Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which is intended to ensure that more surplus government computers are put to good use in our schools and by families of deployed service members. Each year, it is becoming more and more evident that, especially for our youth, computer knowledge is essential for success. While many Americans have computers at home, there are still many Americans who do not have that easy access to computer technology. In addition, not all of our schools have or can afford up-to-date computer technology to aid their students in their learning. This bill is intended to bridge this gap. It has been estimated that each week, the Federal Government disposes of 10,000 computers. Thanks in part to Executive Order 12999, which was issued in 1996, some of these computers are placed in schools that would otherwise not have access to this technology. The Executive order directs that federal agencies shall safeguard and identify potentially educationally useful federal equipment that is no longer needed or declared surplus. This equipment shall then be transferred directly or through the Government Services Administration Computers for Learning program to public and private schools and nonprofit organizations, including community-based educational organizations. Schools and nonprofits in enterprise communities or empowerment zones are prioritized in receiving these computers. I have been pleased to be able to work through the related program in the Senate to place excess computers in several Pennsylvania schools where they are being put to good use. Unfortunately, I have heard from those working in Pennsylvania to obtain such computers that not enough of them are getting through to schools. They are experiencing increased difficulty in maintaining the number and quality of computers they were previously able to get from the government for refurbishment and donation. In some cases, hard drives are being needlessly destroyed before they are turned over. One of the problems that has prevented schools from getting and using these computers is that many times they are not able to be immediately put into use by the school. Schools may not have the technical ability or storage space to take computers directly from the government if they need maintenance before they can be placed into service. It has been estimated that if schools get the computers directly from the government, only 10 percent can be put into use. However, if they are first refurbished, 40 percent can be used. The hope is that this legislation would result in federal agencies making more surplus computers available for schools by codifying the previous Executive order. The bill would also allow computers to go directly to nonprofits for refurbishing before going to the school, making is easier for more schools to participate in the program. Currently, a school has to take title to the computer and then can transfer it to a nonprofit refurbisher to be fixed up, an additional step for them. This bill would allow nonprofit organizations like Computers for Schools that can refurbish computers at low-cost to participate in the process, getting computers ready to use and sending them out to schools where they last three more years, enabling more children to learn and profit by them. To prevent the needless destruction of hard drives, the bill also references federal standards on how to completely and securely erase hard drives without destroying them. Lastly, this bill includes language that would make it possible to distribute these computers to the families of deployed service men and women who do not have a computer in their homes so that they can stay in better touch with their family members while they are fighting for our country. I believe this legislation is an important step to help ensure that surplus federal computers are put to good use by allowing more of our youth to have access to computers in school. I am hopeful that this legislation will be enacted into law.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, over the past few years, we have heard the tragic stories of how sexual predators have targeted children in our states. We have seen troubling headlines from Pennsylvania and across the country, and the frequency seems to be increasing rather than decreasing. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, state and local law enforcement, and Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces operates the CyberTipline. The number of referrals to the ICAC task forces has increased from 2,002 referrals in January-March 2005 to 3,392 referrals in January-March 2006. Additionally, the prosecutions in child pornography and child abuse cases have increased nearly every year since 1995. Recently Congress has heard disturbing and saddening accounts of how these predators have used the Internet to exploit our children. As a father of six, I am keenly aware of the dangers to our children and the concerns of parents across Pennsylvania and the Nation. In February, the Department of Justice launched Project Safe Childhood, a initiative to ``combat the proliferation of technology- facilitated sexual exploitation crimes against children.'' ``Project Safe Childhood'' has five main purposes. First, it seeks to integrate Federal, State, and local efforts to investigate and prosecute child exploitation cases including partnerships by each U.S. Attorney with each Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force in their district, other Federal, State, and local law enforcement, and community and faith-based organizations to develop district-specific strategic plans to combat and prosecute child exploitation crimes. Second, the Project allows major case coordination by the Department of Justice or other appropriate Federal agency. Third, it increases Federal involvement in child exploitation cases by providing additional investigative tools and increased penalties available under Federal law. Fourth, the Project provides increased training of Federal, State, and local law enforcement regarding the investigation and prosecution of computer-facilitated crimes against children. Finally, it promotes community awareness and educational programs to raise national awareness about the threat of online sexual predators and to provide information to families on how to report possible violations. According to recent Congressional testimony from Alice S. Fisher, Assistant U.S. Attorney in charge of the Criminal Division, and from William W. Mercer, Principle Associate Deputy Attorney General noted, this initiative is working. On May 17, 2006, the Department of Justice released a document that outlines the need for this project, an overview of the program and guides for how law enforcement, parents, teachers, and communities can come together to implement this program effectively. While I am encouraged by the DOJ actions to raise the profile and enforcement through Project Safe Childhood--and appreciate all that many at the Department of Justice and the State and local levels are doing to catch and prosecute these predators--I am concerned that this program does not have the legislative authorization or dedicated funding that it needs to accomplish its goal of protecting our children. I intend to work to help the Department of Justice fully implement and expand this initiative, therefore, I am introducing the Project Safe Childhood Authorization Act. Specifically, the bill will authorize and expand Project Safe Childhood; add new elements regarding child exploitation crimes that have been requested by the Department of Justice to strengthen the requirements to effectively report child pornography, require warning labels on commercial Websites that contain sexually explicit material, and prohibit the embedding of words or images on a Website in order to deceive individuals into viewing obscenity or material harmful to minors; increase penalties for registered sex offenders, child sex trafficking and sexual abuse, and other child exploitation crimes; create Children's Safety Online Awareness Campaigns; and authorize grants for online child safety programs. The bill authorizes $18 million for fiscal year 2007 for the initial implementation of Project Safe Childhood, and up to $29 million for the expansion of the program for fiscal year 2007, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years. I know all of us--particularly those of us with children--want to know how to keep our children safe, and want to know that anyone that endangers or harms our children will be punished. I am glad to be here to take this important step in protecting our children. I hope my colleagues will agree with me and we will pass the Project Safe Childhood Authorization Act this year.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the final point I want to make--and I will try to come back to the floor when I have more time--is regarding the impact of this movement in the country by the courts on religious freedom. There was an article written, which was on the front cover of the Weekly Standard, called ``Banned in Boston,'' where Maggie Gallagher talks about Catholic Charities in Boston having to get out of the adoption business because they will not consent, under their Catholic orthodox faith, to place children into same-sex couple homes. It is against the Catholic faith to do so. There is a very clear message from Rome that this is not proper behavior. They were refused their license, and now one of the longest standing adoption agencies in Massachusetts no longer places children for adoption. Why? Because all around faith, all around churches and parachurch organizations, and missionary organizations is, whether we like it or not, the Government. When the Government comes down with things that are contrary to that faith group there will be friction. In fact, Mark Stern, who is a lawyer for the American Jewish Committee, is quoted as saying: It is going to be a train wreck, a very dangerous train wreck. So not only will this new right that the court has established in the follow-on--the right of same-sex marriage--going to cause problems with democracy and problems with marriage, it is going to create huge problems for our faith-based organizations. It is something that we need to address. Thank you.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank and congratulate the Senator from Colorado for his terrific work on this issue, as well as the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, for his great work in the committee in moving this constitutional amendment forward. This is a very difficult debate for a lot of people. It is very hard, sort of sad in some respects, that we are here talking about the issue of marriage, that talking about marriage is somehow a difficult debate. But it is for a lot of people. I know in many meetings of our colleagues when the issue of marriage comes up, heads drop. It is an issue that people feel uncomfortable talking about, something that maybe in some respects they feel like, Why is this even an issue? That is a good question. Why is it an issue? I will talk about that in a minute. There is a foundational question I would like to talk about that up until a couple of days ago I was not planning to talk about, which is, Why are we doing this now? This is the big buzz in the media. Oh, this is being brought up for political purposes; and this is all about politics and has nothing to do with the substance of the matter, and the media--which loves to pawn off issues and give spin to issues--has adopted this approach. As Senator Allard would affirm, we have been considering now for several months what the best timing would be to bring this legislation up. We had a very forceful voice being heard from the American public. In fact, there is a chart of all the States that approved constitutional amendments in the last election of 2004. We are now up to 19 States in the country that have spoken; the people have spoken in those States. There was a lot of momentum coming out of the 2004 election, so when we reconvened in 2005 we thought maybe this was a good time to bring it up, now that we have just had an election. We thought, in looking at this, it would be better if we had more court activity between the election and when we bring this amendment up. That, really, the issue is, as we have heard repeatedly in the Senate, we are trying to bring about a decision on marriage in this country through a democratic process. I can't think of anything more democratic involving more people than a constitutional amendment. It takes two-thirds of this House, two- thirds of the other House and three- quarters of the States; 38 States have to ratify this amendment. Talk about a public debate where there is huge public input across America. The constitutional amendment is the way to do it. It is the most democratic way of making a decision on anything in this country. We thought it would be a good juxtaposition to see further court erosion, further decisions made by courts to erode the public's will on the issue of marriage. I say the ``public's will'' only because we have 19 States and many others that have said what there really is with respect to marriage. So we are debating, almost month to month, and we have had conversations, Is this the right time? We had a Nebraska decision which has been talked about where a Federal court overturned the State constitutional amendment in the State of Nebraska. There was a case in Washington State. Washington State is an interesting State because, unlike Massachusetts, there is no residency requirement for marriage. Any couple from anywhere in the country can go to Washington and get married if the Supreme Court of Washington were to overturn their statute. Washington so far has not issued their opinion. They have had the case for 15 months and for some reason or another they have not decided to decide. We were waiting, trying to see if this was an appropriate time. Last year we decided that we were not going to wait around for courts and we set this date for the first of June. That is why we are here today--not for any political reason. If it was purely politics, we would be debating this in September. We are debating it in June because we thought we would have 3 or 4 days as opposed to being compressed to 1 day in September. So we are here to give this the proper attention this vitally important issue deserves. The other question that I did want to talk about is, How did we get here, not why are we doing it now, but how did this issue come about? There were a couple of States that were playing around with this issue for a while--Vermont and Hawaii. But the issue really got jump-started with the court decision--not surprisingly, a big court decision--the court decision that occurred in Washington with the United States Supreme Court is the Lawrence v. Texas case. Lawrence v. Texas opened the floodgates for a variety of different litigation going across this country using, now, a constitutional right established by the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence. It was a seminal decision, there is no question about it. We have a classic example of the U.S. Court forcing its will on establishing a right and then giving other courts the right or the ability to then project its power on to the people, to make decisions and force decisions, force legislation, as in the case of Massachusetts, onto the people. I want to talk about that decision because I think it is important, but I want to talk about the decision before that. Just a few years ago, 15 years before Lawrence v. Texas was decided, a similar case was decided, Bowers v. Hardwick. I want to take a look at Justice White who wrote for the majority in Bowers, saying sodomy laws were constitutional, that moral laws passed by the States dealing with sexuality were, in fact, constitutional. There was no constitutional right that barred States and the public from regulating in this area. He said: The right pressed upon us here [this is what the litigants in the Bowers case were arguing] has no similar support in the text of the Constitution, it does not qualify for recognition under the prevailing principles for construing the 14th amendment. Its limits are also difficult to discern . . . This limit of consensual sexual activity being a constitutional right which was made by the litigants, saying we have the right as individual adults under the Constitution to any kind of sexual behavior that we desire and the State cannot limit us. He said: Its limits were difficult to discern . . . And if respondent's submission is limited to the voluntary sexual conduct between consenting adults, it would be difficult, except by fiat, to limit the claimed right to homosexual conduct while leaving exposed to prosecution adultery, incest, and other sexual crimes even though they are committed in the home. We are unwilling start down that road. What the Court said here was that if you open up the standard, the legal standard, if you change it for a constitutionally protected activity from that activity within marriage to that activity between consenting adults--and that was the decision here, change the standard from a Constitution that protects the marital union from State intrusion to consenting adults with respect to homosexual activity--in this case, the Court said: No, we can't go there. Because only by fiat could we then limit other activity beyond that. Let's fast forward to shortly before the Lawrence v. Texas decision. If . . . you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to do anything. That comment has been reprinted probably 100,000 times in the last few years as an outrageous comment made by a U.S. Senator. It was the same comment that was made by Justice White in the majority opinion. Let's fast forward a few months after that, Justice Scalia in the dissenting opinion in the Lawrence v. Texas case: State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. What he is saying is that now that road which Justice White and the Court back in 1986 refused to go down, this Court in Lawrence v. Texas had headed us down that road. Justice Scalia went on to say: Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ``no legitimate state interest'' for purposes of proscribing that conduct; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), ``[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,'' what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ``[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution.'' Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. The case ``does not involve'' the issue of homosexual marriage only if one-- And they are quoting the majority opinion again because the majority opinion said this doesn't deal with marriage, Scalia says this case does not involve the issue of homosexual marriage-- entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. The fact is, principle and logic have everything to do with judicial decisions. That is the problem with them. That is why they are different from legislative decisions. You see, when a court makes a judicial decision, they do so based on a judicial foundation that has a logical and rational basis to it and logical consequences. The logical consequence to the Lawrence v. Texas case is the next case, not a Supreme Court case before the U.S. Supreme Court but before involving Massachusetts. What Massachusetts did was the logical thing from Lawrence v. Texas. In fact, they cite Lawrence v. Texas 5 times in the main opinion and 11 times in the combined majority opinions. It is the basis upon which they build their decision. Because unlike the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas which says this has nothing to do with marriage, it had everything to do with marriage. The interesting thing about the Lawrence v. Texas decision--and this goes even more to judicial activism--they could have decided the Lawrence v. Texas decision for the plaintiffs in that decision. They could have found that statute unconstitutional. And in fact, had they done so--and in fact, they did in part of their opinion; they found it unconstitutional under equal protection grounds--had they limited their opinion to that, I would have agreed with the decision. I think the Texas statute probably was unconstitutional under equal protection grounds. And so when they started the decision out and they said: This is unconstitutional because of equal protection, I said that is right. Here is what the court did and, unfortunately, what courts increasingly do. While we are here, we are going to establish a new constitutional right. While we are here, since we have the opportunity, since this case is before us, we are going to be activist jurists, and we are going to create a whole new body of law that will have huge ripples throughout society. So they did. They didn't have to, but they did. We are now debating this amendment because of it. They have this ripple effect which we are seeing throughout courts throughout the country, Federal as well as State. Here in the Goodrich decision, it says: It is clear from the quote below that the Goodrich decision was considered the ``logical next step.'' Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach. ``Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not a mandate of our own moral code.'' There they were quoting Lawrence v. Texas. It went on to note that the Lawrence case ``specifically affirmed that the core concept of common human dignity protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes government intrusion into the deeply personal realms of consensual adult expressions of intimacy and one's choice of an intimate partner. The Court also reaffirmed the central role that decisions whether to marry or have children bear in shaping one's identity.'' The ``logical next step,'' so the Goodrich decision is very much in conformity with the Lawrence v. Texas decision. That is why we are here. We are here because of judicial activism. Our plea to the Members of the Senate is to allow the people to make the decision with respect to this foundational institution of our country--the traditional family, marriage--that courts who just happen to be deciding a case that didn't need them to decide it this way or use this logic or rationale, that courts just can't decide that they want to involve themselves into legislative affairs and send shock waves throughout our culture without the public having a right to say something, without the public having a right to put their stamp of approval on what is moral and just. Some have said that the States can handle this. Some have said this is a federalist issue; We should not have Federal legislation on this; This is usurping States rights. I don't know what involves the States more than having every State legislature in the country debate this issue. That is not usurping States rights; that is placing in the hands of the States the decision as to whether to move forward. Thirty-eight of the fifty States have to affirm this constitutional amendment. This is not an easy thing to do. That is why we don't have very many amendments to the Constitution. But it is a purely democratic process, just like the debate in the Senate. I think we should give the States, the people, the right to make this decision before a group of unelected judges, following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court, do it for us. First and foremost, this constitutional amendment is about democracy. It is about the people expressing their will on potentially the greatest moral issue of our time, and that is the integrity of the traditional family. That is issue No. 1. Issue No. 2 is an important one, also. I heard the Senator from Kansas talk about this eloquently, so I won't spend a lot of time. He did as good a job as any on the issue. That is the impact of the deconstruction of marriage on society. I heard the Senator from Kansas say that marriage is already in trouble in America. There is certainly little to argue that that is not true. It is true, marriage is in trouble. But I agree with him by saying just because something is in trouble doesn't mean you need to get rid of it altogether. Without question, once you change marriage from an institution whose societal purpose is focused on having children, being an institution that is the best place to rear future generations of society, once you change marriage from being principally about children, although not exclusively, certainly, but principally about children, to exclusively about adults, then you change marriage forever. We did that in part 30-plus years ago with no-fault divorce laws. When they came into place, they said children will be helped by this. There will be fewer unhappy homes. I don't think there is a whole lot of evidence out there that would suggest children have been helped by the rapid increase in divorce. I know the Senator from Kansas had some charts up of how children in two-parent families don't end up in poverty as much, do better in school. I don't know of a social indicator out there that doesn't suggest that being in a married home is not more beneficial for children. That is certainly not to say that children raised in single-parent homes can't and don't do well. Most do. But the point is, society should be advocating for what is best for children and should set a standard for what is best. We know what is best. We know it intrinsically, but we have supporting evidence as to what is best for children--less substance abuse, less abuse or neglect, less criminal activity, less early sexual activity, fewer out-of-wedlock births, fewer behavioral problems. It goes on and on. We know marriage is inherently good for children. We also know that when we destroy marriage, when we deconstruct marriage, bad things happen. We saw that with no-fault divorce. More people got divorced. We changed the definition of marriage, and we say marriage is no longer about children, no longer about the next generation. Marriage is simply the affirmation of affection of two adults. Or, as Justices Scalia and White suggested, why limit it there. Why not, as we see in cases now being filed all over the country, why not three adults, four adults, five adults? What is the difference from the standpoint of a rationale? If marriage is not about one man and one woman for the purpose of a relationship of which to have children and continue society, if it is about two women and two men or two women and three men, why not whatever arrangement? If gender does not matter anymore, why does number matter? What is the significance? What is the logical argument to draw the line here? As Justice White said, it would be by fiat to draw the line. So we have a situation where without question, marriage would be undermined by this deconstruction. In fact, we see it. I have an article by Stanley Kurtz on what is going on in Europe, in countries that have, in fact, changed the definition of marriage. Those countries are now seeing dramatic declines in the number of marriages, not increases in the numbers of same-sex marriages but declines in the number of heterosexual marriages and dramatic and steady increases in the number of children being born out of wedlock. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.

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

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

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Senate is scheduled to vote today on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. With thousands of illegal immigrants rushing across our borders every day, straining every sector of our society, congressional attention to this issue is appropriate and overdue. Unfortunately, S. 2611 is not the right way to reform our immigration system. As the son of an Italian immigrant who came to the United States in 1930, I understand the important and valuable contributions immigrants have made and continue to make to our country. I have great respect for those who have legally come to our Nation seeking a better life for their families, just as my grandfather and father did. However, as the Senate comes to a vote on S. 2611, I firmly believe that the rule of law and our safety and security must be given by importance. Who is traveling across our borders and why they are doing so is as important as any issue we currently face. It is a complicated issue, with far-reaching implications that will impact our national security, our economy, and our culture. Securing our borders is and must be our first priority. It is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. An immigration policy that does not control who is entering our Nation is not an immigration policy at all. The best way we can do this is by strengthening and supporting our Border Patrol, both through greater numbers and technological advancements. To this end, I cosponsored and voted for a successful amendment that authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to construct 370 miles of triple-layer fence and 500 miles of vehicle barriers at strategic locations along our southern border. I also cosponsored the Ensign amendment which provides reimbursement for the temporary use of the National Guard to secure the southern border of the United States. With the approval of the Secretary of Defense, the Governor of any State may order the use of the National Guard for not more than 21 days in a year to provide ``command, control and continuity of support'' such as ground and airborne reconnaissance, logistical, tactical, and administrative support, communications services, and emergency medical services. I was pleased to see both of these amendments pass as they are solid first steps towards border security. But the reason I voted against cloture and why I simply cannot vote for this bill is that it gives amnesty to the immigrants who came to this country illegally. I believe those who have entered this country illegally must return to their native land and move through the legal process just like everyone else. The idea that those who have been here illegally for an arbitrary number of years--a number that is, frankly, undeterminable as their time here is by nature undocumented--should be able to stay in America simply by paying back taxes is an insult to all those who have waited, patiently and lawfully, for their chance to come here and pursue the American dream. There were many opportunities to fix this throughout Senate debate, but I am afraid many of my colleagues have not truly heard the call of their constituents to oppose amnesty. I was disappointed that 58 of my colleagues rejected a reasonable amendment offered by Senators Kyl and Cornyn to ensure that the temporary worker program was actually temporary and not a shortcut to legalization or citizenship. I also voted against the Feinstein amendment earlier this week which would have given all illegal immigrants in the United States a path to citizenship without having to leave the country. I cannot support an amnesty proposal now because amnesty has failed in the past. In 1986, Congress attempted to address this same issue, though on a much smaller scale. Estimates of the size of the illegal- immigrant population in the United States in 1986 placed the total number close to 1 million; today we are dealing with around 12 million. If providing amnesty to 1 million illegal immigrants yielded 12 million over the course of 20 years, with how many additional millions will we be burdened in 2026 by offering amnesty now? But this is not the only way S. 2611 rewards illegal immigrants. I cosponsored an amendment offered by Senator John Ensign that would ensure illegal immigrants have a valid Social Security number before they can accumulate credit to qualify for Social Security. This amendment was intended to reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity. In other words, this prevents illegal immigrants from getting Social Security benefits based on their illegal work history, often with an invalid number. Unfortunately, a majority of my colleagues voted to kill this amendment. By doing so, the Senate has rewarded illegal immigrants by putting our current elderly beneficiaries, who paid into the Social Security system for decades in order to collect the benefits they receive today, further at risk in an already stretched system. I would like to speak briefly on an amendment offered by Senator Sessions that would prohibit aliens unlawfully present in the United States with a green card from the H-2C visa program from claiming the earned income tax credit, EITC, when filing annual tax returns. This amendment has good intentions, but I reluctantly must oppose it. The cost of EITC for the illegal-turned-legal population is steep. However, this amendment goes further than I am comfortable with by treating these resident aliens different from others. In my mind, a better option is another amendment offered by Senator Ensign that would limit illegal aliens from any kind of tax refund or an EITC claim on back taxes for the time that they were here illegally. I believe this amendment strikes the right balance. America is a nation of immigrants, a nation that derives much of our strength from those who come here to live the american dream. But the immigrants who have contributed so much to the character of our Nation came here legally. We devalue their sacrifices and hardships if we fail to ask the same of today's immigrants. This bill does not do that. It rewards illegal behavior, threatens our social welfare system, devalues the legal immigration process, and provides amnesty to illegal immigrants. I will vote against S. 2611, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I congratulate my cosponsor, Senator Mikulski, for the excellent work we did as a team on this amendment. It took a long time to work this through the process, but we are very pleased today this amendment will be accepted. Mr. President, when a country is a staunch defense ally and partner in the war on terror, they should have the opportunity to participate in the Visa Waiver Program on a probationary basis while they work to come into full compliance. I previously introduced and called up a similar amendment, No. 3214, cosponsored by Senator Mikulski. After consultation with the Judiciary Committee and the Department of State, this modified version seeks to address some of the concerns that have been raised. I believe it is time that we allow average citizens from our allies in the war on terror to come to the U.S. for weddings, birthdays and funerals without the arbitrary determination of an embassy bureaucrat. This amendment provides an opportunity--just an opportunity--for our allies to allow their citizens to visit here for average events that we all take for granted. It does not provide an open-ended opportunity, just a 2-year window. Any country that meets the probationary criteria then must come into full compliance within 2 years--if not, they are terminated from the program. This amendment also addressed a particular concern related to certain countries with a Cold War history where even in the post-Cold War era is held accountable for decades-old problems. This provision ensures that overstay and refusal rates are based on current issues after the country's admission into the European Union, and not its past history. Finally, the amendment provides a one-time option to the Secretary of State to extend a country's probationary status under certain specific criteria. After researching countries that could meet the criteria of the amendment, my staff indicates that the only country currently meeting the eligibility requirements is Poland. Poland has been a strong ally to the United States at a critical time in history. Poland was a staunch ally to the U.S. in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Poland has committed up to 2,300 soldiers to help with ongoing peace efforts in Iraq, and currently assumes command of the Multi- National Division--MND--Central South in Iraq. Poland demonstrated its commitment to global security by becoming a member of NATO. Poland also just recently became a member of the EU. And in 1991, Poland unilaterally repealed the visa requirement for U.S. citizens traveling to Poland for less than 90 days. Today, more than 100,000 Polish citizens travel to the United States annually. On February 10, 2005, I introduced S. 348 designating Poland as a visa waiver country, with Senator Mikulski. This bill designates Poland as a visa waiver country. Under this amendment, Polish citizens visiting the U.S. within a 90-day period would not need to apply for a visa. Representative Nancy Johnson introduced identical legislation March 8, 2005 in the House, H.R. 635. Cosponsors of the bill are Representatives Crowley, Jackson-Lee, Hart, LaHood, Shimkus, Lipinski and Weiner. I wrote a letter on February 9, 2005 to Secretary of State Rice urging the State Department's support for this legislation. Following up on that letter, I had conversations with Secretary Rice in the Spring of 2005. Then in February 2006, I again wrote to Deputy Secretary Zoellick urging his support for this legislation and offering to address any concerns the State Department may have. To date, and despite my staffs continued outreach, they have failed to take us up on the offer. So instead of working for a compromise, we continue not to move forward on a bill to support the allies that have supported us. On August 31, 2005 Poland celebrated the 25th anniversary of the 1980 shipyard strikes in Gdansk and the creation of the Solidarity Trade Union. I was an original cosponsor of the Senate-passed resolution. The Senate passed a resolution commemorating this anniversary. I had the incredible privilege of meeting with Lech Walesa in October 2004 upon introduction of my bill designating Poland as a member country of the Visa Waiver Program. He is ``the symbol of the solidarity movement.'' Since the demise of communism, Poland has become a stable, democratic nation. Poland has adopted economic policies that promote free markets and economic growth. When President Bush and then-Polish President Kwasniewski met in February 2005, they affirmed the goal of Poland entering the Visa Waiver Program--VMP, and agreed to a ``roadmap'' of mutual steps to advance this goal in conformity with U.S. legislative criteria. Through pressure from Congress and advocacy groups this issue has been advanced further than ever before, making this ``road map'' possible. Although the State Department has assured me it is working hard to implement a ``clean slate'' so immigration violations before 1989 will not render them ineligible for a U.S. visa, we know that a key element will be the 2006 review of visa overstay rates based on new 2005 data from Poland's first year in the EU. Another part of the agreement includes the U.S. working with Poland to meet the visa waiver requirements, particularly with regard to refusal and overstay rates, and exploring the provision of technical assistance to bring Poland's passports in compliance. I hope the cooperation that has begun will continue in earnest to ensure that Poland comes into full compliance in the 2-year window under this provision. The current roadmap is a step in the right direction, but it continues to move at a very slow pace. We can and should do more for those that have stepped up to the plate and been incredible allies in the war on terror. Today, as we consider who should be allowed to immigrate to our country and how, we are focused on how to ensure security and the rule flaw for those that have come into our country illegally. For a moment I propose to turn the discussion to how to help those who have stood with us--indeed those who have fought and died with us--a preferred legal way to obtain a visa to come to this country. I am here to stand with the Polish people in asking each of you to support bringing Poland into the Visa Waiver Program. Why is it that countries such as Brunei, Liechtenstein and San Marino are in the Visa Waiver Program, but not Poland or other allies in the war on terror? Polish troops have fought alongside American and British and Australian troops from day one of the war in Iraq. Just like Congress did in 1996 when it legislatively brought Ireland in as a full participant in the Visa Waiver Program, it is time for us to take a stand and support our allies in the war on terror. As a country, we look forward to continuing our strong friendship with Poland and its new President Lech Kaczynski. Is this then a country that we don't want to allow its citizens to come to this country? Is this a country we want to say ``thanks for your help'' but we won't help your citizens come to the U.S.? I think there is a better course of action. Colleagues, this is an to opportunity for us to strengthen that relationship in a real and substantial way. Open a pathway for those that have supported us to come visit our country. In that way--in this small way--we can reach back the hand of an ally that has reached out to help us in the War on Terror. I urge my colleagues to support the Santorum-Mikulski-Frist amendment.

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would also say, we know what the other side believes in. We know they believe in higher taxes. We know they believe in more Government spending. We have seen amendment after amendment come here. I cannot believe I hear again, repeatedly, from the other side of the aisle the woe and complaint about deficits when it comes to letting people keep their money, but no concern about deficits when it comes to spending and increasing the size of Government. I want to correct the Senator from Illinois on a couple of points he made with respect to the Medicare Program. He said I was wrong when I said the Nelson amendment lost. He said it got 52 votes. Well, a motion to waive the Budget Act requires 60 votes. Fifty-two is less than 60. It lost. I want to make sure the Record is clear that I was correct and, in fact, the amendment did lose. I also want to make sure the Record is clear when it comes to low- income eligible seniors signing up for Medicare. The Senator from Illinois said more than half the people who need to go out and sign up for Medicare have not done so. The bottom line is, my understanding is, according to the HHS News of May 10, 2006, a total of 37 million seniors have signed up for the Medicare prescription drug coverage, of a total of around 44 million to 45 million seniors. Now, that does not look like half to me. It looks like a lot more than half have signed up, and a very small percentage have not. As far as low-income individuals, 10 million of the 13 million have signed up for the program. And those who have not signed up and do not sign up by May 15 will not be penalized. They will suffer no penalty. So if you are a low-income individual, you will not suffer a penalty. So let's understand now, 37 million have signed up, and there are 3 more million who, if they do not sign up, will not receive a penalty. So you have 40 million people who either signed up or will not receive a penalty for not signing up, which leaves about 4 million people who will receive a penalty if, in fact, they do not sign up. Again, there were still, as of this number, 5 days. And as we have seen with other programs--just like as with Congress, we wait until the last minute to do things--we will probably see, and I think we are evidencing, there will be a number of people who will come in and sign up. The other thing is, believe it or not--I know this is hard for some to believe--some people do not want the program. Some people do not want to participate in a Government program. They are very happy to not participate. They are very happy to purchase their prescriptions on their own. I know that might come as a shock to some, but there are people who don't like to participate in Government programs, who don't participate in a whole variety of programs the Federal Government offers. As we know, with Medicaid there are lots of people who do not participate. With Medicare, there are people who do not participate, even though they can. It has nothing do with complexity, when you have that high a percentage, much higher than was anticipated by all of those who looked at this, including the Congressional Budget Office. And if you look at the satisfaction of people who have been in the program, more than three-quarters of the people surveyed said they are happy with the benefit. So let's get the facts right. The reason the Democratic whip objected to Senator Enzi's request to move to a vote on cloture allowing the Durbin-Lincoln amendment was because they don't want to move to cloture. They don't want to pass small business health plans. They don't want to make this happen for small businesses because of another ideology they stick to. That is, they want a big Government-run health care system, and they don't want us to cover other people. I appreciate their sticking to their ideology, even though it has been proven to be a failure in every other country where it has been used and is not popular with the American public.

Mr. SANTORUM. Between 28 and 30 million. Does the Senator from Illinois know how many have signed up?

Mr. SANTORUM. By the Congressional Budget Office, which scores the bill.

Mr. SANTORUM. Does the Senator from Illinois recall what the estimates were as to how many seniors would sign by the date of May 15?

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SANTORUM. Let me understand, if I am correct, the Senator from Illinois is objecting to moving forward with a bill that has never been considered, that has support, I assume, from both sides of the aisle, that is important from the standpoint of insuring more people; and the reason he does not want to let that go forward is to bring up two issues that have repeatedly been brought up in the Senate, including this session of Congress, and he has been defeated on, and a third issue which the majority leader has already said he would give time for. That is his reason for objecting to this unanimous consent?

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask the Senator from Wyoming, have we ever debated and brought to the Senate small business health plan reform for the opportunity of small businesses to be able to get insurance for their employees, to take care of one of the biggest problems Members on both sides of the aisle have talked about, which is the rate of uninsured in this country? Have we ever debated this issue in your bill, in the Senate?

Mr. SANTORUM. And the third issue on which the Senator says we have to have a vote is the importation of drugs. Have we not debated that issue repeatedly in the Senate, and the position the Senator from Illinois has taken has repeatedly failed; is that not the case?

Mr. SANTORUM. So what the Senator from Illinois is asking is to have another vote after the Senate has already, on more than one occasion, voted it down. So it is not that we have not discussed that issue. We have discussed that issue in the past, and the Senator does not like the decision of the Senate, but that does not mean we have not debated that issue. The second issue on which I wish to ask a question is the stem cell issue. I think you said this, but I want to make it very clear. Is the leader not in discussion right now with the Democratic leader on setting up a framework to bring up stem cell? And did not the leader say that he would bring this issue to the Senate, and he gave a commitment, and isn't his intention--hasn't he stated it clearly--that he will bring this issue to the Senate in a timely manner before the end of this session?

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Is the Senator from Wyoming aware we have had votes on the extension of the May 15 deadline at least on two occasions or more? Has the Senate already voted on this issue repeatedly?