Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2004.'' On September 11, 2001, the Nation witnessed the tragic loss of hundreds of heroic firefighters. Amazingly, every year quality firefighting equipment worth millions of dollars is wasted. In order to avoid civil liability lawsuits, heavy industry and wealthier fire departments destroy surplus equipment, including hoses, fire trucks, protective gear and breathing apparatus, instead of donating it to volunteer fire departments. The basic purpose of this legislation is to induce donations of surplus firefighting equipment by reducing the threat of civil liability for organizations, most commonly heavy industry, and individuals who wish to make these donations. The bill eliminates civil liability barriers to donations of surplus firefighting equipment by raising the liability standard for donors from ``negligence'' to ``gross negligence.'' The ``Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2004'' is modeled after a bill passed by the Texas State legislature in 1997 and signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush which has resulted in more than $6 million in additional equipment donations from companies and other fire departments for volunteer departments which may not be as well equipped. Now companies in Texas can donate surplus equipment to the Texas Forest Service, which then certifies the equipment and passes it on to volunteer fire departments that are in need. The donated equipment must meet all original specifications before it can be sent to volunteer departments. Arizona, Missouri, Indiana, and South Carolina have passed similar legislation at the state level. The legislation saves taxpayer dollars by encouraging donations, thereby reducing the taxpayers' burden of purchasing expensive equipment for volunteer fire departments. in the 107th Congress, Representative Castle introduced the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act which had 104 bipartisan cosponsors in the House of Representatives. It is also supported by the National Volunteer Fire Council, the Firemen's Association of the State of New York, and a former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), James Lee Witt. The bill has been reintroduced as H.R. 1787 in the 108th Congress. This bill does not cost taxpayer dollars nor does it create additional bureaucracies to inspect equipment. The bill eliminates unnecessary inspection bureaucracies. This is for three reasons. First, bureaucracies are not necessary for inspections because the fire chiefs make the inspections themselves. Second, some of the State bureaucracies control who gets the equipment. These donations are private property transactions, not a good that is donated to the State, allowing the State to pick who will get the equipment. Third, there is no desire to create the temptation for waste, fraud, and abuse in a State bureaucracy in charge of picking winners and losers. The bill reflects the purpose of the Texas State law. Federally, precedent for similar measures includes the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Act (Public Law 104-210), named for the late Representative Bill Emerson, which encourages restaurants, hotels and businesses to donate millions of dollars worth of food. The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-101) also immunizes individuals who do volunteer work for non-profit organizations or governmental entities from liability for ordinary negligence in the course of their volunteer work. I have also previously introduced three Good Samaritan measures in the 106th Congress, S. 843, S. 844 and S. 845. These provisions were also included in a broader charitable package in S. 997, the Charity Empowerment Act, to provide additional incentives for corporate in-kind charitable contributions for motor vehicle, aircraft, and facility use. The same provision passed the House of Representatives in the 107th Congress as part of H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act, in July of 2001, but was not signed into law. Volunteers comprise approximately 73 percent of firefighters in the United States. Of the total estimated 1,078,300 firefighters across the country, 784,700 are volunteer. Of the more than 30,000 fire departments in the country, approximately 22,600 are all volunteer; 4,800 are mostly volunteer; 1,600 are mostly career; and 2,000 are all career. In 2000, 58 of the 103 firefighters who died in the line of duty were volunteers. This legislation provides a commonsense incentive for additional contributions to volunteer fire departments around the country and would make it more attractive for corporations to give equipment to fire departments in other states. All of America has witnessed the heroic acts of selflessness and sacrifice of firefighters in New York City and in the Washington, D.C. area. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this incentive for the provision of additional safety equipment for volunteer firefighters who put their lives on the line every day throughout this great nation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I speak today on the naming of the USS Somerset. On Thursday, September 9, 2004, the United States Navy named the ninth ship of the San Antonio-class of amphibious transport dock ships as Somerset. The naming of the USS Somerset honors Somerset County, the county in Pennsylvania where United Airlines Flight 93 crashed after fearless passengers stormed the cockpit preventing the airplane from hitting its intended target. The USS Somerset stands as a reminder of the 40 passengers and crew who exhibited courage and sacrifice in the most dangerous of situations. The USS Somerset also symbolizes the renewed hope, compassion, and cooperation that citizens across our country have shared with one another since that horrific day. September 11, 2001, the day that changed our history and our lives was intended to unravel America's strength, but it has only made us stronger. When I returned from my first visit to the crash site in Shanksville, PA, I was inspired by the strength of the Flight 93 family members who, being able to keep a better world in sight, now carry the torch of their loves ones. As the USS Somerset carries out its mission by providing transport to Marines embarking on expeditionary warfare missions and special operations, let us not forget the compassion of those who provided aid and support to the family and friends of those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, as well as the courage and responsibility displayed by the heroes aboard Flight 93. As we reflect on the passing of the third anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, let us not forget the resolve our Nation faced in light of our tragedy. By honoring the memories of all those lost to the terrorist attacks, through the naming of the USS Somerset, we are reminded of what the American spirit is capable of. I will never forget the bravery and sacrifice witnessed on that tragic day 3 years ago. May God continue to bless our country as each of us continues to find our own way to exhibit this renewed American spirit.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2004.'' On September 11, 2001, the Nation witnessed the tragic loss of hundreds of heroic firefighters. Amazingly, every year quality firefighting equipment worth millions of dollars is wasted. In order to avoid civil liability lawsuits, heavy industry and wealthier fire departments destroy surplus equipment, including hoses, fire trucks, protective gear and breathing apparatus, instead of donating it to volunteer fire departments. The basic purpose of this legislation is to induce donations of surplus firefighting equipment by reducing the threat of civil liability for organizations, most commonly heavy industry, and individuals who wish to make these donations. The bill eliminates civil liability barriers to donations of surplus firefighting equipment by raising the liability standard for donors from ``negligence'' to ``gross negligence.'' The ``Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2004'' is modeled after a bill passed by the Texas State legislature in 1997 and signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush which has resulted in more than $6 million in additional equipment donations from companies and other fire departments for volunteer departments which may not be as well equipped. Now companies in Texas can donate surplus equipment to the Texas Forest Service, which then certifies the equipment and passes it on to volunteer fire departments that are in need. The donated equipment must meet all original specifications before it can be sent to volunteer departments. Arizona, Missouri, Indiana, and South Carolina have passed similar legislation at the state level. The legislation saves taxpayer dollars by encouraging donations, thereby reducing the taxpayers' burden of purchasing expensive equipment for volunteer fire departments. in the 107th Congress, Representative Castle introduced the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act which had 104 bipartisan cosponsors in the House of Representatives. It is also supported by the National Volunteer Fire Council, the Firemen's Association of the State of New York, and a former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), James Lee Witt. The bill has been reintroduced as H.R. 1787 in the 108th Congress. This bill does not cost taxpayer dollars nor does it create additional bureaucracies to inspect equipment. The bill eliminates unnecessary inspection bureaucracies. This is for three reasons. First, bureaucracies are not necessary for inspections because the fire chiefs make the inspections themselves. Second, some of the State bureaucracies control who gets the equipment. These donations are private property transactions, not a good that is donated to the State, allowing the State to pick who will get the equipment. Third, there is no desire to create the temptation for waste, fraud, and abuse in a State bureaucracy in charge of picking winners and losers. The bill reflects the purpose of the Texas State law. Federally, precedent for similar measures includes the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Act (Public Law 104-210), named for the late Representative Bill Emerson, which encourages restaurants, hotels and businesses to donate millions of dollars worth of food. The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-101) also immunizes individuals who do volunteer work for non-profit organizations or governmental entities from liability for ordinary negligence in the course of their volunteer work. I have also previously introduced three Good Samaritan measures in the 106th Congress, S. 843, S. 844 and S. 845. These provisions were also included in a broader charitable package in S. 997, the Charity Empowerment Act, to provide additional incentives for corporate in-kind charitable contributions for motor vehicle, aircraft, and facility use. The same provision passed the House of Representatives in the 107th Congress as part of H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act, in July of 2001, but was not signed into law. Volunteers comprise approximately 73 percent of firefighters in the United States. Of the total estimated 1,078,300 firefighters across the country, 784,700 are volunteer. Of the more than 30,000 fire departments in the country, approximately 22,600 are all volunteer; 4,800 are mostly volunteer; 1,600 are mostly career; and 2,000 are all career. In 2000, 58 of the 103 firefighters who died in the line of duty were volunteers. This legislation provides a commonsense incentive for additional contributions to volunteer fire departments around the country and would make it more attractive for corporations to give equipment to fire departments in other states. All of America has witnessed the heroic acts of selflessness and sacrifice of firefighters in New York City and in the Washington, D.C. area. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this incentive for the provision of additional safety equipment for volunteer firefighters who put their lives on the line every day throughout this great nation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am introducing ``The America Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement, and Education (ASPIRE) Act of 2004'' along with Senator Corzine. A bipartisan group of members is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The bill creates a Kids Investment and Development Savings (KIDS) Account for every child at birth and creates a new opportunity for the children of low-income Americans to build assets and wealth. This country has seen a growing number of Americans investing in the stock market and has witnessed an historic boom in homeownership, which has increased to a record high 68 percent. However, this growth in assets has not reached every American. While many middle- and upper- income families have increased their assets in the past decade, many low-income families have not had the same financial success. A recent study conducted by the Federal Reserve found that the median net worth of families in the bottom 20 percent of the nation's income level was a mere $7,900 an amount that is far too low to ensure a comfortable economic future for their family. This challenge needs to be addressed to ensure that lower income families have a significant opportunity to accrue wealth and expand opportunities for their families. Under this legislation, KIDS Accounts would be created after a child is born and a Social Security number issued. A one-time $500 deposit would automatically be placed into a KIDS account. Children from households below the national median income would receive an additional deposit of $500 at birth and would be eligible to receive dollar-for- dollar matching funds up to $500 per year for voluntary contributions to the account, which cannot exceed $1,000 per year. All funds grow tax-free. Access to the account prior to age 18 would not be permitted, but kids--in conjunction with their parents--would participate in investment decisions and watch their money grow. When the young person turns 18, he or she can use the accrued money for asset building purposes such as education, homeownership, and retirement planning. Accrued funds could also be rolled over into Roth IRA accounts to expand investment options. I would like to highlight what I view as the two major benefits of this legislation. The first, and most apparent, is that this bill will help give younger individuals, especially low-income Americans, a sound financial start to begin their adult life. For example, a typical low- income family making modest but steady contributions can create a KIDS Account worth over $20,000 in 18 years. Second, and perhaps more important, is that KIDS Accounts creates opportunities for all Americans to become more financially literate. The account holders and their guardians will choose from a list of possible investment funds and will be able to watch their investment grow over time. All Americans will have the opportunity to see first hand that a smart investment now can grow over time into considerable wealth. I believe that this bill could be a significant step forward in the effort to expand asset opportunities to all Americans and encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am introducing ``The America Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement, and Education (ASPIRE) Act of 2004'' along with Senator Corzine. A bipartisan group of members is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The bill creates a Kids Investment and Development Savings (KIDS) Account for every child at birth and creates a new opportunity for the children of low-income Americans to build assets and wealth. This country has seen a growing number of Americans investing in the stock market and has witnessed an historic boom in homeownership, which has increased to a record high 68 percent. However, this growth in assets has not reached every American. While many middle- and upper- income families have increased their assets in the past decade, many low-income families have not had the same financial success. A recent study conducted by the Federal Reserve found that the median net worth of families in the bottom 20 percent of the nation's income level was a mere $7,900 an amount that is far too low to ensure a comfortable economic future for their family. This challenge needs to be addressed to ensure that lower income families have a significant opportunity to accrue wealth and expand opportunities for their families. Under this legislation, KIDS Accounts would be created after a child is born and a Social Security number issued. A one-time $500 deposit would automatically be placed into a KIDS account. Children from households below the national median income would receive an additional deposit of $500 at birth and would be eligible to receive dollar-for- dollar matching funds up to $500 per year for voluntary contributions to the account, which cannot exceed $1,000 per year. All funds grow tax-free. Access to the account prior to age 18 would not be permitted, but kids--in conjunction with their parents--would participate in investment decisions and watch their money grow. When the young person turns 18, he or she can use the accrued money for asset building purposes such as education, homeownership, and retirement planning. Accrued funds could also be rolled over into Roth IRA accounts to expand investment options. I would like to highlight what I view as the two major benefits of this legislation. The first, and most apparent, is that this bill will help give younger individuals, especially low-income Americans, a sound financial start to begin their adult life. For example, a typical low- income family making modest but steady contributions can create a KIDS Account worth over $20,000 in 18 years. Second, and perhaps more important, is that KIDS Accounts creates opportunities for all Americans to become more financially literate. The account holders and their guardians will choose from a list of possible investment funds and will be able to watch their investment grow over time. All Americans will have the opportunity to see first hand that a smart investment now can grow over time into considerable wealth. I believe that this bill could be a significant step forward in the effort to expand asset opportunities to all Americans and encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer remarks about a bill that Senator Cornyn of Texas and I have introduced, the Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2004. This legislation seeks to promote the transformation of the Islamic Republic of Iran to a democratic form of government. Our bill expresses the sense of the Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support regime change in Iran and that the U.S. government should promote the transition to a new democratic Iranian government. In addition, so as to help make this transition possible, our bill authorizes the President to provide up to $10 million in assistance to qualified foreign and domestic pro-democracy groups opposed to the non-democratic government of Iran. To maximize the efforts of these pro-democracy groups, our bill authorizes activities such as aid to pro-democracy radio and television broadcasting organizations as a way of directly reaching the people of Iran. For many years now, the people of Iran have dramatically demonstrated their desire for greater social and political freedoms. Literally millions of Iranians have massed in the streets of the major cities, demanding the right to choose their form of government and their own leaders. Even public opinion polls conducted by the dictatorial regime show upwards of seventy percent of Iranians want democratic change. But Iran remains in the grip of a brutal tyranny that has silenced dissident voices by arbitrary arrests, closure of newspapers and magazines, destruction of satellite television dishes, widespread torture and the second-highest execution rate in the world. Our bill seeks to help the Iranian people achieve freedom by supporting pro-democracy groups and enabling freedom-supporting Farsi language radio and television broadcasting stations to broadcast information directly to Iran. The current leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran are not only brutal tyrants. Their support of anti-American elements and terrorist organizations poses a direct threat to the interests of the United States and our allies. For two decades, the Department of State has identified Iran as THE leading sponsor of international terrorism. Iran has been linked to the deaths of United States military personnel in Beirut, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. Iran has long provided financial and operational assistance to Hezbollah and is presently the leading state sponsor of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who conduct lethal attacks against the citizens of Israel. Finally, Iran may be engaged in a crash program to develop nuclear weapons. In October 2003, after strong and concerted pressure by the international community, Iran agreed to sign an agreement to suspend uranium enrichment and open its nuclear facilities to more intrusive international inspections. Despite this pledge, Iran has repeatedly withheld key information and documentation about its clandestine nuclear efforts. In February 2004, blueprints containing instructions for building a type of gas centrifuge known as the P2, a super- efficient machine used in producing enriched uranium, were discovered. The Iranians had not revealed these plans. Additionally, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found multiple traces of highly-enriched uranium, with no civilian use, at a Kalaye Electric Company workshop in Tehran and at the Natanz pilot fuel enrichment plant 150 miles south of the Iranian capital. To the best of my knowledge, Iran has not offered a satisfactory explanation as to the IAEA's discovery of this materiel. Reports are that Iran has sought magnets for thousands of such gas centrifuges. Also, Iran has not been able to explain experiments with polonium-210, a radioactive element primarily useful as a bomb trigger. Finally, Iranian government officials have barred access to selected sites for a period of time while--as recent satellite imagery shows-- they almost certainly sanitized them of incriminating evidence. I believe it urgent for the United States to support regime change in Iran. Without regime change, Iran will soon constitute the world's leading supporter of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons. That would be a great catastrophe for the Middle East, and for the United States and our democratic allies everywhere. The bill I have introduced with Senator Cornyn will facilitate this change by reaching out to the people of Iran and supporting what President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have called the legitimate desire of the Iranian people to be free.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer remarks about a bill that Senator Cornyn of Texas and I have introduced, the Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2004. This legislation seeks to promote the transformation of the Islamic Republic of Iran to a democratic form of government. Our bill expresses the sense of the Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support regime change in Iran and that the U.S. government should promote the transition to a new democratic Iranian government. In addition, so as to help make this transition possible, our bill authorizes the President to provide up to $10 million in assistance to qualified foreign and domestic pro-democracy groups opposed to the non-democratic government of Iran. To maximize the efforts of these pro-democracy groups, our bill authorizes activities such as aid to pro-democracy radio and television broadcasting organizations as a way of directly reaching the people of Iran. For many years now, the people of Iran have dramatically demonstrated their desire for greater social and political freedoms. Literally millions of Iranians have massed in the streets of the major cities, demanding the right to choose their form of government and their own leaders. Even public opinion polls conducted by the dictatorial regime show upwards of seventy percent of Iranians want democratic change. But Iran remains in the grip of a brutal tyranny that has silenced dissident voices by arbitrary arrests, closure of newspapers and magazines, destruction of satellite television dishes, widespread torture and the second-highest execution rate in the world. Our bill seeks to help the Iranian people achieve freedom by supporting pro-democracy groups and enabling freedom-supporting Farsi language radio and television broadcasting stations to broadcast information directly to Iran. The current leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran are not only brutal tyrants. Their support of anti-American elements and terrorist organizations poses a direct threat to the interests of the United States and our allies. For two decades, the Department of State has identified Iran as THE leading sponsor of international terrorism. Iran has been linked to the deaths of United States military personnel in Beirut, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. Iran has long provided financial and operational assistance to Hezbollah and is presently the leading state sponsor of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who conduct lethal attacks against the citizens of Israel. Finally, Iran may be engaged in a crash program to develop nuclear weapons. In October 2003, after strong and concerted pressure by the international community, Iran agreed to sign an agreement to suspend uranium enrichment and open its nuclear facilities to more intrusive international inspections. Despite this pledge, Iran has repeatedly withheld key information and documentation about its clandestine nuclear efforts. In February 2004, blueprints containing instructions for building a type of gas centrifuge known as the P2, a super- efficient machine used in producing enriched uranium, were discovered. The Iranians had not revealed these plans. Additionally, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has found multiple traces of highly-enriched uranium, with no civilian use, at a Kalaye Electric Company workshop in Tehran and at the Natanz pilot fuel enrichment plant 150 miles south of the Iranian capital. To the best of my knowledge, Iran has not offered a satisfactory explanation as to the IAEA's discovery of this materiel. Reports are that Iran has sought magnets for thousands of such gas centrifuges. Also, Iran has not been able to explain experiments with polonium-210, a radioactive element primarily useful as a bomb trigger. Finally, Iranian government officials have barred access to selected sites for a period of time while--as recent satellite imagery shows-- they almost certainly sanitized them of incriminating evidence. I believe it urgent for the United States to support regime change in Iran. Without regime change, Iran will soon constitute the world's leading supporter of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons. That would be a great catastrophe for the Middle East, and for the United States and our democratic allies everywhere. The bill I have introduced with Senator Cornyn will facilitate this change by reaching out to the people of Iran and supporting what President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have called the legitimate desire of the Iranian people to be free.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, there is no problem. We are just here because we are playing politics. We are alarmists. There is no problem out there. The Massachusetts Supreme Court didn't rule that the legislature had to change the definition of marriage. The Supreme Court didn't rule last year, for the first time, that we have fundamentally changed how we are going to construe rights with respect to homosexuals and lesbians. No, there is no problem. America, look somewhere else. Don't pay attention to what is going on. Everything will be fine. Just leave it up to us. Us? Judges. Just leave it up to the judges. The Constitution should not be amended, said the Senator from Connecticut, on the passions and whims of the moment. That is right. What would others like to see happen? They would like to see it amended on the passions and whims of judges because that is what does happen. That is what is happening. What has changed? The courts have changed. The courts have decided it is now their role to take over the responsibility of passing laws. What has changed? What has changed is that they now create rights and change the Constitution without having to go through this rather cumbersome process known as article V. We actually have to amend it, have to get two-thirds votes, have to get three-quarters of the States. That is what has changed. We can sit back and deny it. No, everything is fine, zero, zero, zero--I say one, Massachusetts; two courts right now considering whether to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. None have done it, but the cases were just filed. Why were they just filed? Because the decision was just last year. Oh, we can wait. We can wait until more and more people enter into these unions in more and more States, after they become adopted. Then we can wait. Then, when we wait long enough, we say: Now we can't take these rights away from people. How can we be discriminatory? People have already invested in these rights. Let's wait. Let the courts do it for us. Let's go out here and protest that we are for traditional marriage, and then do absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing to make sure it is preserved. In fact, all but one--Senator Kennedy said he is for the Massachusetts decision, but I don't know of any other Senator who has come out here and said they are against the traditional definition of marriage. Every other Senator to my knowledge has said they are for the traditional definition of marriage. Yet those of us who are proposing this amendment have been called divisive, mean-spirited, gay bashing, shameful, notorious, intolerant--I could go on. Wait a minute, don't we all agree on this? Don't we all agree on the definition of marriage? If we all agree on the definition of marriage, and we just have different approaches to solving it, then why, if we all agree on the substance, are those of us proposing the marriage amendment divisive, mean-spirited, gay bashing, et cetera? Why? Maybe we have to question whether there really is a desire to protect traditional marriage and whether we are just sort of laying back, hoping this issue is taken from us, that the courts will do our dirty work, that the courts will go about the process, which they have been now for the past couple of decades, and simply change the Constitution without the public being heard. That is what this amendment is all about. Article V says Congress shall propose. We are proposing. We are not passing anything. We are not forcing anything on the States. As to this idea that somehow or another this is against States rights, 38 State legislatures have to approve this amendment for it to become part of the Constitution. This is not forcing anything on the States. This is not an abdication of States rights. This is allowing the States a fighting chance to preserve what every State in the Union says they would like to preserve, and that is the institution of marriage. The idea, somehow or another, and I know others have talked about this, that James Madison would be against this because ``this is not a great or extraordinary occasion''--I would say the fundamental building block of any society is marriage and the family, and the destruction of that building block is a fairly extraordinary occasion. But even if some do not believe it is, let me refer you to the last amendment to the Constitution, the 27th amendment, which states: No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. Members of the Senate and House cannot get pay raises until their election. That was the 27th amendment. That was the great and extraordinary occasion that we amended the Constitution. By the way, for those who say Madison would surely have opposed that because it is not a great and extraordinary occasion, what was the name of this amendment? The Madison amendment. James Madison proposed this amendment. This is a great and extraordinary occasion. I would argue, the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of the American family hangs in the balance. What we are about today is to try to protect something that civilizations for 5,000 years have understood to be the public good. It is a good not just for the men and women involved in the relationship and the forming of that union, which is certainly a positive thing for both men and women, as the Senator from Alabama laid out, but even more important to provide moms and dads for the next generation of our children. Isn't that important? Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage, defending the right for children to have moms and dads, to be raised in a nurturing and loving environment? That is what this debate is all about. I ask my colleagues who come here and rail against those of us who would simply like to protect children, those of us who would simply like to give them the best chance to survive in a very ugly, hostile, polluted world that we live in--with respect to culture--I would ask them this question: What harm would this amendment do? What harm would it do? We don't need it; it is not ripe; it is not ready; it is divisive. What harm would an amendment which simply restates the law of every State in the country and protects them from judicial tyranny, what harm would it do? What harm will it do to do something that we know will actually protect the family? This idea that it is not ripe, this idea that it is unnecessary, this idea that it is divisive when all but at least one Member, that I am aware of, only one Member disagrees with the substance of the amendment, that is divisive? I can't think of very many things that happen around here that pass 99 to 1. It is not divisive. It is simply a restatement of what we have held true in this country since its inception and in every civilization in the history of man. What is the reluctance? Is it because this Constitution is so great and so lofty that we dare not amend it? Obviously not. Then, what is it? Why do we hold back? Why aren't we willing to stand up and say children deserve moms and dads? The people have a right to define for themselves what the family is in America. Let the people speak. Let the people participate in this document. This is the Constitution, and judges should not be rewriting it without the people's consent. That is what article V is all about. That is what this amendment is all about. It is not about hate. It is not about gay bashing. It is not about any of those things. It is simply about doing the right thing for the basic glue that holds society together. I plead with my colleagues. I know they have given speeches. I know there are lots of pressures out there. Certainly, the popular culture is not supporting those of us who have stood and supported this amendment. But just think about what America will look like, as we have seen in other countries around the world that have changed the definition of marriage, what America will look like with growing numbers of people simply not getting married; growing numbers of children growing up in nonmarried households. I suggest you look at the neighbors of America where marriage is no longer a social convention, where marriage is no longer something that is expected, particularly of males, and see what the result is in those subcultures, see what the result is, see the role that government and community organizations have to play to save the lives of children, to give them some shred of hope because mom and dad aren't there. That is the world we are looking at. That is the world that is simply around the corner if we choose to do nothing. I said last night and I will repeat today--I ask for an additional 1 minute.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SANTORUM. Christopher Lasch says we get up every morning and we tell ourselves little lies so we can live. Today, we have gotten up and we have told ourselves a little lie. Oh, the family is OK. Oh, this isn't right. Oh, whatever the lie is--but sometime or another we are just not going to come around to doing what we say we believe. Somehow or another we will deny what we know is true. We know that marriage between a man and a woman is true and right. It is not discriminatory and divisive. It is simply a fact. It is common sense. Yet somehow, just so we can move on to homeland security or to the next bill, we are going to deceive ourselves into believing that everything will be OK if we just do nothing. Nothing doesn't cut it. Let the people speak.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. If you support a mother and father for every child, you are a hater. If you believe men and women for 5,000 years have bonded together in marriage, you are a gay basher. Marriage is hate. Marriage is a stain. Marriage is an evil thing. That is what we hear. People who stand for traditional marriage are haters, they are bashers, they are mean spirited, they are intolerant. They are all these awful things. That would be the only reason we would come here is because we hate. It is because we are intolerant. It is because we want to hold people down, restrict their rights. That would be the only reason anyone could possibly come forward and argue that children need moms and dads. Or is it the only reason? Isn't there a whole body of evidence out there, of 5,000 years of civilization, that shows as plain as this piece of paper I am holding up that children need mothers and fathers? That the basic unit of any successful society is moms and dads coming together to raise children? Imagine what our Founders would say today, in a Constitutional Convention--which, by the way I suggest to the Senator from New Jersey this bill does not call for--that anyone who would come forward and suggest that holding marriage should be between a man and a woman is doing something that is hateful, something that is against the basic principles of equality within our Constitution. The Senator from New Jersey said there is no room for debate on morality here on the floor of the Senate. It is up to the people to make this decision. I wish it were up to the people to make this decision. The Senator from New Jersey knows the people are not going to be able to make this decision. In fact, the people are being frozen out of this decision. They are being frozen out by State courts--I would argue, soon to be Federal courts. These are people who are not elected, people who are not accountable, people who are not democratic, but they are elitists dictating what they believe their world view should be for America. The only way for the people to decide, I suggest to the Senator from New Jersey, is exactly the process we have before us. It is the only way for the people to decide. Leave it to the people. It is a great mantra. Leave it to the States. What those who suggest that we leave it to the States are suggesting is to leave it to the State courts. That has always been the secret weapon of those who want to change our culture and change our laws without going through the process most of us think we have to go through to do that. See, most people who are listening to my voice right now think that to change a law in America you actually have to get popular support for it, that you have to go before your legislature and petition your government. But, no, the Senator from New Jersey figured out a long time ago, as have many others who agree with his position, that the way you accomplish these social transformations that fight against this evil, hateful culture that believes in moms and dads and children being raised in stable families--the way you do that is you get people on these courts who can then dictate to the rest of us how we now shall live. You have that supported and orchestrated through a variety of different ways, from colleges and universities to the media. Anyone who speaks out against this political thought is a hater. Anyone who speaks out for traditional truth, for truth that has been established in Biblical times, through natural law and a whole host of other cultures, in fact every civilization in the history of man--if you stand for that truth that was accepted by all for centuries, for millennia, you are a hater. You are someone who wants to oppress people. I am willing to come here and debate the substance of what we are doing. It is an important debate: What will happen to marriage if we do nothing? That is an important debate. We should have that debate. But I am not suggesting the Senator from New Jersey or anybody else who comes here to defend a change in traditional marriage is doing so because they hate mothers and fathers, because they hate traditional marriage. I do not ascribe evil thoughts to them, nor should they to us. There is the incredible intolerance of those who argue for tolerance. You see, tolerance means you must agree with me and how I feel about an issue, and if you do not, you are intolerant. Someone who supports traditional values is by definition intolerant because they do not want me to be able to do whatever I want to do. I never thought that was the definition of tolerance. I didn't think tolerance meant any individual should be able to do everything they want irrespective of the consequence to anybody else. I will check the definition. I don't think that is what tolerance means. When we change the definition of something so central to the culture of any society--and that is what marriage is and what family is--it has profound consequences on children and thereby on the next generation. I am not just making this up. It is real. It is so real it has been a given forever. I imagine this has been a given forever. All of a sudden, now something that is a given, that is a truth of every major religion I am aware of, from natural law to philosophy, all of this given truth is now seen as pure animus, hatred. But it is not. This constitutional amendment is based on a sincere caring for children, for family, for the future of this country. The Senator from New Jersey suggested that conservatives should be for States rights and that we want to shrink government. Let me assure you, if we do not stop the change of the definition of traditional marriage, if we let marriage be just a social convention without meaning or without significance, we will shrink government because we have seen where marriage becomes out of favor--whether it is the Netherlands or Scandinavia, which I will talk about in a moment, or whether it is subcultures within this country in which marriage is seen as an out-of-date convention. In those cultures, children suffer. In those cultures, people do not get married. In those cultures, children are born out of wedlock and do not see their fathers and in many cases their mothers. Society dies. You can say I am a hater, but I will argue that I am a lover. I am a lover of traditional family and children who deserve the right to have a mother and a father. Don't we want that? Is there anyone in the U.S. Senate who will stand up and argue that children don't have a right to a mom and a dad; that our society shouldn't be saying to all people that moms and dads are the best, an ideal, and what we should strive for? When we say that marriage is not that, then we say that children don't deserve that. Let me assure you they will not get that. I will give you a couple of examples. The most dramatic is in the Netherlands. Senators Cornyn and Brownback and others have talked about it. But this is a country where marriage was a very stable aspect of their culture. They had the highest marriage rate and the lowest divorce rate in Europe. They had the lowest out-of-wedlock birth rate in Europe--until what? Until a social movement began to change the definition of marriage. You can say a lot of other things happened in Europe during that time, true. But the Netherlands has always been, interestingly enough, the country that was able to dam the tide, stem the tide and preserve the traditional family until they began the process of changing the definition of marriage to expand it. Look at what happened over that period of time: A straight and rapid descent in the number of people getting married and, not surprisingly, a rapid assent in the children being born out of wedlock. Is this what is best for children? Is this an argument of a hater? Is this an argument of someone who is intolerant or is this an argument of someone who believes that children deserve what is the ideal for our society? What has happened in those countries that have allowed people of the same sex to get married? Sweden allowed same-sex unions. There are 8 million people in Sweden. How many same-sex unions? There were 749. Is it worth it that now 60 percent of first-born children born in Sweden are born out of wedlock? Is this worth it, 749? By the way, the breakup rate of those marriages is two to three times what it is in traditional marriage. Is it worth it? I ask kids today what marriage is about. For the longest time, when I asked them what marriage is about, they always answered it is about the love of two people. Look at what Hollywood said about marriage. If you look at what leaders in this country say about marriage, maybe that is what we think it is. You look at the pop stars and celebrities, and that is certainly what it is today. It certainly isn't about families and kids. What are we telling our children? Is marriage just about affirming the love of two people? I can assure you that is the motive behind it. It is about affirmation of lifestyle, it is about affirmation of desires. Marriage and family is more than that. Principally, marriage and family has been held up not as an affirmation to make you feel good about who you are or who you love, but it is about the selfless giving for the purpose of continuing. It is about selflessness, not selfishness. It is not about me all the time. This is a society that is so wrapped up in ``me.'' Make me feel good, make me affirmed--me, me, me. What about kids? What about the future? The greatest generation of America was the greatest generation of America. Why? Because they were giving of themselves for something beyond themselves. The greatest generation that started the baby boom was a generation that understood what family was all about. A young man walked up to me a year and a half ago in Wichita, KS, and handed me this bracelet, and I have worn it every day since. He said this bracelet describes what family is. That is what it is--f-a-m-i-l- y. It says it means family. Forget about me; I love you. Is that the kind of family we are debating today? There is a reason we are here. It is not because we hate anybody. It is not because we don't respect anybody. It is not because we don't dignify their worth and value as a person. It is because there is a group of people who are trying to change the definition that is central to the future of this country. That is why we are here. We didn't pick this fight. We didn't start this battle. They went to the courts, not to the people. They went to the few elitists, and on of the most elitist liberal places in the world, Boston, MA, and said, you, the elite of the east coast, Northeastern United States of America, you take your isolated values and then sweep them across this country. They didn't go to Omaha, NE. They didn't go to Peoria, IL. They go to San Francisco, to Seattle, to Boston, and to New York, and they impose the values across America. That is not democracy. That is not allowing the people of Baltimore, the people of Reno, the people of San Antonio, the people of Providence, the people of Pittsburgh to speak. We have a right to speak. The only way we can do that is through the process we have before us, article V of the Constitution, which says we have a right to amend the Constitution when things go too far. And things are going too far. I ask my colleagues to give the people a chance to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I return the thanks to the Senator from Colorado for his willingness to step forward and introduce this legislation. He has carried it with a firmness of purpose and a gentle touch, which is his way, in the way of bringing this issue squarely to the Senate before the American public. He is to be congratulated. The leader is in the Senate. I thank him for agreeing to bring this bill before the Senate, to have a vote on this constitutional amendment in the Senate, and to have this first public debate about the institution of marriage and the attempt to redefine that institution by the courts. If I can, I want to start from scratch to answer the question that many have offered today on the other side of the aisle, which is, Why are we here? Some have suggested we are here because we hate certain people. Some suggest we are here because we are politically motivated to try to rally troops before the election. Some suggest we are here because we want to change the subject to something other than what we have been debating for the last several months in the Senate. We suggest we are here because we want to preserve an institution that has served civilization well for 5,000 years. While that institution has been shaken, that institution has fissures in the foundation; it is still an institution worth preserving. It is an institution worth rebuilding. It is an institution worth fixing the cracks in that foundation. It is an institution worth shoring up and strengthening that foundation. It is not an institution that we need to say, because it is broken, because the institution of marriage is not what it once was--I think everyone will accept in this body, those who are fighting for traditional marriage, will say no, the institution of marriage is not what it once was. It certainly has been the glue that has held the family together. Every culture, every civilization known to man, has had an institution of marriage of some bright, ritual symbol that has shown the monogamous bond between a man and a woman. Why? For the purpose of continuing on that civilization and a recognition that children need moms and dads and moms and dads who are in committed relationships is the ideal. I look at my kids. I am blessed to have seven children, six of which we are raising. I know my children feel safer, feel more secure, more confident, knowing their mom and dad are there and are supportive and loving. There are lots of people in our society who were raised by single parents who feel that love and support from that single parent. Those single parents in many cases do extraordinary jobs. But even if you talk to single parents and kids raised by single parents and you ask them, wouldn't it have been better, the ideal, if mom and dad were joined together in a healthy marriage, raising you in a safe and secure and stable home? The answer is, invariably, yes. What we are here to debate is not an abstract concept of what marriage is or what it should be, but it is a real social benefit. I cannot think of anything more we can do--and the Senator from Kansas talked about this--there is nothing more we have focused in on in the last several years than trying to shore up and affirm marriage. Whether it is the marriage penalty or the marriage initiative the President put forward in the welfare bill, the idea from all the social science data is there are enormous benefits to marriage. We had a hearing in the Finance Committee, on which I serve. The hearing brought forth witnesses from the left and right. We asked them a series of questions about marriage and its benefits. There was a woman representing the Democratic side of the aisle. She made the argument that raising children by parents in an alternative form is just as good as being raised by a mother and a father in a loving, stable relationship. That argument is over. Yes, it can happen, but it is not the ideal. It is not best for children across the board. The children do better in school. They have less dropouts, fewer emotional and behavioral problems, less substance abuse, less abuse and neglect, less criminal activity, less early sexual activities, and fewer out-of-wedlock births. And more. The evidence presented was dumped on us overwhelming, the benefits of marriage, irrespective of social or economic condition, the benefits of having a mother and a father contributing their unique nature to the nature of that child. The evidence is in. The jury is in. Marriage is good. Marriage is a public-policy-desirable goal. Why? Because it benefits children but it also benefits mothers and fathers. I read yesterday, and I will repeat today, a listing of five things in the sense of the purpose of marriage, what it does to benefit the culture. No. 1, the bonding between men and women that ensures their cooperation for the common good. By the way, this article was written by two professors in Canada, a woman professor who is straight and a homosexual man. They wrote this article in support of traditional marriage in opposition to a redefinition of traditional marriage to include same-sex couples. They did so based purely on sociological data, on psychological data, on the overwhelming evidence of the public good of traditional marriage. No. 1, I mentioned, the important bond between men and women. No. 2, the birth and rearing of children, at least to the extent necessary for preserving and fostering society and culturally approved ways. No. 3, bonding between men and children so men are likely to become active participants in family life. I will stop to focus on that for a minute. We have an initiative in the President's welfare bill, the Father's Initiative, that Senator Bayh and I have championed, responsible fatherhood. Why? Because in our culture today there are crosscurrents about what fatherhood means. In certain subcultures, fatherhood means having children, period. What are the effects in that subculture of the role of the father being simply biological and nothing more? When fathers are absent versus when fathers are involved: Fathers absent, two times more likely to abuse drugs; fathers absent, two times more likely to be abused; two times more likely to become involved in a crime; fathers absent, three times more likely to fail in school; three times more likely to commit suicide; and five times more likely to be in poverty. The evidence is in. There is a role for society to encourage fathers to be more than biological fathers, but to be involved in the rearing of that child, preferably in a committed relationship with the mother. These numbers all go up if you have committed, stable, low-conflict relationships between the mother and the father. So there is a role for government, as a public policy, for the benefit of children and the community in which they live because these children just do not, through this activity, affect themselves, do they? No, no. When they commit crimes or when they abuse drugs or when they commit suicide or when they live in poverty, that does not just stay with them. So there is a real public policy objective in promoting stable marriages and fatherhood. No. 4, some healthy form of masculine identity. What does that mean? Well, they go on--which is based on the need for at least one distinctive, necessary, and publicly valued contribution to society. It is especially important today because two other cross-definitions of ``manhood,'' which is the definition of manhood being ``provider'' and ``protector,'' are no longer distinctive now that women have assumed those roles in society. So what are they saying here? They are saying that men have an identity crisis. The traditional role of the man is no longer the traditional role of the man. You say: Well, what's the big deal? Everybody is equal. When you rob someone of a role they believe they have, as society in some degree has, then you have a belief among large segments of society that they have no role; they do not have to provide; they do not have to protect; they do not have to nurture. That is not the role anymore for men in society. It simply is to pursue selfish goals, but they are not needed anymore. We can all go back about the genesis of this and the movement that caused it, but the bottom line is, it is real, and it is reflected in these numbers. So it is important for society to say to men that marriage is good and expected and is healthy and is optimal, and to have laws that say that dropping specimens off at a sperm bank is not fatherhood, but committed relationships with the mother of your children in a marriage that gives you and her and your children security is expected. Now, I know there are a lot of cultures that do not support that, subcultures in America, but the legal, statutory reflection of the culture should be that ideal. Our laws should reflect the ideal of what is best for that man, for that woman, and for those children. No. 5, the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults; that is, young men and women who are ready for marriage and to begin a new cycle. This relates the key contributions that men and women make to the upbringing of young men and young women. As the father of boys and girls, I make different contributions as a father to my girls than I do to my boys. They look at me different. I am different in their minds, and I represent different things that will have an effect on them in their ability to have successful relationships in the future. That is real. Now, we can all play games that people can substitute, that it does not matter whether it is two men or two women or one man or one woman or no women or no men or whatever, but the fact is, there is a difference. We tend to try to deny that. It is politically correct to say there is not a difference, but the fact is that fathers and mothers contribute different things to children. So why did I go through all this? It is important to understand what we are talking about here is very important, and what is being talked about in the courts across America is destroying this very important institution to the American society--to any society. Now, some have suggested this is not a real assault, that it is trumped up for political purposes. Two of the speakers, remarkably-- Senator Clinton and Senator Dayton--both of them said--I will quote Senator Clinton where she says: The Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, has not even been challenged at the Federal level. That is a quote from her statement today. For the record, false. False. Senator Dayton made a similar comment. I think others have made similar comments, except I have the transcripts of these two Senators. False. I submit for the record that there are pleadings in Florida and pleadings in Washington State challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. So the idea that the Defense of Marriage Act is not under assault is not true. The Senator from Colorado a few minutes ago laid out the State-by-State challenges that are going on, some with respect to the Massachusetts marriages, some with respect to the Oregon marriages, some with respect to the New York marriages, some with respect to the California marriages, and we go on and on. And there will be more. I think there are challenges in 46 States to traditional marriage as being unconstitutional. So to suggest that 46 States--whether it is civil unions or marriages--are being challenged by same-sex couples or whether it is two States where the Defense of Marriage Act is being challenged, that somehow or other that is not a serious threat when one State has already determined that there is a constitutional basis, and in writing the decision referred to a U.S. Supreme Court case decided last year--Lawrence v. Texas--in making the determination that you could not discriminate against same-sex couples with respect to marriage, and we do not believe here that this is a serious assault? What do we need? Do we need all the States and the Supreme Court to decide this issue, and then we say: OK, now we decide. Well, the Senator from New York said her father used to refer to it as closing the barn door after the horse has left. By the way, this is a remarkably similar strategy to that which was used in the 1950s and 1960s with respect to the issue of abortion. What happened in that case was a little different. Instead of the courts imposing abortion on the States--although that may have been done; I am just not aware of, maybe as well as I should be, the history--but I do know certain legislatures throughout the country began changing the statutes with respect to abortion, which, of course, 50, 60 years ago was basically illegal in every State in the country. Over time, just a few States changed their law. This created conflicts between the States as to how they were going to deal with this issue. The same thing is happening here State by State. At a minimum, there will be more States because there are certainly a lot of liberal justices of supreme courts in the various States around the country. There will be more States that will ``find'' this constitutional right either within the Federal or State constitution or both. There will be another State and another State that will accept a redefinition of marriage. And the conflicts that will result as a result of that are reflective of the one case I just submitted, which is the Washington State case. In the Washington State case, a lesbian couple married in Canada where they have such laws and came to Washington State and filed bankruptcy. So they wanted distribution of assets based on marriage. And the State of Washington just said: We have to figure out whether or not this is constitutional, whether we have to accept this or whether the Defense of Marriage Act bars us from doing so. We will get this in State after State after State, and there will be conflicts. There will be court decisions all over the place. The Supreme Court will have to come in and say: We didn't want to do this. We feel our hand is forced--just like Roe v. Wade--that this is an issue that cannot have this kind of disparity of unequal treatment between States, and we will then settle it for everybody, which will, of course, mean a complete redefinition of marriage. You don't have to have a crystal ball to figure this one out. We can sit back. This is the great, this is the classic just sit back; say what you believe the public wants to hear; profess your allegiance to traditional values, and then let someone else do the dirty work for you. And it will happen. It will happen. Maybe more dramatically, the court may say we are going to take this on and do it ourselves. There seems to be a majority in the court to do that. But even if they are not aggressive, eventually it is a done deal. And everyone will come out here and profess: No, the States can deal with it. The States can handle this. We are for States rights. To hear the Senator from Massachusetts talk about States rights, I thought maybe the ceiling would fall. Issue after issue, time after time, Members on that side of the aisle vote continually to take power from the States, continually to federalize every issue. But when it comes to something as irrelevant, something as unimportant as the family and marriage, no, no, we can't deal with this. No, this is in the general State purview, as if passing major education reform isn't a State issue. That is a State issue. As if doing welfare isn't a State issue. State issue. Transportation, State issue. Health care, welfare, all of these issues which we spend most of our time and an increasing portion of our money on are all under the purview, under this Constitution, of the States, and we have no problem dictating to the States how to run their schools, how to run their hospitals, how to run their welfare departments. But not when it comes to protecting this fragile institution, this institution that is so out of favor within the popular culture. Listen to the music. Do you hear affirming things about the treatment of women in the music in the popular culture today? Do you hear songs about commitment and marriage in the popular culture today? Do you see movies reaffirming the traditional role of fathers raising their children and responsible actions on the part of parents and would-be parents? This is an institution that is swimming against a toxic tide of popular culture that wants to just drown it. As the justices from Massachusetts said, speaking for our culture, I believe, marriage is a stain on our laws that must be eradicated. That is how Hollywood views marriage. That is how the music industry views marriage. That is how the media views marriage. What are they writing about here? Are they writing about this marriage debate? No, they are writing about the conflict between Republicans in trying to get a vote on the floor of the Senate. Give me a break. One AP reporter writes this story, and he is a decent man. I know he can't be this uninformed. What are we trying to accomplish on the floor of the Senate? We have two amendments on this side of the aisle. It has not been unknown that there have been actually as many as three amendments on this side of the aisle. This is not unknown to anybody. What do we want to do? Well, we can't put forward both so we put forward one, the one that we believe is our best, our optimal solution. By the way, that is done with frequency in the U.S. Senate, where you come forward with what you want to accomplish. And if you can't get that done, what do you do? You offer plan B, what you think will get something accomplished but not as much as you want. And so we wanted to offer plan A. And if plan A didn't work--A, Senator Allard's amendment--then we would offer plan B, which happened to be Gordon Smith's amendment. That is not confusion or division. It is simply a time-tested, age- old strategy in every dealing that I am aware of in life, which is you try to get as much as you can. And if you can't, you take plan B and try to get as much as you can there. But that is not what people write. They don't want to write about the substance of the marriage debate, which by and large has not really been engaged in here. The substance on the other side of the aisle when it comes to this issue is that, No. 1, it is political. No. 2, we should be talking about homeland security. I am for homeland security. But there isn't enough money in the world that you can spend to secure the home more than marriage. You want to invest in homeland security? You invest in marriage. You invest in the stability of the family. That is what this amendment is. I hear from speaker after speaker: There are more important things to debate on the floor of the Senate than the family. Think about that. There are more important things to debate: homeland security, spending more money, which, by the way, won't be spent until October 1 of next year. Spending a few billion more dollars is more important than preserving the traditional family in America. No, they haven't been debating the substance. I asked the Senator from Alabama earlier, I don't believe anybody has come forward and said they are not for traditional marriage. I think I am wrong. I was handed Senator Kennedy's speech. Senator Kennedy said: I happen to be someone that supports the court decision in Massachusetts. I am proud of them. I happen to support the court decision in Massachusetts. I am proud that four justices redefined and forced the Massachusetts legislature to rewrite their laws, and they are the only ones who are allowed to do that, forced the legislature to rewrite their laws with respect to marriage. I am proud of them. Do we hear any comment about this agenda? What is this agenda? I am proud that four unelected judges can usurp the authority of the legislative branch and roll them and force them to do something that the people of Massachusetts don't want. I am proud of them. I don't think John Adams would have said the same thing. I don't think Jefferson or Madison would have. One of my colleagues referred to Madison, that he would be with Madison. I don't think Madison would see it as the role of judges to rewrite the Constitution when they have a hankering to do so. I think Mr. Madison would have a big-time problem with what he would see as an abuse of article V. Article V is an amendment of the constitutional process. Nowhere in there do I see Mr. Madison talking about judges changing the Constitution when they feel like it. But, you see, as the Senator from New York, Senator Clinton said, ``I am in agreement that the Constitution is a living and working accomplishment.'' My question is, who is doing the living? You see, I thought from article V that the living part was those of us here in the legislature, those of us across the States who would determine when it is appropriate to institute new rights or obligations in the Constitution. That is what I thought this living, dynamic document was. But that is not what those who oppose this amendment believe the Constitution is, no. The living that is going on is not the American public doing the living. Oh, no. It is a few hand-picked judges who have the right to breathe life into the Constitution. See, they are the ones who get to change the Constitution, without going through this complex, sort of long, drawn out, tedious, expensive process of getting two-thirds of the votes here in the Senate, and two-thirds of the votes in the House, and three-quarters of the State legislatures. By the way, in responding to an earlier comment of a colleague on this side, it is not three-quarters of the United States, it is three- quarters of the state legislatures by a majority vote. By the way, from everything I have seen, and from every poll I have seen across America, those votes are probably there. The problem here is in this great institution that is supposed to be a reflection of American values, 99 to 1, we are all for traditional marriage. But it is like a mirror in this case because it is not real. You can sort of look at that reflection and try to touch it, but it is not real, it is only a reflection because they are not voting that way. If you want to protect traditional marriage, you should vote for cloture and for one of these constitutional amendments that will be offered. The Hippocratic oath says, ``First, do no harm.'' My question to those who are going to vote ``no'' tomorrow is, what harm do you believe a constitutional amendment does to the institution of marriage, which you say you support? You support the definition within this constitutional amendment that marriage is between one man and one woman. All but one Senator said they support that. There may be more who don't. I suspect maybe a lot more, but I don't know. Probably a few more are right now sort of staying low, saying all the right things, what the polls indicate is popular, and have their fingers crossed and are thinking let this issue pass; let this issue pass by and let it quiet down, and then let the courts do what we want them to do. Then we will get what we need. But if they don't feel that way, if they are truly in support of traditional marriage, which many profess they are--and I argue I would probably agree most are in favor of traditional marriage--then what harm do we do by putting language into our Constitution to protect that institution which everybody says they are for? What harm is done? Do we harm the Constitution? Do we cheapen the Constitution? Someone suggested this doesn't rise to the level of a constitutional amendment. I remind people what the last constitutional amendment was. It is fun reading. It is always good to pick up the Constitution. I know Senator Byrd carries one and hangs out with it all the time. I will read the 27th amendment: No law varying the compensation for the services of Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. Congress cannot get pay raises until after the election. Big deal. By the way, I know one Senator said, ``I am going to stand with James Madison.'' That is what the Senator from Arizona said. The 27th amendment--do you know what it is called? The Madison amendment. James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, had an amendment that said Congresses cannot receive pay raises. A big, weighty issue. The fate of the country hangs in the balance. ``I will stand with James Madison.'' Do you know what Madison said? If you believe enough in something, you put it in the Constitution if that is the only way you fix the problem. I don't believe anyone can look at the legal state of play in this country and say there is any other real option. A philosopher named Christopher Lash said: ``Every day we get up and we tell ourselves lies so we can live.'' What did he mean by that? Well, there are certain things we have to tell ourselves so we can go on and do what we want to do, certain truths we have to ignore so we can go on and live our lives. There are all these people dying and suffering in Africa from AIDS, and we tell ourselves there is not much I can do about that so I will go on with my day. There are 1.2 million children dying from abortions in this country. We tell ourselves that is a tragedy, but there is nothing I can do, so I can go on and have my breakfast. We all do it. I do it. Everybody does it. We tell ourselves little lies so we can feel comfortable with the decisions we make to go on with the life we want to live and make the decisions that make us feel comfortable. The Senate tomorrow is going to tell itself a little lie--that we don't need to do this, that families will be OK without us, and the States can handle the issue. Now, some will say they don't believe that is a little lie. They will say they disagree with that. We can all rationalize whatever decision we want to make. We can all make our case. In the history books, when this time is written about, we will be able to make our case. We will be able to say, you know, had I known this was going to happen, I would have voted differently. I would have stood with Mr. Madison and voted for that amendment. But how was I to know? How was I to know this was the beginning of the end of marriage, and the beginning of the end of the family in America, and the beginning of the end of the freedom we hold in this country so dear, where Government doesn't run and have to take care of every need because nobody else is around to do it. If you look at the socialist countries that have gone in the direction of destruction of the family, you only need to look at the imposition and heavy weight of government. Why? Because there is no one there to pick up the pieces. You can say, if I had known, if I had only known. Every day we get up and tell ourselves lies, so we can live. The problem is this lie hurts the future lives of millions of children in America. And they are going to have to live with the consequences of the lie you tell. We have an opportunity to do something so simple, so basic, so natural: Simply affirm what this country has known for hundreds of years, what the Western World has known since its inception, and simply put in a document that represents the best of America the ideal that children deserve moms and dads; that the glue of the family, marriage, is worth a special place. Do we not believe that marriage, that glue that binds men and women and children together, deserves a special place right next to limiting pay raises of Members of Congress? Is that a special enough place? Is it not a special enough place for something that we know is essential for the future of America? We debate a lot of important issues here, but there is nothing-- nothing--more important than the future survival of this country. That is what we are here for. We took that oath of office. Why? To preserve and protect. That is our job. We have other jobs outside this Chamber, but within this Chamber our job is the preservation of these United States. I do not see how anyone can possibly imagine a whole nation without whole families. Yet we will choose tomorrow to risk everything. Think about this. We will choose tomorrow to risk everything. Why? What is worth this risk? What is worth this experiment in sociology heretofore unseen? What is worth that much? I ask the silent chairs on the other side of the aisle: What is worth this much not to give marriage a chance? As broken and as battered and as shattered as the institution is, let's use this opportunity, in a time of horrible, divisive politics, to band together and say there is one thing on which we can agree: that men and women should bind together to have children and raise them in stable families. Can we at least agree on that? What will the answer be? What will all of God's children say tomorrow? No. No. No, I can't go that far; sorry, got too many other things to worry about; too political an issue; too divisive an issue; too intolerant an issue; just trying to bash people; you don't really care about families; this is simply about politics. The lies we tell ourselves every day just so we can live. I come here not because I want to win an election, not because I want to bash anybody or hurt anybody. I come because this is good for America. This is the foundation of everything that makes America great, and it is worth saving. Give it a chance. Don't snuff out this candle that is just barely keeping the light on. Give it a chance. I accept the fact that it is in trouble. I accept the fact that we have darn near blown it, but don't use that as an excuse to do nothing. This is not about hate. This is about giving our children the best chance of having a bright tomorrow. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. I would like to pick up on what the Senator from Colorado said, which is, I know in my office, we have provisions in our office manual which actually prohibit any discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin, or sexual preference. We have those provisions in our office manual. And we do not discriminate in hiring. I believe people can make contributions and should make contributions and should be able to contribute to our society, particularly here on the Hill. I know, as has been reported widely in the press, there are a lot of people in this category on both sides of the aisle who are homosexuals who make great contributions to this Chamber. No one wants to deny them their ability to live out their dreams. But as I think the Senator from Colorado said, it is important for us to understand that this debate is not about limiting anybody's choices, except children, because that is really what this debate is about. If we change the definition of marriage, we end up limiting the choices of children and having the right to have a mother or father. I know this is on the time of the Senator from Alabama. I wanted to make sure I had not missed anything.

Mr. SANTORUM. That is a great question. I say to the Senator from Alabama that going back to Madison, Adams, and the Massachusetts Constitution talked about the importance of a balance of powers, a checks and balances; that if one branch of the Government were to become too powerful then our Republic is in danger. Democracy itself is in danger. I think what the Senator from Alabama is referring to is the judiciary over the last several years, as a result of the feeling within certainly the liberal branch of the judiciary, that they can take on the role of a legislature in either passing laws in the form of judicial opinions or forcing the legislature to pass laws as a result of constitutional edict. It is getting to the point where there are these three branches of Government that all sort of operate under the Constitution, and we are supposed to be able to oversee each other. One might want to make the argument that maybe we are not doing a particularly good job of oversight; that we are not doing a very good job of checking the judiciary in its repeated attempt now to usurp power away from the people's branch. The people's branch is not the judiciary. It is not the executive. It is us. We are the ones who stand for election on a regular basis. We are the ones who are responsible to a local constituency. We are the ones who are in closest touch with what the people would like to see done. The judiciary is probably the most removed because they are completely unelected.

Mr. SANTORUM. If Senator Lautenberg is speaking 15 minutes, I will speak for 10 or 15 minutes, if we want to go back and forth.

Mr. SANTORUM. I would just say that checks and balances work as long as there is truly a balance. I think what we have is some people today in our judiciary, because of the activist judges, who are now saying we are all going to play by these rules, all branches of Government. Here is the game. Everybody comes to the poker table and we are going to play the game of governing the United States of America. And in the middle of the game, the court can say: I am changing the rules to my favor, so I win. In a sense, if you think about it, when the Court, the Supreme Court, rules, they win. The only way we can change that is through this rather complex procedure laid out in article V of the Constitution, which is not an easy thing to do. In a sense, the Court has figured out that the ability for Congress to check them is very limited. As a result, they are feeling more and more empowered to project their will on society.

Mr. SANTORUM. It is one of the most disputed and argued--we have committees that argue over jurisdiction just between where bills are referred. We all know this in all of our lives, when there is an area of authority, that area of authority is protected, not just because it is one's particular area of authority but one knows what they do in their job, particularly in the area of the legislature and of government, sets a precedent for how future people will do their job. If one gives up power, it is going to be hard for someone to get back when it may be necessary for them to do so. So we hold our power or fight for our rights not just because we want to exercise that power but because it is important institutionally that the power rest in the proper place.

Mr. SANTORUM. Yes.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, does the Senator from Colorado wish to comment on Members who oppose this constitutional amendment yet support the language of it, which I find to be somewhat remarkable, but they support the definition of traditional marriage and have stated so, yet accuse those of us who would like to put it in law, in a constitutional amendment, as being purveyors of hate and intolerance; is that not what has happened today on the floor of the Senate?

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

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

Mr. SANTORUM. I have not read any article in a publication or heard any radio or seen any television show or report thereof where anyone in this Chamber has said anything but that they support the definition of traditional marriage. Mr. President, do my colleagues have any comments?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I just want to read article V and make clear what the Senator from Alabama is saying. When it comes to amending the Constitution, the first two words, if we are going to change the Constitution of the United States, the first two words are ``The Congress.'' The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution.... Shall propose amendments. It is the role of Congress to simply propose amendments. So what we are doing here today is not passing. We are simply proposing this to the American people. . . . shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. What this amendment says is to change the Constitution of the United States, we propose and the people dispose. What is happening in Massachusetts, across this country, and in the court across the street in the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court has taken this power unto itself which was clearly left to the people. That is what we are trying to address. We are trying to let the people speak. In the end, this debate simply is about letting the American people decide for ourselves what this rather important institution in our country is. Again, I can think of nothing more foundational in our society than the building block of that society which is the family. The American people have a right to make a decision. Every Member who has gotten up and talked has said they want to simply leave it to the State courts. But let me assure you, these decisions will not ultimately be made by the States. They will be made by the State courts. We have seen it in case after case after case. The courts will trump the legislatures. Again, ultimately, even if some States can hold back the tide, other States will not. If we have a hodgepodge or patchwork of different marriage laws in this country, I will assure you the Supreme Court will not stand aside and let that continue. It will be a legal nightmare. We will have to find conformity. Conformity will certainly be to permit this new form of marriage; thus, the end of the family as we know it. I know the Senator from Kansas and many others--the Senator from Texas and I have even pointed out--I know some are saying, What do you mean the end of the family? Won't we enhance marriage by allowing more people to marry? Won't marriage be enhanced if we allow more people to participate in that sacred bond? The evidence is in. In the places where we have seen the introduction of civil unions and same-sex marriages, marriage rates decline dramatically. Why? Because marriage loses its meaning. Marriage is no longer about families. By the way, what goes up? The rate of out-of-wedlock births. This is common sense, isn't it? What are we doing here? If marriage is simply about affirming one's own self-worth or affirming one's affection toward somebody else, if that is all it is, when those feelings go away, why stay married? If that is all it is, if it is all about me and my happiness, when I am not happy anymore, then I am not married anymore. If it is about me, then obviously it is not about them, the children. They only happen to come along. If marriage is simply about me, in the case of heterosexual marriage, if it is about me, and that is what a lot of divorce laws as a culture have trained us to believe marriage is about, then it is nice to have kids. It is a great thing to have kids--sometimes, some will say. Why stay married? If I am not happy because marriage isn't about children, it is about me, we reinforce that. We put a big neon sign, ``Marriage is about me. Marriage is about self. Marriage is about making me feel good. And if I don't feel good anymore, then I will not be married anymore.'' That is all marriage is about. How can you argue it is about anything else? If any two people can get married whether they can have children or not, why stop at two? I mean if what we are doing, if marriage is a civil right as someone suggested--not in this Chamber, but I suspect one of these days will be mentioned in this Chamber, that marriage is a civil right--then why isn't it a civil right for three, or four, or five? If it is a civil right, why limit it to two? If I need to express my love to three people instead of one, if that is what fulfills me and makes me happy, then why shouldn't I be allowed to do that? This is a very slippery slope. The bottom line is, as I mentioned over and over again with respect to the reasons for marriage, self-affirmation is fairly low on the list of marriage importance in society. Why do we have such a legal institution? Why do we create laws that govern marriage? Why do we do that, if we didn't believe there was a societal good to be accomplished by it? Why do we give it elevated status? You sort of have to ask this question: Is it because we go around affirming love between two people? Why don't we want mothers and daughters to be married and give them special treatment? There are a lot of daughters who take care of moms who are sick, who are elderly, who sacrifice a lot to take care of their parents and don't get the benefits they would otherwise get if they were married to their mother. Why not give them, the people who are struggling, the right to marry so they can get the benefits of marriage? If they are going to argue that marriage is about affirming the love of two people, why not? But marriage is much more from the standpoint of society and the reason we have an institution of marriage. That is a minor part of this discussion. The reason we have legal statutes for marriage is because it is about having and raising children and stable families and bonding men and women together so they can provide for the common good. There are great benefits to society with marriage. We know if we cheapen marriage as other countries have done, fewer heterosexuals will be married, more children will be born out of wedlock, and more government will be needed to repair the dissolution of the family as a result of it. Why? For what? What great positive impact will change the definition of the marriage act? What great contribution will be made to society? Will we be able to welcome a loving society? Some will suggest we will. I don't know if we will. I think we are a loving, welcoming society with maybe the exception of the unborn. We are not particularly welcome to one-third of the children conceived in marriage who end up being killed by abortion. But beyond that, I think we are a pretty affirmative and tolerant society--not that there are not people who aren't tolerant, not there are not people who do and say hurtful things. By and large, we have come a long way in our society. I think it is a good thing we have become tolerant of people. Tolerance does not mean we need to change a fundamental institution that provides healthy environments for children and destroys the chance for children to have the ideal or make it a lot less likely. I think if you look at Netherlands, Scandinavia, and look at numbers in Canada and other places, it has an impact. I keep coming back to the fundamental right. The hour is late. I apologize to all folks who had to stay here late at night. The morning will come early. I keep sitting here and wondering why. Why does a body of people, No. 1, profess publicly to believe that marriage should only be a union between a man and a woman and that this body believes it overwhelmingly; and, No. 2, knows that at least this issue is under contest and in dispute. There is no question about that. One State has changed the law. To suggest this is not a threat simply is not true. It is obviously under threat. It has been changed in one rather large State. There are cases in 11 other States, 2 cases challenging the Federal law, and in 46 States there are same-sex couples who are married from Massachusetts or one of the other States that have married people. Are all potential litigants. Number one we believe marriage is between a man and a woman. We know that institution is under assault. We know that it is a public good and that we are for it. We know that it serves a useful purpose. Then why won't we do something to protect it? We go down this logical train and we say, yes, all those things are true, but we can wait. Why? What is the point? Why wait? What is going to happen? Things will get worse. Certainly that will happen. Things get worse and then you feel you had the public support necessary to vote. Is that what this is about, getting the public support necessary to do this? Or do we really believe the States can handle it? Are we willing to take that risk? What is the risk if the courts do turn over more and more? We can come back and fix it later. I know a lot of people know this unspoken thing: Time is not on our side. The culture of what is educating our children at our university, what is polluting our children's mind from Hollywood, what is coming through the mainstream media is not a message in support of traditional marriage. Let's be honest. Does anybody question that the messages from those places where our children are getting the messages from the popular culture, from the educational establishment, is it all affirming of the traditional definition of marriage? One only needs to look at the polls of young people to know that is simply not the case. This is simply a timebomb. If we do not bring America's focus and attention on what marriage is and why it is important, and that it should be sustained, we will lose. Many have criticized me and Senator Frist and others for bringing this up, saying it is premature, saying we are picking a fight for politics or whatever. Let me assure you, if I thought it was not in the best interest of protecting the American people, I would not be here. If I did not think this was critical to the future of America, I would not be here at 10 o'clock at night when I should be home tucking my kids in bed. As Members know, I try to spend time with my kids. There is nothing more important, nothing more important than my kids and my wife, my family. That is why I am here, because there is nothing more important than my family. I hope tomorrow we get a big surprise. I always believe in that. I remember being here a few years ago and debating the issue of partial- birth abortion, about this hour of the night, trying to override the President's veto in 1996 and then again in 1998. I remember staying up late the night before the vote, saying we are just a couple votes short; maybe if we go out and give it one last good try, we will win. And we didn't. Do you know what I found? I say to the Senator from Colorado, nobody is more constant, nobody, who I would rather see in the foxhole next to me than the Senator from Colorado. If you looked over there, he would be there. The Senator from Alabama, I say the same to him. These are stalwarts, folks who are not afraid to engage in cultural wars that are not fun to engage in because a lot of people say a lot of bad things about you. What I say to these Members and anyone listening, losing the vote does not necessarily mean losing the issue. We had a lot of losses on the issue of partial-birth abortion. I can say without fear of hesitation it was the greatest gift that God gave us, because it gave us an opportunity to talk to the American people about this scourge on our Nation. If the President signed this innocuous bill the first time in 1996, signed it and had a bill-signing ceremony, probably it would have been filed, no one would have known, hearts and minds would not have been touched. I believe our plan is not necessarily the best plan. Victory can come from defeat. In this case, the victory over the last 3 days, thanks to the work of these two fine Members and so many others who have come to the Senate to debate this issue, is an America that is waking up to something that we have forgotten about. I liken the institution of marriage to oxygen in the air. The human body needs oxygen to survive. Yet we take it for granted as we just breathe. And America as a society needs marriage and families to survive. Yet we take marriage and families for granted as if it will always be. We do a lot to keep good, healthy oxygen to breathe. We do very little to keep families protected, sheltered, and supported. Just as it is with oxygen, as you climb those high altitudes in Colorado, you find out when there is less and less oxygen, the body does not function quite as well. So it is with marriage. When there is less and less marriage, the body does not function quite as well. When you are climbing that mountain, and many people for years did not know what it was when they went up to the altitudes that they could not perform as well, and, for America, we are climbing that mountain and we are just wondering, Why aren't we doing as well? This is an opportunity to educate America as to the need for marriage, the need for families, not in a hostile way, not in a negative way. I don't think I have heard a negative word on the floor of the Senate about anybody or anything. We simply have talked about why families and marriage is necessary for America and why children need moms and dads. It is almost remarkable, but I suspect this is maybe the first real debate about family and marriage in the Senate. I guess in the Defense of Marriage Act we talked, maybe not. But it is a reminder to all how the things that sometimes we take most for granted are things that make us function as a society. I thank the Presiding Officer for the willingness to stay to this late hour and engage in this very important debate. I hope tomorrow, whatever happens, I don't know what will happen, that it turns out for the best interests of America's families. I always hope that no matter what we do and how the votes come, that somehow or other it will all work out for the best for America. I believe that. And I ask for the American public to pray for that. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. The answer to that is clearly yes. In fact, the Senator is a much better lawyer than I ever was, and I say that to the Senator from Alabama as someone who was a prosecutor and a very accomplished lawyer. I made it up to a fourth year associate, so I just started on my legal career and opted to do something different, and that was run for Congress. I recall when Madison wrote this Constitution about checks and balances, I am not sure he envisioned the role of the judiciary as we see it today. Marbury v. Madison sort of evolved as to what the role of the courts was in interpreting the Constitution, but clearly he gave the authority to change the Constitution not to the courts. He gave the authority to change and create rights within the Constitution to the Congress and to the States, as a check on the Congress, to make sure the States would go along with what we wanted to do. So to change this important document, this template for the Government that we have, he wanted to create a very high bar, wanted to make sure there was broad public consensus before we did something to affect this very important document. Now this is being used as an excuse not to change it, when judges do it every day. Every day a judge will attempt to expand, usually expand in some form or another, the meaning by adapting it to contemporary standards or contemporary jurisprudence. I don't know what that means, but it basically means I am the judge, I am the law, and I can do what I want.

Mr. SANTORUM. That would be, first, I think, dangerous, period. But it worries me even more because the Supreme Court that sits right here in Washington, DC, is certainly not what I would call Main Street America, certainly not what I would call a community that shares the values of this metropolitan area, that shares the values of the heartland of America. I remember a good friend of mine telling me that postwar Germany was concerned about centralizing government in its major cities, Berlin or Bonn. So they did something rather unusual. They located their supreme judicial court not in their capital city or in their biggest city, they located it in the equivalent of Peoria, out in the country, where justices do not hobnob with the liberal elite that govern the nation. Either through governance-wise or governing media-wise. But they have to live and work with the common, ordinary people out across the great hills of Germany--and in our case the Great Plains of the United States. But we don't have that here. We have this constitutional court sitting right across the street in a town where the influences are not neutral. That is why I believe you see that every single Justice--bar a couple on this Court--once they get on the Court, tend to assimilate with this town and with the prevailing view in this town, which is big government, which is government knows best, and government can do all, and which is, from the culture standpoint, not exactly where I would say Mobile, AL, is, or Pittsburgh, PA, is. Where in Colorado?