Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President I rise today to introduce a bill to extend the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC program, the MILC Extension Act. In the 106th Congress, I called for a programmatic solution to market instability, when I introduced S. 2706, the National Dairy Farmers Fairness Act of 2000. S. 2706 was designed to eliminate the need for Congress to provide supplemental market loss payments to dairy producers by setting up a counter cyclical payment based on the market price of class III milk. Elements of S. 2706 were later borrowed to construct the MILC program, which was included in the 2002 Farm Bill. My bill would extend MILC for 2 years at current support levels. All commodity support programs, except MILC, were authorized for the full length of the current Farm Bill. As constructed, the MILC program provides a safety net for all dairy producers by providing a payment whenever the minimum monthly market price for Class I milk price in Boston falls below $16.94 per hundredweight, cwt. MILC represents a broad regional compromise and while it is not perfect, I recognize its importance as a safety net for dairy producers. As such I am working to extend the program until 2007 when Congress will consider the next Farm Bill. Budget constraints and compliance with our trade agreements requires us to reexamine the role of the federal government in agriculture. During this session of Congress I will engage in a focused effort to decrease direct payments and countercyclical programs. These discussions and reforms will be forthcoming, but allowing an important program that acts as a safety net for small farmers to expire would be too drastic of a first step. Others have suggested that we grow this program. I will be steadfast in my opposition to growing this program. Growing the size of this program sends a potentially dangerous signal to our producers. At a time when the experts are predicting that the market may soften over coming months, Congress should not send a signal to producers to increase production. Dairy producers should look to the market, not to Washington, DC, for guidance as they manage their businesses. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee who represents the fourth largest dairy producing state in the nation, I am committed to preserving the viability of Pennsylvania's dairy farmers. This legislative proposal represents a commonsense approach in the often- heated debate of dairy policy. I look forward to working with my colleagues, the President and the Secretary of Agriculture to extend this important program.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I would like to reflect on the loss of a dear family friend, Karen Shapira. Karen recently passed away after a battle with breast cancer. The Shapira family has suffered a tremendous loss, and I offer them my condolences and deepest sympathy during this difficult time. Karen always called herself a ``professional volunteer'' and that is what she was. She was an extremely caring and selfless individual. For more than 20 years, she served the Jewish community, both in Pittsburgh and abroad. Most notably, she chaired the United Jewish Federation of Pittsburgh, which is responsible for delivering grants for educational, cultural, and human service programs. Her deep involvement in the Jewish community led her to Israel, where she met with Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon. Through her capacity as chair of Partnership 2000 at the United Jewish Federation, Karen worked on projects with several schools, camps, women's health centers, and job training facilities in Israel. She also chaired a revolving loan fund of the Israel Emergency Appeal, which supports Israeli small businesses. Karen could also be found serving her local community in Pittsburgh. She had a major leadership role at the United Way of Allegheny County, cochairing the Early Childhood Initiative, and she served on the boards of the Pittsburgh Symphony, the Jewish Healthcare Foundation in Pittsburgh, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and Shady Side Academy. Karen was also appointed by Governor Ridge to the Pennsylvania Commission for Women. It is obvious from the several awards that Karen received that her dedication to the Jewish community did not go unnoticed. Specifically, Karen received the 2002 Emanuel Specter Award and the Sonia and Aaron Levinson Award for the pursuit of social justice, both from the United Jewish Federation. Karen was also devoted to her family. She was married to David Shapira for 41 years and raised three children, Laura Karet, Debbie, and Jeremy. Karen leaves behind a wonderful family, and a legacy of community service and outreach. My thoughts and prayers are with the Shapira family in the days and months ahead.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Kentucky for his excellent remarks, which I heard in my office, and the wrap-up I heard here. I congratulate all who have come forward in support of Judge Gonzales for their excellent statements and, I am prompted to say, in his defense. It is a sad situation that a man of his integrity, of his accomplishments, of his skills, of his background, has to be defended in the Senate. This discussion we have had in committee and in the Senate is further evidence that the system of bringing not just Attorney General nominees but judicial nominees and other nominees-- Secretary of State--has some serious problems. We have allowed the partisan politics to enter into some of these debates and discussions when we should be looking at the qualifications of the person, the integrity of the person, the skills of the person, the trustworthiness of the person, and whether they can do and execute the jobs faithfully. Judge Gonzales has shown throughout his career, whether in his career as a lawyer, whether in his career as a counsel to the Governor, whether in his career as supreme court justice and elected official in the State of Texas, secretary of state, he has shown the highest degree of integrity and the skills necessary to do the job. He has proven to be trustworthy when given authority, taking that authority seriously and handling it with great responsibility. I personally have worked with him on many occasions, and in some very difficult situations, and I have always found him to be completely forthright, brutally honest--in some cases telling me things I did not want to hear but always forthright, always honest, sincere, serious. This is a serious man who takes the responsibilities that have been given to him as a great privilege and a great honor which he holds very carefully and gently in his hands. There is a wonderful spirit in this man of understanding the positions he has held, certainly the position he holds now as Counsel to the President, and the awesome responsibility that comes with that. He has never given me any indication in any dealings I have had with him that he would do anything but faithfully execute his duties to the President and to the country, first and foremost. Knowing the man--he is not a friend; I don't know him socially-- having dealt with him on many occasions in my time in the Senate, to see this man being portrayed as someone who would condone torture in spite of all the statements to the contrary, someone who would not faithfully execute the laws of this country despite endorsements from every law enforcement agency there is out there--not just endorsements but glowing endorsements from law enforcement agencies and prosecutors--to see this man's integrity questioned, his forthrightness questioned, is a sad commentary on the questioners because this man's history, this man's record of service for the State of Texas and this Government is spectacular, as was Dr. Rice's service. The sad part of this is that ultimately it is less about the individual and more about the politics. More and more we see that. We saw that last session of Congress with judicial nominations where it was more about the politics, the partisanship, than about the individual. Looking from afar and observing the political scene, as many people do in America, we see that, and that is just part of the game. Everyone is making their points when they have the opportunity and trying to drive the message. Maybe I can understand that a few months before an election, if you want to drive a pledge and position yourself on the wedge issues. It is the first week of February. It is 3 months after the last election. Don't you think we can take a little time around here to treat people decently, people who serve this country well and have been role models and examples? Dr. Rice, Judge Gonzales--what two better stories in America of people who have achieved, from very humble beginnings, achieved at the highest level, and then to be treated as partisan pawns in this political process barely 3 months after an election. The Senate deserves better than that. More importantly, these are individuals. We are not debating a bill. This is not a piece of paper with words on it. If we say this language is bad or that language is bad, that is one thing. But to impugn the character of individuals, when you go after someone on a personal basis, when you say things and accuse people of things that are not supported by any of the evidence out there, and you do so principally not because you believe this person actually holds those characteristics but you do so for a grander political motivation, I argue that is something the Senate should not condone, and hopefully today we will see the votes in the Senate in a very strong and overwhelming bipartisan fashion. There are a lot of people I commend on the other side of the aisle who have stood and spoken of their own experiences with this man. They have spoken about their review of the record and the facts and have given this extremely qualified nominee their support. It shows there are some on that side of the aisle who still are positioning themselves as if we are in the last week of October of last year instead of beyond that and moving on to try to do something that is positive for the future of our country. I would argue Alberto Gonzales is going to be a great, positive contribution to the war on terror, to the crime-fighting obligation that he will have, to the integrity of our laws in this country. There is no question in my mind he will faithfully uphold the Constitution of the United States, and he will serve with great honor and distinction. It is my pleasure to speak in support of him. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, last week marked the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in southern Poland. On January 27, 1945, Soviet troops freed the prisoners at Auschwitz, the largest Nazi death camp. During that same period, our American troops were freeing prisoners at other death camps. This year, the world noted the significance of this anniversary. On Monday, at the request of the United States, Canada, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, and Russia, the United Nations held the first-ever General Assembly commemoration of the World War II Holocaust. Six million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust, including two-thirds of European Jews. As we remember the many who suffered and died at Auschwitz and at the other concentration camps, we must not forget the lessons of the past. These awful events revealed what people can do to one another, and we can never forget what happened only 60 short years ago. In not forgetting, we must be careful that this form of genocide is never repeated. Even now, in too many countries, anti-Semitism is on the rise. The State Department recently released a report indicating it is gaining momentum in Europe and the Middle East. In a Wall Street Journal commentary, author Adam Zagajewski stated that there is ``a solid, murky stratum of anti-Semitism more and more perceptible in different European countries.'' The world must respond to this threat-- before it is too late. Here in the United States, we have always recognized the importance of religious freedom. Religious freedom is more than just religious tolerance--it is religious pluralism. We must not err on either extreme--either to impose one religion on all peoples or, what some would like to see in this country, to banish all expression of religion from the public square. Rather, we should welcome all religions and expressions of faith. This is the right on which our country was founded, and we must continue to allow people to worship as they please and freely live out their faith as good citizens. In his well-known 1790 letter to the Newport Hebrew Congregation, President George Washington wrote, ``The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess a like liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.'' This country has a history of encouraging faith. In 1948, as the Jewish community in Munich was still rebuilding after the end of World War II, local rabbis asked the United States Armed Forces for assistance in obtaining copies of the Talmud. The Nazis had tried to destroy all the copies of the Talmud during World War II and only a precious few were left to study. When requested by the local rabbis, the United States Armed Forces responded, and helped to publish 19 volumes of the Talmud for the use of the community, recognizing the great importance of the Talmud to rebuilding the displaced Jewish community in that region. The title page of the first volume of that new Talmud edition stated that it was published ``with the aid of the American Military Command and the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee in Germany.'' It was dedicated to the ``United States Army,'' which provided the opportunity and the means for its publication. In this example, the United States Army reached out to help displaced persons, who had faced such terrible struggles to survive, to rebuild the community in that land, and it did so by encouraging their faith. In like manner, we should encourage people to live out their faith, for it is faith that teaches us to respect the lives of those around us, to love our neighbors, and to care for one another. True religious freedom and pluralism does not mean that we will agree with our neighbor on our faith beliefs, but it does mean that we will fight for the right of our neighbor to freely believe what he or she thinks best. Banishing religion from the public square will not result in respect for all but, rather, respect for a few. Ensuring that everyone is free to practice one's faith in one's own way is the correct way to build a culture that is respectful of differences and mindful of the needs of others. It is the way to ensure that Auschwitz, Buchenwald, and the other death camps are never repeated in other areas of the world.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I reflect on the loss of a dear friend. On January 11, 2005, G. Fred DiBona, Jr. passed away after a 15-month battle with cancer. I have known Fred for more than 11 years and have developed a close relationship with Fred and his family. The DiBona family has suffered a tremendous loss, and I offer them my condolences and deepest sympathy during this difficult time. On February 20, 1951, G. Fred DiBona, Jr. was born in South Philadelphia to Common Pleas Court Judge, G. Fred DiBona and the former Rose D'Amico. Fred Jr. was raised in Philadelphia, and went on to graduate from South Philadelphia High School and Davis and Elkins College. He also received a law degree from the Delaware School of Law. At the age of 25, Fred became chairman of the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment. After a three-year post with the Zoning Board, Fred served as President of the Philadelphia Port Corporation, President of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, and finally as President and Chief Executive Officer of Independence Blue Cross. With vision and confidence, Fred completely revolutionized Independence Blue Cross. He devoted a great deal of time and energy to Independence Blue Cross, and implemented a vision of trustworthy insurance service to his customers for many years. Throughout his career, Fred worked vigorously and tirelessly in the pursuit of excellence, and I am grateful for the many years of service he provided to his community. Fred will also be remembered for his community activism and willingness to serve on several boards and councils. Specifically, he served consecutive terms as chairman of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, the country's largest association of private health insurers. He is also a former member of the Harvard Health Policy and Management Executive Council, a group at the Harvard School of Public Health. Fred also served on the boards of Aqua America Inc., Crown Holdings Inc., Exelon Corporation, The GEO Group, Inc., and Tasty Baking Company. Fred's involvement in civic organizations, including the Peter Nero and Philly Pops Board, displayed his dedication as a professional to his community. It is noticeable by the several awards that Fred received over the years that his dedication to service graced his community tremendously. In 1995 Fred received the National Patriot's Award from the Congressional Medal of Honor Society. In 1996, he received the Thomas Cahill Leadership Award and the Jewish National Fund Tree of Life Award. Fred has also been honored with the Annual Business Leadership Award from LaSalle University; the Good Scout Award for the Cradle of Liberty Council, Boy Scouts of America; the 95th Annual Whitney M. Young Jr. Leadership Award from the Urban League of Philadelphia; and the 50th annual Business Leader of the Year award from Drexel University. Despite his numerous accolades, Fred was an extremely humble man and a positive role model to others. I was proud to have Fred serve as my first finance chairman in my 1994 race for the Senate. It was during that time that we began to develop a close relationship. Fred not only leaves behind a legacy, but also a wonderful family. Fred was a loving husband to Sylvia and father to Fred and Christine. My thoughts and prayers are with the DiBona family during the days and months ahead.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, President George W. Bush's inauguration ceremony was truly a spectacular event. The sights and sounds that thousands of Americans witnessed on Thursday, January 20, 2005, will remain in their minds forever. The 243 students of the Easton High School Red Rover Marching Band in Easton, PA, however, will have the lasting memory of marching up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House to perform for the President and First Lady. The Presidential inauguration is not only a time to peacefully celebrate a transition of power, but it is a time for students and bands from all over the nation to perform for the President and the First Lady. As bystanders and thousands across the country watched the inaugural parade, the performers put a face and familiarity to such a momentous event. Prior to the inauguration, on Tuesday, January 18th, 2005, I had the opportunity to meet with the students of the Red Rover Marching Band and to listen as they practiced for their inaugural performance. The Red Rover Marching Band was chosen out of 300 bands from across the nation. In our meeting, I could feel the excitement of these high school students as they prepared for the opportunity to display their talents and participate in such an important event. It brings a great sense of pride to the residents of Easton and to all Pennsylvanians that the Red Rover Marching Band was selected to represent the musical talents of Pennsylvania youth in the inaugural parade. It is a great honor for the Red Rover Marching Band to participate in such a dramatic event of pomp and circumstance. I am thankful for the time that they put in practicing and reviewing their song selection. They should be proud to be among the many other top-notch bands that performed before the President and First Lady in the Inaugural Parade. Their hard work certainly paid off. I am pleased that the Red Rover Marching Band represented our Commonwealth and specifically Easton, Pennsylvania on such an historic day in our Nation's history.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on the loss of my good friend, Obra Kernodle. Obra recently suffered a fatal heart attack while in Cancun, Mexico, celebrating his daughter's wedding. The Kernodle family has suffered a tremendous loss, and I offer them my condolences and deepest sympathy in this difficult time. I was introduced to Obra during my 2000 Senate campaign. He was a bright, resourceful and wonderful person, and I remained in contact with him ever since. Using his bipartisan negotiating skills to render change, Obra became one of Philadelphia's most influential African American leaders. As a politically active Philadelphia lawyer who most recently served as general counsel to the Philadelphia Parking Authority, Obra actively served his community. Obra was also a member of the Pennsylvania Convention Center board. His kind disposition and generous heart attracted people from both sides of the aisle, and he will never be forgotten. My thoughts and prayers are with the Kernodle family during the days and months ahead.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to departing Senators for their service and devotion to the United States Senate. They are not only my colleagues but my friends as well. The reality of elections for the Senate is that every two years we experience change--current members depart and new members are welcomed. At every transition I am reminded by the reality that life is more than just politics. I am certain the departing Senators--are experiencing a tremendous feeling of sorrow, yet anticipation of things to come, as they leave their friends, colleagues, and this great nurturing institution. Though we may fight hard during campaigns, we return to the Senate after the election to realize that we are not just losing Senators--we are losing friends. There is a bond--a collegiality and friendship--in the Senate that crosses party lines. We face long hard battles on the campaign trail and sometimes things can get ugly. But after all is said and done, after election day, we must all come back to Washington and work together to do what is best for our country. I will certainly miss my colleagues with whom I have worked for several years. I have had the honor to serve on the Finance Committee with four of my distinguished retiring colleagues, including Senator John Breaux and Senator Don Nickles. Both of these men were instrumental in leading the fight to reform Medicare. Senator John Breaux and I have worked side by side on Social Security issues. He is a good friend and he has always been willing to compromise. He is the master of a very noble craft that of bringing people together from both sides of the aisle. Senator Don Nickles has been a valuable comrade in protecting intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies and reforming health care, specifically working hard to pass the Patients Bill of Rights. He also sponsored commendable legislation to create the Office of International Religious Freedom at the Department of State, which I cosponsored. Senator Nickles as whip and chairman of the Budget Committee has done more to advocate fiscal conservatism than any other Senator during my tenure. He has a true expertise in these issues, and I thank him for his guidance and leadership. More importantly, Senator Nickles befriended me when I first came to the Senate and encouraged me to get involved in the National Prayer Breakfast and the Senate Bible Study. If it were not for his friendship, my time in the Senate would have been drastically different. Ben Nighthorse Campbell Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell is a very kind and humble man and I have had the honor to work with him to assure that nondemocratic forces are unsuccessful in undermining movements for democracy in the Ukraine. But what I remember most about Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell is a story he told me once about his decision to vote for the ban on partial-birth abortion. While in the hospital recovering from a motorcycle accident, Senator Campbell was touched by the immense effort of doctors to save the lives of babies that weighed only a couple pounds. He was convicted by the significance of doctors going to such great lengths to save babies only a couple minutes old. This picture made him question partial-birth abortions: Why would we not do everything in our power to save babies who were still in their mother's womb? I thank Senator Campbell for his honesty on this issue and for sharing that story with me. I will never forget it. Zell Miller I had the privilege of getting to know Senator Zell Miller as we traveled around the country together this past fall. Senator Miller and I have worked hard on education issues including the Paperwork Reduction Act. He is a man that believes in the ideals of this nation and understands that we must sometimes take a stand if we want to be heard. I treasure the friendship that Senator Miller and I have formed during our service together. I want him to know how much I admire him. He is a man with the courage to stand up for his convictions. He did the hardest thing for any man to do--he endorsed the opposing party's nominee in this year's election. I cannot thank him enough for his support. I will always have undying gratitude for him. Our departing Senators have been lights of inspiration and men who went above the call of duty to serve our country in their congressional capacities. They each have their own unique political perspective that has served the Senate well. Although my philosophies may differ from some Senators, we do not disagree on the greatness of America. We can all agree that we live in the greatest nation in the world, and we all believe that without democracy, life, liberty, and justice cannot flourish. My departing colleagues are great men and great Americans. They have contributed immensely to our country--making their states and our country significantly better than when they first stepped foot on the Senate floor. We are all going to miss their presence and wisdom here in the Senate. Their departures will surely leave a hole in expertise and leadership that will be hard to fill. I wish them health and happiness in their future endeavors--wherever the road may take them. May God continue to bless them and their families. Come January, as we face another transition, I welcome in the new members and look forward to forging new relationships as we continue to work towards making Americans safer, healthier, and more financially secure. Ben Nighthorse Campbell

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 18, 2004, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``FDA, Merck and Vioxx: Putting Patient Safety First?''

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 18, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. on various nominations (names to be released later in week) at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 18, 2004, at 10 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on pending Committee matters, to be followed immediately by an oversight hearing on the Water Problems on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management support of the committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 18, 2004, at 3:30 p.m. in open session to receive testimony on the status of financial management reform within the Department of Defense and the individual services.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 18, 2004, at 2 p.m. on the Science Behind Pornography Addiction.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I know the Senator from Oklahoma intends to speak. At this point, I ask unanimous consent that an explanation of this issue be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, as I said before, I hope we can get agreement. I know there are one, or maybe more, Senators on the other side of the aisle who have found a concern with this. I ask that while this is somewhat unusual in the way we put forth this legislation, it is vitally important for us to send a very strong and positive signal to one of our strongest allies in the world that we stand with them and accept them as one of our closest and dearest allies, and we will treat them accordingly, with respect to the visitation of Polish people who visit relatives and friends in the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise very briefly to offer another unanimous consent request. This is a unanimous consent request on a piece of legislation that Senator Mikulski and I introduced earlier this year regarding Polish visa waivers. A visa waiver is a provision given in law to allow people from a country with which the United States has good relationships to come into this country for a temporary period of time as visitors, tourists, without having to obtain a visa. In other words, this waives the visa requirement that is generally imposed on people coming from other countries to America. I believe we have done this with 27 other countries because of the unique relationship we have with them and the bond that the countries have with the U.S. Poland, unfortunately, has not been granted that status. If you look at the continent of Europe and at the great allies that we have on the continent of Europe, obviously, the two that come to mind--in my mind at least--are the Brits and the Italians. But Poland has shown, since its release from the Soviet Union's sphere of influence, a remarkable affinity for the United States and has shown tremendous strides and advances both in terms of democracy, economy, and in their culture. It is very much a country that is leaning and facing west. It is, to me, a real injustice to the people of that country, who have been our steadfast supporters, particularly in the most recent conflict in Iraq, that we would not present them the opportunity we do virtually every other country in Europe. Senator Mikulski agrees, I think, with the statements I have made, and she has said so on the floor of the Senate. We have been working in the past couple of months to clear this legislation so it can pass the Senate and be sent to the House, with the hope, at this late date, of becoming law but, if not, accelerating the opportunity for it to become law next year. Even at this late date, the hope is that once the bill would get to the House, there would be the kind of support we have seen in the Senate to pass it. The support is nearly unanimous. As we all know, at this point in time in the Senate, nearly unanimous isn't good enough. We need unanimous consent, or all Members of the Senate to agree. I can speak on behalf of the Republican side of the aisle. I have spoken to all Senators, or their offices, and every Republican Senator has agreed to allow this bill to clear the Senate and to pass today. We were willing to pass this bill before we broke in October. We were willing to give this bill a chance to become law and be signed by this President. I am hopeful that he would sign this legislation. But I have been informed that in spite of the good efforts of Senator Mikulski, we may not be able to clear this legislation on the other side of the aisle. That is a great disappointment to me and I know to Senator Mikulski. I know it is a great disappointment to many Polish Americans--9.3 million Polish persons. Over 100,000 Poles per year come to this country to visit relatives and friends. Yet we cannot extend this, I argue, minimal courtesy to those who have allied with us and have shown their good hand of friendship toward us. Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent, in the hopes that maybe even later after this consent request, which I am told will be objected to, others will reconsider, and perhaps we can later tonight, or tomorrow, or Saturday, or however long we will be here, be able to work through this problem and get unanimous consent on this vitally important piece of legislation for not just the 9.3 million Poles in this country, but for all of us in America who would like to extend a further hand of friendship and accord to the people of Poland who have been such steadfast allies of our great country. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 715, S. 2844.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer remarks on a bill that I am introducing that would make a stillborn child an insurable dependent for purposes of the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) program. Experiencing the death of a child results in both emotional trauma and financial hardship for parents and families. However, further stress is added when the family involved is in the military. I was recently contacted by a constituent family that experienced a stillbirth and subsequently learned that they were not eligible for the military's dependent death benefit because the child was stillborn. The Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) program is currently available to all members of the uniformed services, their spouses, and dependents. Specifically, when a servicemember's family experiences the death of a child, the family is entitled to a $10,000 child death benefit under the SGLI program. However, if a servicemember's family experiences a stillbirth, the family is not eligible for a death benefit under the SGLI program because current insurance standards require that a death certificate be issued for a child to be covered. However, neither a birth certificate nor a death certificate is issued for a stillborn infant. In a recent Federal court case, Warnock v. Office of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, the issue of whether a stillborn infant is an ``insurable dependent'' under SGLI was litigated. The court held as a matter of law that both statute and SGLI policy do not provide coverage for a stillborn infant. To further substantiate the necessity of modifying this insurance coverage, the Army Family Action Plan supported providing a death benefit for stillborn infants at their annual conference in 2003, thus demonstrating this is an important issue for all military families. This legislation is imperative because it will alleviate some of the financial hardship that a servicemember's family must endure as a result of a stillbirth. My bill would amend Title 38 of the United States Code to make a stillborn child an insurable dependent for purposes of the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program. By including stillborn infants within the scope of the SGLI program, we will be helping to ease the financial burden of military servicemember families at a time of great loss and emotional stress. I hope that many of my colleagues will join me in supporting this essential legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer remarks on a bill that I am introducing that would make a stillborn child an insurable dependent for purposes of the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) program. Experiencing the death of a child results in both emotional trauma and financial hardship for parents and families. However, further stress is added when the family involved is in the military. I was recently contacted by a constituent family that experienced a stillbirth and subsequently learned that they were not eligible for the military's dependent death benefit because the child was stillborn. The Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) program is currently available to all members of the uniformed services, their spouses, and dependents. Specifically, when a servicemember's family experiences the death of a child, the family is entitled to a $10,000 child death benefit under the SGLI program. However, if a servicemember's family experiences a stillbirth, the family is not eligible for a death benefit under the SGLI program because current insurance standards require that a death certificate be issued for a child to be covered. However, neither a birth certificate nor a death certificate is issued for a stillborn infant. In a recent Federal court case, Warnock v. Office of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, the issue of whether a stillborn infant is an ``insurable dependent'' under SGLI was litigated. The court held as a matter of law that both statute and SGLI policy do not provide coverage for a stillborn infant. To further substantiate the necessity of modifying this insurance coverage, the Army Family Action Plan supported providing a death benefit for stillborn infants at their annual conference in 2003, thus demonstrating this is an important issue for all military families. This legislation is imperative because it will alleviate some of the financial hardship that a servicemember's family must endure as a result of a stillbirth. My bill would amend Title 38 of the United States Code to make a stillborn child an insurable dependent for purposes of the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program. By including stillborn infants within the scope of the SGLI program, we will be helping to ease the financial burden of military servicemember families at a time of great loss and emotional stress. I hope that many of my colleagues will join me in supporting this essential legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, due to a prior commitment, I will not be able to vote in the Senate today on President Bush's nomination of Dr. Francis J. Harvey of California to be the next Secretary of the Army. I wish to state for the record that, had I been able to cast my vote today in the Senate, I would have voted in favor of Dr. Harvey. As he noted in his appearance before the Senate's Committee on Armed Services, Dr. Harvey has experience in leading, managing and fostering change in large organizations. In addition, I also appreciate that Dr. Harvey has experience in the defense industry, experience that should help him as he oversees the Army's important process of transforming to meet 21st century threats. On this last point, I hope that Dr. Harvey will devote considerable time and effort to the Army's transformation initiative. If the Army is to be a relevant force in future combat operations, it must have the resources and the commitment from senior leadership necessary to transform. This means that Dr. Harvey and others will need to fight for critical science and technology funds to enable key transformational programs, such as the Future Combat System, to succeed. While the Army does have current needs that require critical funds, it cannot sacrifice its future if it hopes to successfully transform. In addition, transformation encompasses more than just equipment and weapons platforms. I am hopeful that Dr. Harvey will continue to make sure that we achieve the proper balance of skills located in the Active Duty with those located in the Reserve component. Too many Low Density/ High Demand capabilities, such as military police and civil affairs, are found in Army's Reserve component. I am hopeful that the Army, under Dr. Harvey's leadership, will be able to strike the right balance so that Operational Tempo problems--highlighted by the war on terrorism--are not exacerbated. Again, had I been present in the Senate today, I would have voted in favor of confirming Dr. Francis J. Harvey as the next Secretary of the Army. I wish Dr. Harvey good luck on his new responsibilities and duties as Secretary of the Army.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I commend the leadership of the chairman on this important disaster relief bill. In the context of this Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA disaster assistance bill, I want to express my appreciation for recent FEMA policy updates for disaster relief to faith-based organizations. These ongoing challenges and tragedies provide FEMA an opportunity to make certain that they are implementing these policies in a manner consistent with the President's policy which includes faith-based organizations among those community-based organizations helping on an equal basis in these hurting communities. On December 12, 2002, President Bush announced, ``I have directed specific action in several Federal agencies with a history of discrimination against faith-based groups. FEMA will revise its policy on emergency relief so that religious nonprofit groups can qualify for assistance after disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes.'' FEMA acted quickly to serve eligible religious groups, issuing policy statement 9521.3 concerning Private Non-Profit Facility Eligibility to provide guidance in delivering future grant awards. In the words of the former FEMA Director Joe Albaugh, ``Disasters don't discriminate, and neither should our response to them.'' The administration recognized this important principle in the case of the Seattle Hebrew Academy. The academy's main building was rendered unfit after it was damaged in the Nisqually earthquake of 2001, but the academy's first application for FEMA relief was denied. After the Academy entered a legal challenge, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice entered an opinion on September 22, 2002, which stated, in referring to FEMA's original denial, ``We believe that the Acting Regional Director's reading of 44 C.F.R. section 206.221 (e) is not the better interpretation of that regulation.'' This is a commonsense policy of fair treatment.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask the Senator from Mississippi, is there any provision in this bill that is being objected to by anybody, that the Senate is aware of, on either side of the aisle?

Mr. SANTORUM. I then will reiterate, if there is no objection to this bill, I ask unanimous consent that--I yield to the Senator from Alaska, since he is the chairman of the committee, and ask if the Senator would like to make a unanimous consent request because I think this is important. Since we have now established beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no objection by any Senator to this bill on either side of the aisle, I ask the Senator if maybe this would be an opportunity that we could have to pass this bill and get these needed funds for homeland security purposes. At a time of war when our threat has been elevated, where they talk about all the danger that is in front of us as we lead up to this election, not to be able to pass this Homeland Security bill at this time would be unconscionable, so I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Alaska to ask for the opportunity to pass this bill since nobody is objecting to any of the substantive provisions.

Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator would yield just to clarify, the Senator from Iowa came back and objected not to any particular provision in this bill; there was no objection to the underlying Homeland Security bill?