Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to H. Con. Res. 269.

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I understand there is a bill at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, November 16. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for up to 60 minutes with the first 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee and the final 30 minutes under the control of the Democrat leader or his designee. I further ask that the Senate then begin consideration of S. 1783, the pensions bill as provided under the unanimous consent.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Today the Senate unanimously passed the Defense authorization bill. I congratulate Senator Warner and Senator Levin for this long, long, long awaited accomplishment, keeping up the record of the Armed Services Committee in passing Defense authorization bills on the floor of the Senate. Tomorrow the Senate will vote on the CJS appropriations bill conference report. Under the consent agreement just entered, the Senate will begin consideration of a very important piece of legislation, the pension bill, and complete action on that bill during tomorrow's session. We also expect to begin consideration of the tax reconciliation measure, which was reported out of the Finance Committee today, during Wednesday's session of the Senate. Rollcall votes will occur throughout the day.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1499 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, for her tremendous effort in organizing Members to come to the floor to tell the other side of story in Iraq. It started with a series of e-mails that I received from different people, from constituents to folks who weren't constituents, who complained to me--these are soldiers in-country--that they were becoming frustrated because every day they would be out there on the frontlines in-country, serving, sacrificing for our country and accomplishing great deeds and then would have to turn on CNN and other news shows and read the clips from the American newspapers and see a war being described which they were not seeing. They were not seeing the war as being an IED every day but seeing, every day, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis working with our American military forces to make Iraq a more stable and safe place. I, along with Senator Hutchison and my colleagues, have decided it is time to start going around the mainstream media and telling the other side of the story. I came from a press conference downstairs where I had four civilian independent military bloggers. These are people who have been in- country--one is going to be in-country in the next couple of weeks, one who is the wife of someone who is heading to Iraq--talking about the military blog, talking about all of the information that is now populating the Internet, of people who are actually there in-country, telling their stories, people who are making a difference every single day in the lives of Iraqis. One such person is Captain Jim Bentzley, who is from suburban Philadelphia, who wrote to me a month and a half ago. He said: The reason I'm writing to you about this mission is because I do not believe that the American public realizes how well we are working with the new Iraqi military. In my own shop, the mission could not be accomplished without the help and, cooperation of my Iraqi troop-employees. Likewise, I help them by guiding them through the U.S. military's logistics system. I'm also trying to educate them past the military logistics by introducing them to some of my civilian- experience and U.S. business logistics practices: lean logistics and six sigma. Efficiency is a new concept for them . . . but I believe I can get through to them so that when we, Americans, leave this place, the Iraqis will pick up the mission seamlessly. I would like you to visit my operation so that you can see the way we work with the Iraqis and so that the American people can also see. There are a lot of good things going on over here and most of them deal with people and the close relationships that are being formed--this is definitely not seen by America; America only seems to see the darker side of Iraq. Friendships that will last a lifetime are starting here, and they are friendships between former enemies. I realize I've only been here, in Iraq, for a couple of weeks, but already I consider my Iraqi counterparts close friends. Corporal Mindo Estrella, from Erie, PA said: I like working with the [Iraqi Army] and teaching them our tactics. I think that they've learned what we are teaching them and one day will be able to take over operations. Corporal Estrella reenlisted. in the Marine Corps this past October, shortly after his battalion arrived: in Iraq. He said: I like what I do, It gets rough at times, but nobody made me come out here. I signed the contract knowing what I was getting myself into. He reenlisted last month. He said he likes what he does. He feels he is making a difference in transforming the country of Iraq. LCpl Dan Williams said the same thing. He arrived in mid-March and has worked in-country, in Fallujah, to identify lots of insurgents and is working with the people now. He says he is getting the intelligence from the people in the community, where originally they were hesitant to work with them. Now most of the intelligence they are gathering is from Iraqi civilians who realize that it is now in their best interests for their country that they want to fight for to cooperate not with the American military but also with the Iraqi military in rooting out insurgents in their country. We are making tremendous, positive steps. I am going to be working, over the next several months, to make sure that the stories of the people who are on the frontline, who are fighting the war in the trenches, have their stories told to the American public and not people sitting in editorial rooms in New York City trying to spin what is going on in the mainstream of Iraq. For example, news comes that America has suffered the loss of 2,048 brave servicemen and women in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The loss of any soldier in the cause of freedom grieves us all; especially the parents, wives, husbands and children of each deceased loved one. As elected officials, we don't know these soldiers as numbers, but as people, with hopes and dreams, family and friends. Knowing them as we do, it is hard to imagine the loss of any of them. As great as the loss is, it can only compound a family's sadness to hear some say that the loss of their loved one was neither for the protection of America or the freedom of man. Yet we hear it regularly. Critics say Iraq posed no threat, as there was no link in Iraq to the war on terror. Or that securing freedom in the Middle East is impossible or isn't worth one American life. To those who have lost their loved ones, don't believe these critics. Don't let those poisoned words take root in your heart. As you hear of the 2,048th soldier lost, there is another number that demonstrates the protection of Americans here, and the preservation of freedom around the world. And that number, as best we can ascertain, stood at 450 last month. Over 450 suicide bombers have attacked in Iraq. That is over 450 suicide bombers who did not strike at America's homeland, did not strike at our embassies, our ships, our civilians around the globe. It is your sons and daughters who have protected America from these 450 plus suicide bombers. The suicide bomber represents that greatest threat to America, to democracies, to civilized society, and to peace. Stopping suicide bombers from attacking America and our allies is the foremost goal of the War on Terror. Without terrorists, planes, trains, boats, cars, and buses are moving gifts to society. Add a single terrorist, and they are transformed into weapons of mass death and destruction. With one suicide bomber, a stolen van filled with explosives cost the U.S. Embassy in Beirut 63 lives, including 17 Americans. With one suicide bomber, a delivery truck took out the Marine Barracks in Beirut, costing the lives of 241 U.S. Marines. With just two suicide bombers, a small boat hit the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors. With just four suicide bombers, the London subway and buses became the final destination for 52 civilians. With just 19 suicide bombers, four airliners made for one of America's darkest days by killing nearly 3,000 innocent people. The suicide bomber is the foremost weapon of terrorism today. So how can anyone say that 450 ex-suicide bombers in Iraq has not protected American lives? Critics of this war insist that it is America's presence in Iraq that has created the 450 plus suicide bombers in Iraq. Did America's presence in Iraq cause the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993? Did our presence in Iraq compel terrorist to attack us on 9/11? The answer is no. It was our existence in the world that compelled the terrorists to attack us, time and again. These suicide bombers existed and attacked America before, on, and after 9/11, and well before Operation Iraqi Freedom. Frankly, I am stunned that after 9/11 that anyone in a position of power would assume the peaceful intentions of one suicide bomber, much less each and every one of the 450 ex-suicide bombers in Iraq. So I believe that 450 fewer suicide bombers does make America safer, and our brave men and women in uniform serving in Iraq have protected America from these cowards. On the Marine Corps website is a story about Lance Corporal Dan Williams, a 22-year-old intelligence analyst from Murrysville, PA with the 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment currently conducting security and stability operations in and around Fallujah. Part of Lance Corporal Williams' mission is to piece together fragments of data on terrorist identities, connections, and locations. This information is used to determine where and when to apprehend these individuals, and what type of threat they may face upon arrival. Since his unit arrived in Iraq in mid-March 2005, Lance Corporal Williams and his fellow Marines have helped to apprehend dozens of insurgent supporters and to unearth several weapons caches in the area. As for this fight for freedom, we now have a democratically-elected constitution in place in Iraq. Will freedom and democracy take root and flourish in Iraq? We cannot say right now. But, when we laid to rest the 1,500 American soldiers that perished on D-Day in the grave at Normandy, no one could say whether freedom would take in post-Nazi Germany. When we laid to rest those 6,891 fallen soldiers at Iwo Jima, no one could say that militaristic Japan would become a democratic nation. None of those tens of thousands who fought and died in the hot chapter of the Cold War knew that freedom would ever arise behind the Iron Curtain, much less survive. And even here in America, as we buried the 4,435 lost in total at Concord, Lexington, Bunker Hill, Trenton, Princeton, Bennington, Cowpens, and Yorktown, no one could say for certain that a government of, for, and by the people would take. But it did. Each of those who died in all these battles never knew if freedom and liberty would result from their sacrifice. Rather, they died for the hope and dream that it might exist and flourish, both here and elsewhere for our fellow man. It is so unfortunate that so often critics of this war fail to tell the stories of success coming out of Iraq; the stories which prove that our U.S. servicemembers are working with the Iraqis to help them to sustain this newfound freedom by helping the strengthen their armies. The stories of success from our soldiers and sailors in Iraq need to be told. Our soldiers need to know that their bravery and hard work in Iraq is not in vain. This new chance for freedom in this part of the world is due entirely to the sacrifice of our soldiers and sailors, and their families. I say to our servicemen and women and your families--Our nation owes you our gratitude, and we honor you for bestowing the immeasurable gift of freedom. We thank each and every one of you.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, before I talk about the situation in Iraq, I want to mention something that has gone on in my City of Philadelphia which I think deserves recognition during Veterans Day; that is, a situation with the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier from the Revolutionary War. That is a memorial which was erected in Philadelphia in 1954. There was an eternal flame added to that memorial back in 1976 during our bicentennial year. About 10 years ago that flame went out, and for 10 years the City of Philadelphia and the government of the City of Philadelphia refused to relight it--- to fix the flame. It wasn't until the efforts of Larry Mendte, a journalist for the CBS station WKYW television in Philadelphia, and the work he did in bringing this issue to light--other journalists have brought this to light in the past--but to Larry's credit, he did not give up. And they continued to run story after story and hound the city of Philadelphia to try to finally fix this monument and fix this eternal flame. I wish to give thanks to the veterans community in Philadelphia, to WKYW, to Larry, and ultimately I have to congratulate Mayor Street. After an enormous amount of pressure put on his administration, Mayor Street finally decided to fix the flame. Once the flame was fixed, the National Park Service took that flame over and will make sure that the flame at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the Revolutionary War, where so many died in the city of Philadelphia, will burn as an eternal flame. As we all know, this Friday is Veterans Day, a day when Americans pay tribute to the brave men and women who have served in our armed forces. There is no group of Americans to which we owe more than those who have fought to protect the freedoms that are the very heart of our Nation. The truth is that our veterans, both past and present, should be honored every day of the year. We would not be here today, enjoying all the blessings we have if it were not for the sacrifices of those who took up arms to defend America. And so, I rise today to recognize the efforts of the residents of my home state who have fought to ensure that those who passed away in service to our country are remembered, day in and day out, with the reverence they deserve. The city of Philadelphia, so central to the American Revolution, became the final resting place for thousands of Revolutionary soldiers. Many of these brave men, America's first patriots, were laid to rest in mass, unmarked graves throughout the Philadelphia region. To honor these soldiers, and the millions more who have fought for our Nation since its inception, a war memorial was erected in Philadelphia in 1954. Ever since, this monument, known as the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, has stood as a tribute to those who first made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of America. During the bicentennial celebration in 1976, an eternal flame was added to the monument. This flame, a symbol of the enduring spirit of the soldiers that passed, was to burn continuously in their honor. Yet over time, the flame was neglected and allowed to die out. For the last few years, this monument has stood incomplete, and as a tribute to our soldiers, insufficient. Thankfully, Philadelphia is a city filled with conscientious, concerned citizens. On June 6 of this year, Mr. Larry Mendte, a journalist for the CBS station WKYW, reported that the flame had gone out. The response from viewers was immediate. The next night, a veteran of the gulf war traveled to the monument and lit her own flame, a flame that would certainly not wane due to neglect, thus beginning a candlelight vigil that would be joined by many others. Mr. Mendte, along with his colleagues at CBS, would not let this story disappear. He tracked down city officials, demanded an explanation, and refused to accept their attempts to brush him off. On June 13, merely seven days after the initial story was broadcast, the city began the repair process. Thanks to the efforts of Mr. Mendte, WKYW, and the many concerned Philadelphia residents who responded to this story, over 100 individuals were able to witness the reigniting of the eternal flame on June 29. An inscription on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier reads, ``Freedom is a light for which many men have died in darkness.'' Freedom is a light, a light that still shines bright throughout the world thanks to the effort and sacrifice of American soldiers. Today in Philadelphia, a different light is shining, once again, in recognition of these soldiers and what they have given for us. I commend Mr. Mendte and his colleagues at WKYW for bringing attention to this issue and pushing for its resolution, as well as the residents of Philadelphia who responded, in force, with their support. Most of all, I thank America's veterans, who have given more than we can ever repay, and deserve to be honored and recognized at every opportunity. The eternal flame at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is a fitting tribute, and I am proud to represent such dedicated, patriotic citizens who worked so hard for its restoration. Congratulations to all involved in the city of Philadelphia.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Ben Nelson, Inhofe, DeMint, DeWine, Hagel, Coburn, Gregg, Brownback, Ensign, Martinez, Kyl, Vitter, and Burr. Abortion has been, and continues to be, one of the most divisive social issues in our Nation. I realize that there are people of good will on both sides of this issue, people who working for the best interests of women, children and families. Despite the great disagreements, there are points of this debate where the vast majority of Americans agree, for example the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. The bill I introduce today is one of these areas of common ground. However one may feel about abortion, surely we can agree on the principle that no one should be forced to participate in an abortion in violation of one's conscience. We should all agree that no person or entity should be forced, against their will or conscience, to provide, refer for, or pay for an abortion. No entity should be forced to choose between being involved in an abortion or losing its funding, its certification, or its ability to exist as a hospital. Healthcare entities including physicians, other health professionals, hospitals, provider-sponsored organizations, health maintenance organizations, and health insurance plans should not be coerced into providing abortion services, and they certainly should not be discriminated against because of their objections to providing or paying for abortions. Current law, as has been interpreted by some courts, only provides protection for individual physicians, postgraduate physician training programs, and participants in health professions training. This narrow interpretation excludes from protection those who deserve it. The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2005 directly addresses these concerns by clarifying and strengthening existing law. This legislation makes clear that other health professionals, hospitals, health insurance plans, and any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan cannot be forced to perform, provide coverage of, or pay for an abortion when it conflicts with their conscience. These individuals and organizations deserve the freedom to follow their conscience in protecting innocent life. They should not be forced to suffer financial consequences for their choice not to participate in an abortion. I am thankful for the Hyde-Weldon conscience protection language that was included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, but I believe it is appropriate to codify such conscience protection in Federal law. I am hopeful the Senate will act to pass the Abortion Non- Discrimination Act during this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Ben Nelson, Inhofe, DeMint, DeWine, Hagel, Coburn, Gregg, Brownback, Ensign, Martinez, Kyl, Vitter, and Burr. Abortion has been, and continues to be, one of the most divisive social issues in our Nation. I realize that there are people of good will on both sides of this issue, people who working for the best interests of women, children and families. Despite the great disagreements, there are points of this debate where the vast majority of Americans agree, for example the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. The bill I introduce today is one of these areas of common ground. However one may feel about abortion, surely we can agree on the principle that no one should be forced to participate in an abortion in violation of one's conscience. We should all agree that no person or entity should be forced, against their will or conscience, to provide, refer for, or pay for an abortion. No entity should be forced to choose between being involved in an abortion or losing its funding, its certification, or its ability to exist as a hospital. Healthcare entities including physicians, other health professionals, hospitals, provider-sponsored organizations, health maintenance organizations, and health insurance plans should not be coerced into providing abortion services, and they certainly should not be discriminated against because of their objections to providing or paying for abortions. Current law, as has been interpreted by some courts, only provides protection for individual physicians, postgraduate physician training programs, and participants in health professions training. This narrow interpretation excludes from protection those who deserve it. The Abortion Non-Discrimination Act of 2005 directly addresses these concerns by clarifying and strengthening existing law. This legislation makes clear that other health professionals, hospitals, health insurance plans, and any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan cannot be forced to perform, provide coverage of, or pay for an abortion when it conflicts with their conscience. These individuals and organizations deserve the freedom to follow their conscience in protecting innocent life. They should not be forced to suffer financial consequences for their choice not to participate in an abortion. I am thankful for the Hyde-Weldon conscience protection language that was included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, but I believe it is appropriate to codify such conscience protection in Federal law. I am hopeful the Senate will act to pass the Abortion Non- Discrimination Act during this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer remarks about a bill I introduced earlier today, the Terrorist Lobby Disclosure Act of 2005. My legislation is simple, straightforward and necessary. Because the United States is actively involved in the global war on terror, we must be vigilant in fighting this war on all fronts. This means supplying our men and women of the Armed Forces with equipment and materiel to conduct military operations. It means providing our intelligence community with the resources it needs to make inroads against terrorist organizations and to better safeguard Americans against nations and groups that hate our way of life. It means devoting the time and resources to ensure the safety of our borders, ports and airports. Finally, it means providing transparency in dealing with those nations defined by our government as ``state sponsors of terrorism.'' According to the Department of State, Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan are the six governments that the U.S. Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism. These are governments that engage directly in terrorist activity themselves; support terrorist groups by providing funding, arms, or other material support; or provide training, logistical support, sanctuary, or diplomatic facilities. These states are the worst of the worst when it comes to fighting the global war on terror. My bill requires Members of Congress and employees of the legislative branch to disclose, on a quarterly basis, any contacts with representatives or officials of governments that have been designated as state sponsors of international terrorism. The contacts must be reported to the U.S. Department of State, Secretary of the Senate, and Clerk of the House of Representatives. My bill makes sure that the congressional committees of oversight are also duly informed of these contacts. Let me be clear, my bill does not prohibit these contacts. Rather, with men and women serving in harm's way in the global war on terror, it simply requires disclosure and transparency in the conduct of their official duties. As we commit final resources and valuable human capital to prosecute the global war on terror, we ought to know if members of our own government are meeting with individuals who are representatives of terrorist nations. The American people deserve to know if there are contacts happening with representatives of these regimes--regimes that are actively opposed to America.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer remarks about a bill I introduced earlier today, the Terrorist Lobby Disclosure Act of 2005. My legislation is simple, straightforward and necessary. Because the United States is actively involved in the global war on terror, we must be vigilant in fighting this war on all fronts. This means supplying our men and women of the Armed Forces with equipment and materiel to conduct military operations. It means providing our intelligence community with the resources it needs to make inroads against terrorist organizations and to better safeguard Americans against nations and groups that hate our way of life. It means devoting the time and resources to ensure the safety of our borders, ports and airports. Finally, it means providing transparency in dealing with those nations defined by our government as ``state sponsors of terrorism.'' According to the Department of State, Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan are the six governments that the U.S. Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism. These are governments that engage directly in terrorist activity themselves; support terrorist groups by providing funding, arms, or other material support; or provide training, logistical support, sanctuary, or diplomatic facilities. These states are the worst of the worst when it comes to fighting the global war on terror. My bill requires Members of Congress and employees of the legislative branch to disclose, on a quarterly basis, any contacts with representatives or officials of governments that have been designated as state sponsors of international terrorism. The contacts must be reported to the U.S. Department of State, Secretary of the Senate, and Clerk of the House of Representatives. My bill makes sure that the congressional committees of oversight are also duly informed of these contacts. Let me be clear, my bill does not prohibit these contacts. Rather, with men and women serving in harm's way in the global war on terror, it simply requires disclosure and transparency in the conduct of their official duties. As we commit final resources and valuable human capital to prosecute the global war on terror, we ought to know if members of our own government are meeting with individuals who are representatives of terrorist nations. The American people deserve to know if there are contacts happening with representatives of these regimes--regimes that are actively opposed to America.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2366 Withdrawn

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendments Nos. 2380, as Modified, 2420, and 2386

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendments Nos. 2350, 2378, 2418, 2411, 2413, en bloc

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is a four-part amendment. The first part would provide for a screening for aortic aneurysms, offered by Senator Bunning and Senator Dodd. The second part of the amendment would allow for the purchase of electronic mobility equipment for our seniors, something Senator Voinovich has been working on, as opposed to having a long-term lease. The third part is offered by Senator Thomas, which has to do with rural mental health care under Medicare. And finally, the piece I have been offering is on colorectal screenings. We passed that benefit back in 1997. As a result of that payment of the benefit for screenings, we have only seen a 1-percent increase in screenings. This is an attempt to try to increase that by allowing for the payment of the pre-doctor visit as well as the part B deductible. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Landrieu as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, we have discussed it with the members of the Finance Committee which, as you know, I am a member of. To my knowledge, I am not aware of any objection on the part of the Finance Committee as to this particular provision. I will be offering a couple other amendments promptly which are under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee which they do object to, which I will just offer and withdraw. But to my knowledge, they have not objected to this particular amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, to my knowledge, we filed the amendment. My staff has discussed it, I know, with the Finance Committee. I do not know about any other committees. This is not a bill I introduced and has gone to committee. This is something I have brought up on this bill. So to answer your question, I think, as directly as I can, no, we have not filed this with the Finance Committee as a bill to have them review it as a bill in committee, if that is your question.

Mr. SANTORUM. I would be happy to.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I perfectly understand what the concerns are of the Senator from Iowa and would be happy to work with him over the next several hours to get that amendment cleared. Amendment No. 2237 Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 2237 be called up and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. The next two amendments I am going to be talking about are amendments that I have offered and on which I want to have a discussion. They are in the subject area of this appropriations bill, but they are provisions that, as my colleague from Pennsylvania advised me, rightfully belong as amendments to a welfare bill. But as Members of this Chamber know, we have not had the privilege in the Senate of having a welfare bill come across this floor, even though the welfare bill of 1996 expired a couple of years ago. We have passed extension after extension. As a result of that, the work requirements in the welfare reform bill of 1996--which have been so effective in transforming the lives of millions of Americans who were trapped in the welfare system--those work requirements in most States have gone away because the requirements only required that 50 percent of the caseload, at the time of the passage of the bill, had to be working. Well, we reduced the caseload more than 50 percent, therefore the work requirements went away for the caseload that is remaining. So many States have begun to sort of go back to the pre-1996 provision of welfare. It is easier for States to do that. Work programs cost money to the States. Other initiatives to try to help people get out of poverty, they cost money. So if you do not have to spend that money as a State, if you can just simply continue to pay out the money and not have to provide all these other services, it is a lot cheaper for States to do. In fact, that is what States did for years upon years upon years, as the welfare rolls grew. There is still a time limit, so that is a good thing. That causes a lot of people, in spite of the lack of effort in many cases by States, to move themselves off of welfare because of the limits on the ability to get relief. But I believe we can do better. So I have many times come to the floor of the Senate and asked for consideration of the bill, asked for a specific number of amendments, and, candidly, we have had objections from both sides of the aisle. I think that is unfortunate. So as a result, I have brought forward amendments to this bill on two programs that I think are vitally important in the next step on welfare. We did a great job in the welfare reform bill of 1996 in providing an economic path to recovery for millions of Americans, in providing incentives to work. We made work pay more than staying on welfare. In many cases prior to that, that was not the case. We also did a lot in providing strict time limits and giving States very tough provisions to require work as a way of getting people out of poverty, instead of simply just allowing them to be maintained in poverty. It gave them a requirement that a certain percentage of the caseload had to be at work. That is all for the good. We saw the rate of poverty from 1996 to the year 2001--until we had, unfortunately, a recession in this country--we saw the rate of poverty go down, and go down dramatically. One of the greatest indicators is poverty among African-American children. Poverty among African-American children, in the year 2001, was the lowest ever recorded--lowest ever recorded--and was a dramatic decline from one of the highest rates ever recorded, which was in the mid-1990s. So you can point directly to this act as a way of helping to alleviate poverty. But I think what we have found since 1996, yes, we have had economic successes, but still there are people struggling at the margins of society. One of the reasons that is the case is, even though we now have moms who have gotten jobs--and it was predominantly moms who were on welfare--what they have not gotten is families brought back together. What we have not seen is an increase in the amount of family unification, moms and dads coming together and marrying and raising children in poor communities. In fact, the rate of out-of-wedlock births has not changed substantially at all in most of these communities. The amount of fatherlessness in these communities continues to be of epidemic proportions. And we now have folks on the left and the right writing about this. This is no longer just a conservative cabal when we talk about family unification; families, mothers and fathers raising children. Now even those on the left have said there is no longer an argument. Children raised in healthy, stable, two-parent married families do better. It should be a social policy to encourage those kinds of relationships for the benefit of children, for the benefit of mothers, for the benefit of fathers, for the benefit of neighborhoods, for the benefit of the country. Yet when it comes to that here in Washington, DC, when it comes to public policy that helps build those strong relationships, that helps nurture and foster those relationships of marriage and fathers taking responsibility for their children, the Government stands in absolute neutrality. We do nothing to promote stable marriages. We do nothing, other than attach fathers' wages and get child support and establish paternity. We do nothing to help nurture and bring fathers back into the lives of their children and into productive and healthy relationships with the mother of their children. What I have suggested, in both amendment No. 2237 and No. 2238, are two initiatives that are better placed and will be placed and will be debated in full on the welfare bill. One is a healthy marriage initiative. The second is a fatherhood initiative. Both would provide funding. Let's review some of the statistics of the impact of marriage. This was done by the Brookings Institution. Those on the other side of the aisle will know that the Brookings Institution is not often cited on the Republican side of the aisle. It shows you that the debate is over. There is no debate anymore about the impact of marriage and the impact of having fathers involved in their children's lives. I talked about the effectiveness of five factors in reducing poverty rates. We hear a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle--unfortunately, more on the other side of the aisle--about reducing poverty. Hopefully, that will change soon. In 1992, we did what was, in fact, the most effective thing in reducing poverty, this study found. The most effective thing was not to double cash welfare payments. Some on the other side of the aisle have suggested that all we need to do is pay people more from the Government. If we give them more, they will get out of poverty. Wrong. That doesn't work. In fact, the percentage reduction in poverty rates, if we doubled cash welfare, would only decrease the poverty rate by 8 percent. What did work? Full-time work. Full-time work decreases the poverty rate by 42 percent. We have done that. We have required work, not full- time work, but we require 20 hours. The bill that is being proposed, that we have yet to bring to the floor, requires 24 hours. But we have required work, and it is working to take people out of poverty. What is the next biggest factor in reducing poverty? Again, according to the Brookings Institution report, an increase in marriage. We did something to require work. Many States have more generous welfare benefits than what is prescribed by the Federal Government. In fact, I know there is some money out there for healthy marriages, but very few States and very little Federal money goes to do anything about helping to improve the health of marriage among the poor. It is vitally important that we recognize that there is a direct social-policy, social-service-community, child-mother-father benefit for encouraging healthy marriages. The Federal Government doesn't spend a penny. This Congress has not spent a penny on something we know could reduce poverty by 27 percent and, more importantly, provide more stability in the lives of children, reduce domestic violence, and improve the lives of millions in communities across America. We will not spend a penny this year. That is why I offered the amendment, because I want to spend more than a few pennies, because we know it has an impact. What impact does it have? Let's look at the benefits of marriage for children: better school performance and less dropouts; fewer emotional and behavioral problems; less substance abuse; less abuse or neglect; less criminal activity; less early sexual activity and fewer out-of- wedlock births. I am not too sure I know anybody who doesn't think all of those things are good. The Federal Government doesn't spend a penny. Think of all the things we spend money on in Washington. One of the things you hear most when you go back home is all the waste, fraud, all the money we throw at projects for which people have no rhyme or reason as to why we spend the money. Yet here is something that we know will help children, mothers, fathers, neighborhoods, will build on a stronger America, and we don't spend one red cent. You might ask the question: Why is that, Senator? Why don't we spend any money on this? Let me tell you what some of my colleagues on the Finance Committee have said. The response was: Well, who are we to impose our values on other folks; who are we to suggest that marriage is something the Federal Government should be concerned with; that is a private matter. Is this a private matter? Is less substance abuse a private matter? Is less abuse and neglect a private matter? Is less criminal activity a private matter? This isn't a private matter. We are talking about policies that have a direct impact on the health and safety of children. It is not a private matter. Supporting healthy marriages is a public good. If you think about all the other things we spend money on, I can't imagine anything that would be a more valuable expenditure than to provide more stable families for children growing up in poor neighborhoods. The second amendment is an offshoot of the first. That is to try to bring fathers who have children out of wedlock back and get them involved in their children's lives--not necessarily to marry, but to have them involved. I was at a conference within the last year where Jason DeParle, a writer from the New York Times, was giving a talk. He was talking about a book he had written, following three women in Milwaukee, WI, post welfare reform of 1996. He wrote about many things, about how welfare reform is working in some ways and not in others. One way he talked about where it wasn't working was with regard to fathers. There was a question from the crowd about who these dads are. We are not talking about the best neighborhoods in America when it comes to crime, wealth. We are talking about a lot of dads who, yes, were or even are incarcerated, were or still are dealing with addiction, dealing with unemployment, dealing with a whole host of other maladies that affect large segments of our population. The question was: Do we want these dads involved in the lives of these children? I thought that was a bold question. Jason's answer was, in a word--I won't quote him, because I didn't write it down--well, they may not be the best role models of dads, but they are still their dads. These children, like all of us children, want to be loved by their dads. They need that love, as imperfect as it is. As a dad, I know how imperfect it can be. We all do. But it is still your dad. These programs are not perfect. We are not bringing ``Father Knows Best'' Robert Young dads back into the home. We understand that. But these children still long for their dad. Do we have a Federal program that helps bring dads back into the home? Do we spend any Federal dollars to help reunite fathers with their children, in spite of all the benefits that we know about two parents? No, we don't. We will spend more money on daycare, billions more on daycare. We will spend more money on afterschool programs, Head Start Programs, early programs, late programs, noon programs. We will spend all sorts of money on Government programs. But will we spend a penny to help reunite a father with his children? No. Who are we to impose our values, is the line I hear. Did anyone ever ask a kid whether he wants his dad back? What kind of value is that? We need to start thinking about how important it is for young children growing up in a hostile world in poor neighborhoods in America to have a shot to be with their dad and to start funding those groups who are out there--and there are hundreds across America who are working hard every day on a shoestring--to help dads be a dad. I can't offer this amendment because it is authorizing on an appropriations bill. We aren't going to get a welfare bill, so kids across America are going to have to wait a little longer while Congress decides whether we want to take the time to help find their dad. Hopefully we can find the time sometime soon. The kids are waiting. I yield the floor.