the CDBG last year. My amendment would add $1.3 billion. That would bring it up to $4.3 billion for this year. That level, by the way, is exactly the level that was appropriated for CDBG in the year 2004. So we are not talking about an outrageous increase; we are just trying to get back to historic levels of funding for this program. Again, it is a program that is vitally important for the local community. This is offset with section 920. I have heard the Senator from North Dakota talk about there being no money in section 920, and he is absolutely right, there is no money in section 920. But what this amendment does is set priorities. It says to the appropriators that the Congress--I think this amendment will be approved overwhelmingly--that the Congress and the Senate believe this is a program that needs more robust funding. This is a program that is a priority for the Senate and for folks on both sides of the aisle. I appreciate the opportunity to come here to speak on this very important amendment. It sends a very clear signal that this is an area we need more resources devoted to. I thank the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from New Hampshire for allowing me the opportunity to speak at this time. Amendment No. 3073

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise to talk about the Amtrak issue. This is a very important issue to me, to my State, to Philadelphia, and the 30th Street station. It is the second busiest train station nationally, with over 3.7 million boarding a year. Amtrak and the health of Amtrak is important. In addition, we have about 3,000 employees based in Pennsylvania who are employed by Amtrak. It not only makes a difference for us from the standpoint of our communities in southeastern Pennsylvania but the employment picture as well. The continued health of Amtrak is important. That is why over the years you have supported efforts on the floor of the Senate to increase funding for Amtrak. I voted for appropriations bills as well as budget proposals. I rise in opposition to the Byrd amendment. The chairman of the Finance Committee articulated it well--that in essence what Senator Byrd wants to do is increase taxes to pay for this amendment. I cannot support hurting the economy of this country by supporting something that is important from an appropriations standpoint. I think we need to set priorities in appropriations. We have done that in the past. Amtrak has fared very well here in the Senate, and we have had support in the House to be able to get funding for this program. In fact, over the years we have increased funding. Last year the Senate version had $1.45 billion, which is obviously more than the $900 million in the current budget proposal. I will be offering an amendment to increase that funding from the $900 million which is in the bill right now to the $1.45 billion level and adding $550 million. I will do so through the section 920 account. I anticipate my colleague from North Dakota coming up and saying again that there is no money in the 920 account. He is correct; there is not money there, but there will be a very strong message sent by passing this amendment, if it is successful, to the appropriators of the importance of this program. Again, I think we have seen that without raising the cap or without raising taxes, the Senate has been able to come up with a robust number for Amtrak which I will support within the context of a responsible budget. We have done it year after year, and we will continue to do that. Amendment No. 3015 I call up my amendment No. 3015.

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, Senator Specter is an original cosponsor of this amendment. Obviously there is no greater supporter of Amtrak out there than Senator Specter. We hope this amendment will be passed and the Byrd amendment will be defeated. But understand that the commitment of Senator Specter and my commitment is that we will work through the appropriations process to make sure Amtrak is adequately funded in the appropriations process. I think I have said all I need to say on the Amtrak issue. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Vitter and Senator Talent as cosponsors to my amendment No. 3050, which is increasing funding for the CDBG Program.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the amendment that was just offered by Senator Murray was defeated. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment which does not raise the cap but, in fact, expresses a strong sentiment, a strong bipartisan sentiment that the CDBG Program should be funded more robustly. It is at $1.3 billion. It is offset by the 920 account. But it does express a very important sentiment that this is a high-priority program and that the appropriators should allocate more resources than the President did in his budget recommendation.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, do I have any time left on my amendment?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Dubai Ports World acquisition and the subsequent announcement to transfer operation of U.S. port terminals to a U.S. entity. Last week, my colleague from New York offered an amendment to S. 2349, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006. While the security of our ports is my foremost concern, especially as a Senator representing a State where one of the ports in question is located, I do not believe the time or the vehicle was appropriate for a vote on Senator Schumer's amendment. I have been a vocal critic of this transaction for weeks, but when my colleague's amendment was offered, Dubai Ports World had already resubmitted its application to the Committee on Foreign Investment, CFIUS. A second review of the transaction was pending. Furthermore, I had signed onto a bipartisan letter with Senator Schumer and eight other Members just the week before to the majority and minority leaders. In that letter, we expressed our desire to closely examine the facts that would be presented, and we retained our right to pursue legislative action after the review was completed should the outcome prove unsatisfactory. Then, just last Friday, DP World announced their decision to transfer the U.S. port terminals acquired from Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company to a U.S. entity. While we are still seeking clarification of exactly what that means, my hope is that this decision will allay our concerns about this particular transaction. I expect a thorough review of this proposal by the appropriate agencies, and Congress assuredly has the will to act if concerns remain. Should the immediate need for action disappear, Congress cannot ignore the underlying problems this acquisition has brought to light. First, we need to remain diligent in securing ports both domestically and abroad. Significant investments at foreign ports are critical. We cannot allow hazardous materials or weapons of mass destruction to enter our ports in the first place. By then, it could be too late. Second, Congress must undertake a comprehensive review of the CFIUS process. Chairman Shelby has already begun that process in the Banking Committee. I look forward to working with him and my colleagues to aggressively execute our oversight authority and expeditiously enact any reforms that may be necessary to ensure the safety and economic vitality of my State and this great Nation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the above mentioned letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer remarks on legislation that I am introducing today here in the Senate. This legislation concerns the need to release military documents and photographs recovered in Iraq and Afghanistan. Specifically, the bill requires the Director of National Intelligence to make publicly available on an Internet website documents captured in Afghanistan or Iraq during Operation Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Iraqi Freedom. In my conversations with President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, I urged that efforts to examine these documents and photographs be accelerated. With U.S. and Coalition forces actively engaged in Iraq, the analysis and release of these documents should be made a top priority within the Department of Defense. Recently, I gave a speech at the Valley Forge Military Academy in Pennsylvania concerning ongoing military operations in Iraq and detailed why we must prevail. In my speech, I noted that U.S. and Coalition forces are fighting the forces of Islamic fascism and those who seek to overthrow the values and beliefs that civilized nations cherish. In short, this is a battle we cannot afford to lose. By way of background, The Weekly Standard published several articles detailing a number of these documents and the information contained within them which ``connect the dots'' between Saddam Hussein and the training of Islamic terrorists. Among the points highlighted in a recent The Weekly Standard article: The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million ``exploitable items'' captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives . . . Nearly three years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, only 50,000 of these 2 million ``exploitable items'' have been thoroughly examined. Many of the translated and analyzed documents were entered into a government database known as ``HARMONY.'' It is now 4 years since these documents were captured. I understand that previous requests to release information from the HARMONY database have been rejected or delayed. It is reasonable to assume that over the course of the last 4 years any actionable intelligence contained within these documents has already been exploited. It is imperative that documents captured in Iraq which highlight the connections between Saddam Hussein's brutal regime and Islamic terrorists be released as soon as possible. These documents are increasingly necessary to help the American people understand both the reasons for our involvement in Iraq and the challenge of defending freedom and democracy. However, in the interest of national security, the bill permits the Director of National Intelligence to withhold making a document publicly available--provided he informs the relevant congressional committees of the justification for not disclosing the document.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer remarks on legislation that I am introducing today here in the Senate. This legislation concerns the need to release military documents and photographs recovered in Iraq and Afghanistan. Specifically, the bill requires the Director of National Intelligence to make publicly available on an Internet website documents captured in Afghanistan or Iraq during Operation Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Iraqi Freedom. In my conversations with President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, I urged that efforts to examine these documents and photographs be accelerated. With U.S. and Coalition forces actively engaged in Iraq, the analysis and release of these documents should be made a top priority within the Department of Defense. Recently, I gave a speech at the Valley Forge Military Academy in Pennsylvania concerning ongoing military operations in Iraq and detailed why we must prevail. In my speech, I noted that U.S. and Coalition forces are fighting the forces of Islamic fascism and those who seek to overthrow the values and beliefs that civilized nations cherish. In short, this is a battle we cannot afford to lose. By way of background, The Weekly Standard published several articles detailing a number of these documents and the information contained within them which ``connect the dots'' between Saddam Hussein and the training of Islamic terrorists. Among the points highlighted in a recent The Weekly Standard article: The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million ``exploitable items'' captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives . . . Nearly three years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, only 50,000 of these 2 million ``exploitable items'' have been thoroughly examined. Many of the translated and analyzed documents were entered into a government database known as ``HARMONY.'' It is now 4 years since these documents were captured. I understand that previous requests to release information from the HARMONY database have been rejected or delayed. It is reasonable to assume that over the course of the last 4 years any actionable intelligence contained within these documents has already been exploited. It is imperative that documents captured in Iraq which highlight the connections between Saddam Hussein's brutal regime and Islamic terrorists be released as soon as possible. These documents are increasingly necessary to help the American people understand both the reasons for our involvement in Iraq and the challenge of defending freedom and democracy. However, in the interest of national security, the bill permits the Director of National Intelligence to withhold making a document publicly available--provided he informs the relevant congressional committees of the justification for not disclosing the document.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM. My understanding was that the Santorum-Feingold-McCain- Lieberman amendment was by consent, next in line, is that not the case?

Mr. SANTORUM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, we have been trying to go back and forth. The last speaker was Senator Boxer. I think we have been trying to alternate back and forth.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am going to talk about the bill, and then I will yield back to Senator Dodd to actually offer the amendment we are working on, was my intent. That was the plan. Mr. President, I, too, rise to thank Senator Lott and Senator Dodd, as well as Senator Kyl and Senator Lieberman. They talked about how this process has been somewhat unique in the annals of recent Senate history and about how this process has worked now for the past month, a little over a month in a way that, as Senator Lott said, should be done more often around here, which is sitting down and having good, bipartisan discussions to try to come up with a consensus piece of legislation. While obviously there will be lots of amendments, at least the foundation of this bill is one that included a lot of bipartisan input and, in fact, has features from both sides of the aisle and is as much a bipartisan bill, at least on a major bill, as has been brought to the floor in a long time. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the committees, in particular Senator McCain for his leadership on this issue, as well as others who participated in the bipartisan process, including Senator Feingold, Senator Pryor, Senator Obama, Senator Salazar, and others who have made contributions on the Democratic side; Senator Vitter, Senator Isakson on the Republican side, who have also been very involved in the process. As a result of that process, we came up with a working document. I won't call it a consensus because there were Members who had varying points of view on a variety of these issues, but let's say that at the conclusion of our discussions we had a working draft that had broad support as a whole. At the same time, as you will see in the discussions and in the amendments we are going to have today, some wish to ratchet it up a little bit, make it a little tougher; others thought it might be a little too tough. But in the areas of concern, there was broad agreement on what those areas of concern are, and suggestions of approaches on how to deal with it. I wish to go through the areas that we agreed needed to be addressed and what the general idea was in how to proceed with a lot of the things that are up here, which were foundational in the sense that we started with the McCain-Lieberman bill that Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman introduced a couple of months ago, and there was some tinkering to that legislation. Overall, the disclosure requirements in that legislation were universally embraced and adopted for disclosure of lobbyist contributions to Member PACs, and lobbyist disclosure of executive and congressional employment. All of those things were included, as well as others we have heard talked about on the floor. Several things were not included: disclosure of contracts with State sponsors of terrorism. That is something I happen to believe should be included in the legislation, but so far we have had objections to that being included. I am not too sure I understand why but, nevertheless, it has not been included. We suggested 30 days, not 60 days, to comply with the rules. That has not been included. Higher penalties. The penalties were increased from $50,000 to $100,000. Many of us believe that is not sufficient as a deterrent for some who make a lot more than $50,000 or $100,000 around here on transactions. So we think a higher penalty sends a stronger signal, and I will be offering an amendment on that to increase the penalties up to $200,000. Again, it is up to $200,000 for breaking these rules, lobbyists breaking these rules. One of the important things we brought to the table that was not in the underlying bill was disclosure of rule enforcement by the Secretary of the Senate and the U.S. Attorney. In other words, one of the concerns Members have and that the public has is, What sort of oversight is being done? Are there any actions being taken? What this would require is that when there, in fact, is an action taken on the part of the committee, and it has been referred to a U.S. Attorney for prosecution--not that particular case, but at least the number of cases that have been referred is made public so we know the level of activity. Not the specific charge, because we don't know whether the U.S. Attorney will actually bring a charge, but we at least know the number. There are several other things we did in our bipartisan discussions: ban registered lobbyists who are former Members from the Senate floor; no staff contact with lobbyists who are a member of the family, which is an amendment I successfully offered in committee, in the Rules Committee; and the earmark transparency, something Senator Lott and Senator Feinstein have worked with, and obviously Senator McCain. There will be differences. We passed something out of the Rules Committee. There will be amendments to try to expand this provision, maybe contract this provision, modify it; but the idea was developed and supported by a bipartisan group. Another thing Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman put in their bill, which was very important that we brought to the table, was the idea of an SRO, a self-regulatory organization that many professional organizations use to police their own ranks. While we can pass laws and we can pass rules that try to govern the lobbyist profession, there are a lot of things within the profession that need to be upgraded, whether it is fees or whether it is professional ethics, and there is not a good body out there that does that. There certainly isn't any kind of self-regulatory body that does that. We think it is vitally important to send a message from the Congress to the folks who make a living petitioning their government to clean up their own house, and particularly in greater detail than what the Congress could or should do with respect to the practices, the internal practices of lobbying firms and lobbyists. I think this is a very important suggestion, something I felt very strongly about, and I appreciate Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins for including it in their legislation. This is the final chart, which again shows the consensus. You can see the checkmarks here again, which are areas that are already included in the bill that were part of the bipartisan discussion, to extend the lobbying ban for Members and senior staff from 1 to 2 years for Members and included more senior staff of Members in a separate amendment. Both were discussed and supported broadly in our discussions. This is something I also felt very strongly about: Members not being able to negotiate for private sector employment while they are a member of the Senate. Then we put in the date of the election of your successor as the date you can then freely discuss employment opportunities for after your life here in the Senate. We have an exception. There needs to be an exception. If something happens, a personal emergency in the family, or something comes up where you feel you have to leave the Senate for some reason, the opportunity to have those discussions simply must be disclosed within 3 days of having those discussions. Again, we think there needs to be an escape hatch for those kinds of contingencies. Travel was a very big point of discussion and will be a point of discussion here on the floor of the Senate. Privately funded travel must be preapproved by Ethics, be of educational value, have little or no R and R--rest and recreational value, disclosure of the lobbyist's involvement in the trip, as well as all activities reported after the trip. In other words, you have to file a comprehensive report of what you did, not just what you planned to do. The area that was not done and that I will be offering an amendment on with Senator McCain and Senator Feingold is having to do with the Members and Federal candidates paying a fair market value for the cost of corporate travel. I know this is very controversial, particularly for Members from larger States using a private aircraft in getting around. But as we will discuss later with Senator McCain and Senator Feingold on the floor, we believe this is an area that needs to be addressed. This is clearly a subsidy. I understand, and I think we all understand, this will probably require higher amounts of money in our accounts to be able to pay for these costs as we travel around our States that now are, in a sense, subsidized by the private sector. But I believe this is a very important transparency issue. The final issue is the mandatory disclosure of travel on private charter flights by Members as well as Federal candidates, so this is something that we did. The last thing that is on the agenda, and then I will turn it over to the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, is the gift ban. Now we do have a gift ban in this bill having to do with lobbyists. Lobbyists are no longer allowed to give any gift of any value to Members. The one area that is excluded from that is meals. To be clear, what the Rules Committee did was make a change to current law which says, you are allowed to purchase a meal for a Member of Congress or his staff of up to almost $50. The Rules Committee said you have to now report it if it is above $10. That, I think, is worse than the current law, in my opinion, because it sets up a situation where Members--I can tell you if this is the law that would go into place, I would tell my staff, and certainly I would never have a meal with a Member, because it creates the impression first that you have to report it, and of course any activity that occurred with respect to that lobbyist and your office or legislation you voted on or campaign activities would be tied to this particular event which, of course, may or may not have had anything to do with that particular event, but it creates, I think, an untenable situation. I think the effect of Senator Lott's suggestion would be, in fact, a ban on meals, so if that would be the effect of it, let's do it. So I have offered an amendment. Senator Dodd came to the floor with the same idea. We have spoken. We have decided to jointly offer an amendment that would ban all meals from registered lobbyists to Members of Congress and their staff. That is the amendment Senator Dodd will be teeing up here in a moment. Again, we filed virtually identical amendments. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Connecticut because of the fine work he has done to be the lead sponsor on this amendment. We need to work together and get this done because the current situation in this bill, in my opinion, is simply untenable and is a potential trap for the unsuspecting, which I would not like to see be visited on any Member of the Senate. With that, again, I want to congratulate all of those who were involved. I think you see that the bipartisan process we worked on for several weeks yielded the basis--the basis of the bill we have before us has yielded a situation where I think most of the amendments that are going to be offered are going to be offered in a bipartisan fashion because discussions were actively underway that did have sincere collaboration. As a result of that, I think you are going to see a lot of the effort being put forward today in a bipartisan fashion. I am pleased to be able to kick that off with the Senator from Connecticut on the issue of not allowing lobbyists to buy meals for either Members or their staffs here in the Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor for the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I echo the comments made by the Senator from Connecticut. He covered all the salient points. I did so earlier in a broader discussion on the bill. This really is a tripwire. The current language could cause all sorts of problems for Members and staff. The better policy is to simply ban this activity. That does not mean that you can't go out with people who aren't lobbyists, and if you have a constituent who has come into town and you can buy them dinner or lunch and they can buy you dinner or lunch, that is all well and good but subject to the gift limits that are in place right now. But when you are in the business of lobbying Members of Congress, as the Senator from Connecticut said, it does without question present the perception that there is some undue influence involved with the purchase of a meal. I understand that we are talking about small meals as well as large. But the bottom line is, that perception is not helpful to the image of this body. Perception and reality should be a concern of ours because public confidence in this institution and those of us in it is vitally important to the success of our democracy. This is an important measure. It is a small measure but it is important to get it accomplished. I hope we can do so by consent or by voice vote. I don't see anybody else on the floor. I don't know if the Senator from Mississippi wants to speak on this amendment, but I would like to suggest that we agree to this by voice vote and then have the Senator from Oklahoma, who has been incredibly patient in waiting to offer his amendment, be given the right to do so.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an issue that resonates with all Americans, especially today--a day when the entire world celebrates International Women's Day, It is important to raise the issue of the oppression of women, in hope that public awareness will change these practices and this prejudice. I would like to specifically raise awareness of the plight of women in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In Iran, women are considered to be worth a half of a man and have extremely limited rights. It is the policy of the Government of Iran to deny women the opportunities that men are afforded. The current Iranian Government has rescinded laws that were implemented prior to the revolution regarding women's legal rights. This initiative against women's rights was justified by an edict that laws in conflict with Sharia Law had to be abolished. The edict resulted in a new set of restrictive laws for women. Women in Iran are severely oppressed, and their ability to speak out against current conditions is limited. While they can speak out, they face certain punishment for doing so. There are many examples of Iranian women, young and old, who have spoken out against the lack of opportunity for women in Iran. For example, Elham Afroutan is a 19- year-old Iranian journalist who was arrested a few months ago because of an op-ed she wrote in a newspaper. She is now imprisoned in Tehran, and it has been reported that she has been brutally raped and tortured. Elham's parents have only heard from her a couple of times, and the Iranian Government has refused to give any updates on her condition. Also of importance is the case of Zahra Kazemi, the 54-year-old Iranian and Canadian journalist, who was arrested for photographing a demonstration outside Tehran's Evin prison. It is reported that while imprisoned, Zahra was tortured, raped, and later murdered. The Iranian Government later claimed that she committed suicide. The doctor who examined Zahra's body later determined that she died as a result of the beating and torture that she endured while imprisoned. After Zahra's family demanded an autopsy of her body, it was later discovered that the Iranian Government had injected Zahra's body with various chemicals so as to destroy her body and any evidence against her attackers. This oppression of Iranian women, and all women around the world, must end. Never should a woman feel afraid to walk out of her home, speak up, or voice her opinion. Never should a woman have less of an opportunity than a man. People around the world today, on International Women's Day, must unite behind one cause--equality, justice, and opportunity for all women.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I rise to address the rising costs faced by Americans as they try to heat their homes this winter. Obtaining affordable heating assistance each winter, and cooling assistance during the summer months, is critical to hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians and millions of Americans. Unfortunately, projections from the Energy Information Administration this January show that on average, consumers will spend nearly 35 percent more for natural gas this winter than they did last winter. The primary Federal heating assistance program is the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I represent a Commonwealth that depends heavily on this program. My State also has a high percentage of elderly citizens; they are especially vulnerable to cold winter temperatures. Overall, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare reports that it distributed LIHEAP funds to approximately 462,000 households during the 2004-2005 winter, with 128,000 of these recipients being elderly. While I am pleased that my Commonwealth ranks second in the Nation in the total Federal LIHEAP assistance distributed, more has to be done to help Pennsylvanians in need. At current funding levels, only 15-percent of LIHEAP-eligible households are served in my home State. As a member of the Special Committee on Aging, I am pleased that Chairman Smith has recognized the importance of this program for many low-income senior citizens. This past June, my colleague from Oregon convened a hearing to examine the effect of energy prices on the elderly. However, much has changed across the national energy landscape since that hearing. The tragedies of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita put severe pressure on our energy industries, increasing costs of oil and natural gas. Now that the winter has arrived, the increasing cost of home heating fuel weighs heavily on the minds of the elderly and low- income individuals, and it is time for the Senate to further address this vital issue. In the beginning of January, I chaired a field hearing for the Special Committee on Aging near my hometown of Pittsburgh, PA, to revisit this critical issue and hear from a variety of witnesses about ways in which the Government and private sector are helping the elderly and others stay warm. Representatives from the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Energy, Pennsylvania State Department of Public Welfare, and private sector organizations and utilities testified in support of LIHEAP. The testimony of Pennsylvania State secretary of public welfare Estelle Richman was especially troubling. Secretary Richman testified that, by December 30, 2005, her agency had received over 320,000 LIHEAP applications. This is a 5 percent increase over 2005, which means that over 17,000 additional Pennsylvania households have requested heating assistance already this winter. Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare has already seen a 15-percent increase in crisis home heating assistance applications. Pennsylvania is not alone in facing such difficulties. According to Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, Wade Horn, his agency assists nearly 5 million households each year. However, those who are eligible for these benefits far outnumber those who receive this assistance. As a Senate, we need to address this growing national problem. Each winter, our Government is faced with distributing emergency LIHEAP funds, while millions of Americans are stuck out in the cold. This past year, we tried, in a bipartisan fashion, to appropriate additional funding for LIHEAP. Unfortunately, we were not able to garner enough support for those provisions to pass. This year we find ourselves in a worse situation than we did last year. When I travel throughout Pennsylvania, I continually hear from my constituents their concerns about rising energy costs and what we, the Congress, are doing to help. Now we have our chance to provide additional assistance that will benefit millions of Americans in the short term. However, while we need to pass this additional LIHEAP funding, we also need to look toward long-term solutions for our Nation's energy needs. As we are all aware, there is no one solution to our Nation's energy problems. However, by increasing our domestic supplies and production capacity, we can take steps towards lowering the cost of energy for all Americans. We also need to promote alternative energy solutions that utilize state-of-the-art technological advancements like coal-to-liquid fuel advancements. Without this combination of current and new technologies, the costs faced by consumers at the pump and in their home heating bills will only continue to increase. While this is clearly a long-term problem that we, as a body, need to address, I am proud to support my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, in her effort to provide additional LIHEAP funding this winter. This measure will assist thousands of Pennsylvanians and millions across the country. For this, as well as the reasons I have cited, I urge my colleagues to support this measure that assists countless senior citizens and low-income Americans.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about some of the recent developments in the Islamic Republic of Iran. We have a lot of activity today. There is a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee, as well as some dissidents who are in town to talk about the state of affairs in Iran. As many of my colleagues know, the Iranian Government's track record with respect to supporting acts of terror inflicted upon innocent persons and inflicting damage on peaceful relations among Middle Eastern countries is abysmal. Iran's bad activities in the Middle East and, candidly, bad actions in the world--at the head of the list, from my perspective, is promoting terrorism activities and Islamic fascism ideology that undergirds that terrorist activity in the Middle East-- have secured a designation by the U.S. Department of State as a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran supports terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, the entity behind the 1983 suicide terrorist attack against U.S. military and civilian personnel in Lebanon. Hamas is another organization that they are now supporting, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. All of these are reprehensible organizations that the Iranian Government is directly sponsoring as a state sponsor of terrorism. Additionally, Iran has been implicated in the 1996 attack on U.S. military personnel at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Iran's reach into Iraq, which many of us have been complaining about for a couple of years and which is now being recognized by our Government, by our Department of State, and which is now being recognized by the world--Iran is one of the fomenters of terrorism within the country of Iraq. Iran's connection to the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the organization's Badr Brigades means that Iran has a hand in shaping the allegiances of both Iraq's police and military forces. Iran's human rights violations, in addition to their terrorist activities, are no less chilling. The State Department reported that the Government of Iran engages in widespread use of torture and other degrading treatment and the Iranian Government continues to discriminate against religious and ethnic minorities. They do not discriminate as to who they discriminate against. Other Muslim sects-- whether Sunni or Suffi or Jews or Christians, they discriminate against them all. Iran's record of degradation of women is appalling and should not be tolerated by the international community. Iranian women are severely oppressed and their voices are constantly suffocated by the government. There are numerous examples of Iranian women who have been arrested and severely beaten for the simple fact they are females. One example is Dr. Roya Toloui, a women's rights activist and the editor of a publication that is now banned in Iran. She was arrested last summer in the wake of a 2005 July demonstration in the town of Mahabad. Dr. Toloui was held in prison for 66 days. While she was there, she was raped and she was tortured. Though she has since been released from prison, Dr. Toloui is in constant fear of rearrest and of death. The State Department also noted Iran's continued restrictions on workers' rights. In short, the Government of Iran oppress its people and terrorizes the world and is a threat to the security of this country and to the security of democracies throughout the West. The one additional aspect that has now taken a lot of press is Iran's pursuit of nuclear capability. This is very unsettling when you have a regime with this kind of track record to be in pursuit of nuclear capability. Iran, of course, is permitted to pursue peaceful nuclear research under the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Its record on transparency and the true purpose of its program, obviously, is very much in doubt. In November of 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran has been developing an undeclared nuclear enrichment program for 18 years and had covertly imported nuclear material and equipment. Furthermore, the IAEA reported that Iran had conducted over 110 unreported experiments to produce uranium, metal, and separated plutonium, and had possession of designs clearly related to the fabrication of nuclear weapons. In 2005, in August, following the election of President Ahmadinejad, Iran announced that the ongoing negotiations under the terms of the 2004 Paris agreement, the agreement that suspended activities brokered by the EU-3, were ``satisfactory'' according to Iran. Then they announced they were resuming the conversion of raw uranium into gas for enrichment. In January of 2006, Iran removed the IAEA seals on the research enrichment plant in Natanz. Recently, the IAEA board voted 27 to 3 to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council, and in so doing noted Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran's aggressive behavior and concealment of ongoing nuclear activities can only lead to one conclusion, and that is that Iran is seeking to enrich uranium to use for nuclear weapons. In response to this nuclear gambit, I believe we need smart sanctions for the U.N. to impose. For example, the U.N. should consider imposing a travel ban on Iran's leaders, banning international flights from Iranian air, banning the transportation of cargo carried by Iranian Government-owned ships, and possibly to pursue legal action against Iranian leaders responsible for human rights and terrorism abuses, as well as executions. I recently introduced legislation with my colleague, Senator Norm Coleman, that seeks to empower the forces of democracy in Iran and support efforts to foster peaceful change within Iran. It is S. 333, the Iran Freedom and Support Act. It seeks to make it harder for the Government of Iran to have access to revenue and foreign investment. Resources that those investments accrue are used by the Iranian Government to support terrorist organizations and to pursue nuclear activity as well as to repress its people. The bill also codifies sanctions, controls, and regulations currently in place against Iran by Executive order. It codifies those in statute. The bill declares it should be a policy of the United States to support the Iranian people in their prodemocracy movements. We believe, and the bill says, that the people of Iran are entitled to self-determination, to free and fair elections, and we want to provide the resources in helping those groups attain those free and fair elections. We authorized $10 million in this bill, but thanks to the effort on the supplemental the administration has sent up to the Congress, they have requested $75 million for prodemocracy efforts in Iran. I hope the introduction of our legislation last year perhaps gave some encouragement to ask for such funding. They have asked for $75 million. I will amend our bill to ask for $100 million for those efforts. The Iran Freedom and Support Act is a nonviolent way to try to effect change in Iraq. I agree with the President and all who have talked about keeping our military options on the table, but it is vitally important to try to use our diplomatic options first and foremost. At a time when the threat from Iran is real, it is not only real to this country, not only real to the Middle East and Iraq, but it is, obviously, real to their own people in the way they treat them. This is an important piece of legislation. It is something I hope we can do. It is important in spite of what the President has done. I support his policies that we show the Congress is 100 percent behind his effort to do something about the nuclear gambit Iran is engaged in right now. I am hopeful we can pass this legislation in a timely fashion. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to share with my colleagues a letter written by the mayor of Tall-at Afar, Ninewa, Iraq, concerning the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment of the U.S. Army. This unit of brave soldiers is completing its second deployment to Iraq. As the unit prepares to come home, they have recently received this letter from the mayor of that city: In the Name of God the Compassionate and Merciful To the Courageous Men and Women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, who have changed the city of Tall-at Afar from a ghost town, in which terrorists spread death and destruction, to a secure city flourishing with life. To the lion-hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of terrorists who were beheading men, women and children in the streets for many months. To those who spread smiles on the faces of our children, and gave us restored hope, through their personal sacrifice and brave fighting, and gave new life to the city after hopelessness darkened our days, and stole our confidence in our ability to reestablish our city. Our city was the main base of operations for Abu Mousab Al Zarqawi. The city was completely held hostage in the hands of his henchmen. Our schools, governmental services, businesses and offices were closed. Our streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our people were barricaded in their homes out of fear; death awaited them around every corner. Terrorists occupied and controlled the only hospital in the city. Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the bodies of their young. This was the situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto them the courageous soldiers of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it of Zarqawi's followers after harsh fighting, killing many terrorists, and forcing the remaining butchers to flee the city like rats to the surrounding areas, where the bravery of other 3rd ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabiah, Zumar and Avgani finally destroyed them. I have met many soldiers of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment; they are not only courageous men and women, but avenging angels sent by The God Himself to fight the evil of terrorism. The leaders of this Regiment; COL McMaster, COL Armstrong, LTC Hickey, LTC Gibson, and LTC Reilly embody courage, strength, vision and wisdom. Officers and soldiers alike bristle with the confidence and character of knights in a bygone era. The mission they have accomplished, by means of a unique military operation, stands among the finest military feats to date in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and truly deserves to be studied in military science. This military operation was clean, with little collateral damage, despite the ferocity of the enemy. With the skill and precision of surgeons they dealt with the terrorist cancers in the city without causing unnecessary damage. God bless this brave Regiment; God bless the families who dedicated these brave men and women. From the bottom of our hearts we thank the families. They have given us something we will never forget. To the families of those who have given their holy blood for our land, we all bow to you in reverence and to the souls of your loved ones. Their sacrifice was not in vain. They are not dead, but alive, and their souls hovering around us every second of every minute. They will never be forgotten for giving their precious lives. They have sacrificed that which is most valuable. We see them in the smile of every child, and in every flower growing in this land. Let America, their families, and the world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity and life. Finally, no matter how much I write or speak about this brave Regiment, I haven't the words to describe the courage of its officers and soldiers. I pray to God to grant happiness and health to these legendary heroes and their brave families. Najim Abdullah Abid Al-Jibouri Mayor of Tall-at Afar, Ninewa, Iraq. This mayor's gratitude towards the soldiers of the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment speaks volumes of the sacrifice and bravery that all of our soldiers are displaying in Iraq. Our service men and women are making a difference in Iraq by spreading democracy and fighting the terrorists. These soldiers ought to be proud of their efforts--we certainly are, and so are the Iraqis.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, Thomas Jefferson called religious freedom the ``first freedom.'' As founder and leader over the last 3 years of the Congressional Working Group on Religious Freedom, I wanted to take this opportunity to pay tribute to this pivotal liberty. Last month, President Bush also recognized this important freedom by declaring ``Religious Freedom Day,'' observed on January 16. Americans are among the most religious peoples on Earth and are of many faith traditions. Nearly 80 percent of Americans state they pray regularly. Within a few blocks of this Capitol, there are churches, meeting houses, synagogues, mosques, temples, and house of worship of every variety. The free exercise of religion is a hallmark of our Nation. It is the reason many of our ancestors came here. It is the reason we are able to live peacefully together as a religiously diverse people. Cherished by the American people as the most precious of those rights given by God, religious freedom has been given the pride of place in our Constitution, in the first clause of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. Freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief, as Jefferson and the American Founders recognized, is the prerequisite for the exercise of other basic human rights. Freedom of speech, press, and assembly depend on a free conscience. No basic freedom can be secure where religious freedom is denied. But these rights do not just belong to Americans. They are universal; they belong to every person in this world. No one, from the worst dictator to the most powerful government, can take away the right for a person to believe as he or she wishes. However, the expression of this belief is too often repressed through the imposition of persecution and death. Since the Nazi Holocaust against the Jewish people, the principle of religious freedom has gained recognition in foreign policy. The right to religious freedom found worldwide acceptance in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which many nations have agreed. ``Everyone,'' the declaration asserts, ``has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.'' As the declaration makes explicit, ``this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.'' The declaration's article 18 thus provides for the acceptance of religious pluralism; the freedom to convert to another faith; the right to express unorthodox beliefs in one's individual capacity; the right, not only to worship in private or behind the walls of a building but to express one's faith in society. These are powerful concepts that challenge many societies, including at times our own. For example, I have introduced the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, a bill which would restore a balanced approach to religious freedom in the workplace. It would clarify current law, which requires employers to accommodate the religious beliefs of their employees, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or financial hardship for the employer. While most employers recognize the value of respecting religion in the workplace, sometimes employees are forced to choose between dedication to the principles of their faith and losing their job because their employers refuse to reasonably accommodate certain needs. It is supported by a broad spectrum of groups, liberal and conservative, who share this Nation's commitment to the freedom of conscience. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which I supported, institutionalized religious freedom as a guiding doctrine in America's foreign relations. The act established within the State Department an office, headed by an Ambassador-at-Large, to monitor and report annually on the status of religious freedom in every country; and it created the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom as an independent Government agency to study and propose new policies to advance religious freedom abroad. Because of this legislation, regular reports are being issued by the State Department on the status of religious freedom in every country. Citizens now have access to information not easily available previously. The U.S. Government is now designating countries as being of particular concern solely because of their records on religious freedom. While more actions can be taken, our Government is making this freedom a priority. The founder of Pennsylvania, William Penn, and many others fled to this land seeking religious freedom. Centuries later, the United States remains a beacon for the religiously repressed around the world. Our Congressional Working Group on Religious Freedom includes persons from diverse countries and faith backgrounds who have found religious freedom in America and who now dedicate their lives to speaking out for the persecuted around the world. A regular participant in our Working Group is Ali Alyami. Dr. Alyami is a Muslim from Saudi Arabia, but he is not a follower of Wahhabism, the extremist, state-sanctioned brand of Islam in Saudi Arabia, and so he faces marginalization and repression in his homeland. Another is Bob Fu, an evangelical Christian leader who was arrested in his native China for praying in an unauthorized house-church before finding refuge in the United States and moving to Philadelphia. Eden Naby, an Assyrian Christian, spoke at our ``Christmas under Siege'' meeting last month about the accelerating attrition rate of religious minorities fleeing ethnic cleansing and extremism in Iraq, Seung-Woo Kahng attested to the cruelties suffered by an underground church-leader in North Korea. Michael Muenir, a Copt originally from Egypt, reported to our group about the failure of Egyptian justice when Copts are murdered by Islamic fanatics, discrimination against the Copts in the upper echelons of government and military, and the obstacles to getting government permission to build or even repair churches in Egypt. Bat Ye'or, a Jewish author originally from Egypt, spoke of the rising tide of anti-Semitism throughout Europe. These and many more like them are grateful to have the freedom in the United States to speak out about the need for religious freedom in many countries throughout the world. When we look at the overall state of religious freedom in the world, state-sponsored religious persecution of the harshest severity-- torture, imprisonment, and even death--occurs today under three types of regimes: the remnant communist regimes; repressive Islamist states; and nationalist authoritarian states. Many of the countries represented in these categories are those that have been officially designated by the U.S. State Department as ``countries of particular concern,'' or ``CPCs,'' for their ``egregious, systematic, and continuing'' violations of religious freedom. The first type of regime is that of the remnant communist states, such as China, North Korea, and Vietnam. For example: North Korea systematically crushes public expressions of religion and puts in harsh concentration camps those accused of being religious, along with up to three generations of their family members. China seeks to control all religion and punishes religious leaders who worship without authorization with fines, ``reeducation'' camp, and other forms of incarceration. It also harshly treats Falun Gong practitioners, who have reported to us about torture and murder at the hands of authorities. Vietnam beats and tortures its Hmong and tribal Christians until they recant their faith. A second main type of regime fostering state-sponsored persecution is that of repressive Islamic states. For example: In recent years, the Sudanese Government prosecuted a genocidal war in its south in which over 2 million Christians and followers of traditional African religions were killed and thousands enslaved for resisting the forcible imposition of Islamic law. Khartoum is now employing the genocidal tactics honed in the religious conflict with the south in a race-based conflict in its western Darfur region. Iran's fanatical regime has tortured and killed many thousands of its own nationals for religious reasons. One Iranian political dissident, a Muslim professor named Hashem Aghajari, aptly protested at his July 2004 blasphemy trial that he was being punished for ``the sin of thinking.'' Saudi Arabia continues to indoctrinate its students in an ideology of religious hatred and exports such propaganda to other Muslims communities throughout the world, including here in the United States; Saudi researchers themselves found that the state's curriculum ``misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate the `other.' '' The third type of regime where religious persecution is prevalent is that of nationalist authoritarian states, such as Burma and Eritrea. For example: In Burma, the government subjects all publications, including religious publications, to control and censorship. The government generally prohibits outdoor meetings of more than five persons, including religious meetings. In Eritrea there are reports that police have tortured those detained for their religious beliefs, including using bondage, heat exposure, and beatings. Also, some detainees were required to sign statements repudiating their faith or agreeing not to practice it as a condition for release. Lastly, we have unfortunately seen a global trend of growing anti- Semitism which has also been brought before our working group. It has been seen in Iran where the President has notoriously denied the Holocaust and threatened the existence of Israel, in the streets of Russia, in the capitals of Europe, and even on the campuses of American universities. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an abominable anti- Semitic forgery of a Russian czar, is resurfacing at Iranian government-sponsored book fairs, on Egyptian-controlled television broadcasts and in Saudi-published textbooks. This precise work was used by Hitler to indoctrinate Nazi youths. We must take this threat seriously. Natan Sharansky, himself once a Soviet religious prisoner, a ``Jewish refusenik,'' states that a test of a free society is whether ``people have a right to express their views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm.'' None of the CPCs cited above are free societies. It is no coincidence that regimes that pose the gravest threats to our national security--Iran and North Korea today--are also ones that tyrannically crush freedom of belief. The protection and promotion of religious freedom is as fundamental to our national interest, as it is to our ideals. When we promote religious freedom for these countries and others, when we as members of the Senate speak publicly on religious freedom, when we raise the issue on our trips abroad and in our meetings with foreign officials, when we make sure that members of the administration and embassy officials around the world raise these values regularly with foreign governments, when we speak on behalf of persecuted dissidents, and when we act consistently in our own country, we will not only be working to ensure every person can worship as they see fit. We will also be ensuring a safer, peaceful, more secure world where the rights of all--the freedoms of all--are respected and celebrated.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I offer this motion to instruct with regard to the college tuition deduction. As I have noted on other occasions, this bill is really a ``tax increase prevention'' bill. One of the many important elements is the college tuition deduction. This provision was established in the 2001 tax relief bill and provides an above-the-line deduction for higher education expenses, commonly called the ``college tuition deduction.'' The eligibility for the deduction is limited based on income and is aimed at helping middle-class American families that are struggling to meet the rising cost of college tuition. It benefits students and their families at all types of institutions--from community colleges to 4-year schools, and both public and private institutions. However, because we have had to slow-walk this bill with some foot- dragging across the aisle, this deduction expired on December 31, 2005. Nonetheless, it is important that we not only extend this provision, but make it permanent. The college tuition deduction is an important and popular education tax benefit, particularly for the middle class. It is not available to taxpayers with income above $80,000--$160,000 in the case of joint returns. In 2003--the last year for which official data are available--more than 3 \1/2\ million Americans benefited from the tuition deduction, with nearly $7 billion in college tuition costs covered by the deduction--an increase of nearly 9 percent from the previous year. Tax incentives for college tuition helped nearly 11 million Americans realize the dream of a college degree. This represents more than two- thirds of all college students. In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, over 150,000 families and students took advantage of this deduction. The tuition deduction is a crucial part of our education tax incentives and must be made permanent. We should send the message to parents of high school students that this deduction will be there when their students begin college. I urge my colleagues to support this motion and support these families and students striving for a college education. Motion to Instruct Conferees

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the efforts of the Keystone Soldiers organization based in Fleetwood, PA. This all-volunteer organization provides continued support for our service members currently deployed overseas through letters, emails, phone calls, and care packages. Keystone Soldiers has most recently partnered with Boscov's department stores in an effort to collect valentines for deployed service members. The Collection of Hearts campaign is just a small part of their effort to remind our deployed troops that they have our continued support. I appreciate the patriotism of this organization in supporting our troops as they continue to serve our Nation. Our brave service men and women are sacrificing so much for us; they are in harm's way each day, missing valuable time with their loved ones. Showing support by sending care packages, letters, and emails is a very small way to show our appreciation for their sacrifice. I appreciate the selfless efforts of charitable organizations, such as Keystone Soldiers, for reminding our troops that they are appreciated. I encourage all Americans to show their support for our troops by lending your support to organizations such as these.

Mr. SANTORUM

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