Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator will yield for a further question, I want to read the next paragraph and get his comment: Raising Mr. Pryor's ``deeply held beliefs'' in terms of his qualifications to serve on the Federal bench thus suggests a de facto religious test for public office, something clearly prohibited by the Constitution. Would the Senator from Utah agree that the religious test for holding an office with the Government of the United States of America would be unconstitutional?

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Utah because he has hit on a point that is deeply disturbing to me as a member of the Senate. I understand the Constitution talks about, we shall establish no religion, and that is generally termed, in many cases, the separation of church and State, although the words ``separation of church and State'' do not appear in the Constitution. What appears to be going on in the Judiciary Committee by Members of the other side of the aisle is not a separation of church and State, but a separation of anybody who believes in church and faith from any public role. I do not believe that is what the Constitution was founded to do. I listened to the comments of the Senator from California who said because of General Pryor's ``strongly held beliefs'' basically he cannot be impartial. So if you have strongly held religious beliefs, because of your strongly held religious beliefs----

Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator will yield for an additional question.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SANTORUM. With respect to abortion and Mr. Pryor's beliefs, if the Senator from Utah will allow me, I would like him to comment on a letter just received today, written by Carl Anderson, who is with the Knights of Columbus. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. SANTORUM. As a result, that was not accomplished. The Senator from South Dakota said that was not acceptable, so as a result we are now stuck on what seemingly some Members of this Chamber would like to talk about.

Mr. SANTORUM. I say for the purpose of edification of the Senator from North Dakota, the two leaders have met and talked and our leader went to the Democratic leader and actually suggested to do just that, vitiate in exchange for a time certain this week to finish this bill, which is what I know the Senator from North Dakota was looking to do.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I just described what is my understanding as a Catholic of what the teachings of the church are and what the responsibilities as a faithful Catholic are as a member of the church. I also understand the oath of office you take and the role that you play as a civil servant in a government and that you have an obligation to serve and to adhere to the law, particularly when you are sworn to uphold that law. Are there any examples where Attorney General Pryor upheld the law even though he, as a Catholic, as a person of deep beliefs, went ahead and followed the law even though his personal viewpoints may have been different?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. SANTORUM. Which is a very threatening thing. I say for the record, as a pro-life Catholic, I voted for hundreds of Clinton nominees who I knew were not pro-life--hundreds of them--never voted against one of them, never filibustered any of them. I will match up my fervor in defense of human life against anyone in this Chamber. But not once did I vote against one. Why? Because that is not my role as a Senator, as a civil servant. I know my duties under the Constitution. I know my role. I know what I am supposed to do. What we are experiencing here now is not, again, the separation of church and state but the separation from anybody who is faithful to their church from the state. That is turning separation of church and state that would cause any of the Founders to be spinning in their grave today. It is exactly what--you can call it anything you want--but that is exactly what is going on. The greatest of the freedoms we have in this country, the greatest that any country can have, is the freedom to believe the freedom to think. Because if you don't have the freedom to think what you want and the freedom to do what you want, the freedom to speak, to assemble--the freedom to do anything else is meaningless. It is the first of all freedoms. That is under assault in this process. I commend the Senator from Utah for standing up in defense of this.

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator from Vermont yield?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, isn't there a case of the partial-birth abortion law in Alabama where he actually gave advice that would be contrary to what his personal beliefs are with respect to the issue of abortion?

Mr. SANTORUM. I will not. Because of those beliefs that are referred to continually, the ``strongly held beliefs''----

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask the Senator from Utah, when the other side uses the term ``deeply held beliefs'' over and over again, which we have heard on certain issues, would the Senator from Utah characterize what those ``deeply held beliefs'' might pertain to, and on what issues, and what they might tie to from the perspective of religious beliefs?

Mr. SANTORUM. Yes, the July 30 letter.

Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator will yield for another question, I sincerely thank the Senator from Utah for his yielding to me for these questions and for his very articulate defense of this nominee and the principle which I believe and I think the Senator believes in. One of the reasons I brought the article up was, many people outside of this Chamber--not just Catholic, not just Christian, but of all faiths--are deeply concerned about what is going on in this Chamber. I thank the Senator for his willingness to stand up and to have the courage to articulate that. I make the point that he is not alone in coming to the conclusion he has come to, that many people in this Chamber have come to, that this litmus test that is being applied ultimately is a religious one.

Mr. SANTORUM. I think that is what the Senator from North Dakota suggested.

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SANTORUM. No, I do not.

Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator will yield, does the Senator from Utah, who I know is not Catholic, know that as part of the Catholic faith, one of the central teachings with respect to faith and morals is that it is not an option under the Catholic church doctrine to be a faithful Catholic and not be pro-life. It is a core teaching of the church. It is not an optional teaching or a recommended teaching; it is a core teaching of the church. So to be a faithful Catholic, according to the church, someone has to embrace this opposition to abortion. Is the Senator aware of that?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask if the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Vermont will agree to a unanimous consent request that we have a final vote on the Energy bill by noon on Friday and in exchange for that, we will vitiate the cloture votes on the two judges that are in the queue right now. I think we can probably get unanimous consent on that on our side fairly quickly. If the Senator from North Dakota agrees with that, we will be happy to move forward.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President I have a poem written by my constituent Dee M. Tramontina of Buck Hill Falls, PA. I rise today so that I might call special attention to the thoughts and observations of my constituents who would like to accord proper recognition to those brave Americans who sacrificed, fought and died in the Korean conflict. I would like to recognize both Dee M. Tramontina and Albert Tramontina, Jr., who, on behalf of the Monroe Chapter of the Korean War Veterans Association, have shared a poem with me concerning the conflict which ended 50 years ago. I would like to call attention to this historic anniversary by asking that Dee's poem be printed in the Record. The ``Forgotten War'' No More (By Dee Tramontina) Some have made the grave mistake Of calling Korea the forgotten war But you can bet that none of them Had to storm the Inchon shore I am also very positive it's memory Sadly stays with all of those That at the Chosin Reservoir They shivered, fought and froze Perhaps you know of someone Who fought among the ranks And saw the awful, bloody terror Of ``Old Baldy'' or the Yalu River banks Be assured that a foggy memory Would be a relief to maintain For those that charged up the hill: ``Heartbreak Ridge'' it seems, in vain We can be sure that there are some To this very day can still Hear the horrors of the battle We know as ``Pork Chop Hill'' Definitely an everlasting imprint Of the 38th parallel has been burned Into the hearts and minds of families Of the many heroes that never returned We are coming up on fifty years Since Panmunjom brought peace In honor of those that fought there May the memory never cease

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee regarding Special Operations Command's information warfare platform, the ED-130J, which is funded in the Defense Appropriations bill. The 193rd Special Operations Wing (SOW), Pennsylvania Air National Guard, conducts information warfare missions such as psychological operations (PSYOP) civil affairs radio and television broadcasts, Command Control Communications Counter Measures (C3CM) and limited intelligence gathering. Because many of the missions carried out are often classified, the public at large usually does not know the extent to which this unit has shaped events prior to conflict. In many cases, their mission has made conflict unnecessary or has reduced the loss of life. Last year, the Senate provided $87 million for a C-130J aircraft to be purchased and converted into an EC-130J platform that is used by the 193rd SOW. This sum was enough to purchase a C-130J, but not the unique components that are to be fitted into the platform. I thank the Committee for its support of this important platform by its inclusion of $10 million in the Senate Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. I urge SOCOM to fully fund the unique components that will allow for the conversion of one C-130J into an EC-130J aircraft. I ask the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to support the EC-130J modifications for Special Operations Command.