Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. My understanding is that we crafted this language pursuant to the language the Senator from New Jersey used in the past and put a threshold we thought was--I think it was a $20 million threshold we put in place which we thought was a reasonable threshold of investment to reach the level of sanction. If the Senator from New Jersey would like to toughen that language or change the threshold, I would be happy to sit down and talk with him about it. I am open to discussion. My only point, and I think the point we have had in this discussion in the past, is I don't believe it is proper to penalize companies that have investments there, in many cases longstanding investments. What we want to do is discourage future investment. That is what we attempt to do in this amendment. If the Senator does not believe it has been effectively written, I will be happy to sit down with him, in all sincerity, and work to make it effective that future investments are discouraged.

Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this goes under the old rubric of no good deed goes unpunished. We have attempted in this amendment to meet the Senator from New Jersey halfway. The Senator's amendment has consistently been voted on. I have opposed it and so has most of the Senate, which suggests that those who are currently doing business and have invested should be penalized for their investment. What we say is that on any future investment, you will be penalized. We make the Lautenberg language prospective. In attempting to meet the Senator from New Jersey halfway, we find out that this is not sufficient and, therefore, we should oppose this amendment. I would think half a loaf is better than no loaf. This, by the way, was not in the Iran Freedom and Support Act. This is one of the provisions Senator Levin mentioned that was added, frankly, out of respect for the concerns the Senator from New Jersey raised and has raised on the floor repeatedly. This is an attempt to make a good-faith attempt--and I do mean that-- a good-faith attempt to meet the Senator from New Jersey halfway and to take his policy and put it in place in a prospective manner. If that is not sufficient for the Senator from New Jersey, that is fine. He is welcome to oppose the amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. I understand I have 4 minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I will address the comments made by my colleagues. I appreciate their thoughtful comments. First, this is not just a sanctions amendment. This is a sanctions amendment which imposes additional sanctions, but it also has a large prodemocracy component to support prodemocracy efforts and public diplomacy within Iran. Second, with respect to the sanctions, I agree with some of the criticisms leveled by Senator Levin that it adds things which were not in the previous versions. One thing it adds is a nuclear components provision, which says that if you are going to be a company that is doing business with Iran in the development of their nuclear weapons capability, you cannot do business with us in America. If that is objectionable to folks, I find it somewhat remarkable that we would want companies doing business in Iran doing business here. But that is a new sanction; he is correct. What he is not correct about is that we make it more difficult to waive these sanctions. In fact, we have made it easier to waive sanctions. We have given the President more time to waive sanctions. In fact, the big difference between the House bill and ours is we are much more liberal with respect to the waiver authority of the President. In that respect, the House bill passed--I have the exact vote--by a vote of 397 to 21. That is the bill which passed in the House of Representatives just 2 months ago. It has, with the exception of what I have said, a more liberal waiver authority component that deals with nuclear technology because of, obviously, this concern about the major difference between the two. I suspect that both the increased flexibility and the nuclear component provision would have very strong support in the Senate. The other thing I wish to talk about is what Senator Warner referred to in the letter from the Secretary of State. I remind everybody that the Secretary and the State Department have opposed this legislation from the day I have introduced it. No. 2, I have had discussions with the Secretary personally over at the State Department, and we have had ongoing discussions. They support aspects of this bill. They don't like some of the sanction provisions, specifically the codification of Executive orders. I understand that. That has been sort of an intractable problem we have had during these negotiations. I also remind everybody here that I bet I could pull out a letter identical to the letter just read by the Senator from Virginia on the issue of the Syrian Accountability Act, which passed here after about 3\1/2\ years or 2\1/2\ years of work, to try to get the administration on board with that legislation. The State Department opposed it, opposed it, opposed it. The President opposed it. They thought it was the wrong time, something we shouldn't do. I had three conversations with the President on the Syrian Accountability Act. The first two times, he about tore my head off, saying how inappropriate it was for Congress to act in this regard and try to impose sanctions and mess around with foreign policy. The third conversation I had with him was a conversation where he said he would sign it. Six months later, he gave the State of the Union Address and took credit for the Syrian Accountability Act as one of the great accomplishments of his administration in foreign policy. I believe the impact of the Syrian Accountability Act is pretty discernible--what happened with the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. The Congress, when we act and do so in a responsible fashion, can make a difference. I believe this is an appropriate time and appropriate subject for us to make a difference. Iran is the great threat before us. If anyone believes that by being weak, by not acting, by not stepping forward, and by not getting involved and saying we are going to hold those who cooperate with the Iranians accountable for their cooperation, if we think that by backing off on that somehow or another we will create some good will with the hardliners who control Iran, you have not been watching how the Iranians behave. They respect one thing and one thing only--we are about to give it to them, I hope--and that is action, deeds, and a credible threat that we will impose sanctions and we will hurt their capability if they do not change their course. That is what we have an opportunity to do here in about 2 minutes. I hope we take that opportunity and do not simply say that we like what the President is doing and we are all for negotiation and we hope everything goes well. It will be interpreted as stepping back, as weakness. We cannot afford that.

Mr. SANTORUM. With respect to the Biden amendment, I was handed a copy of it a couple minutes ago. But having read it, it is a sense of the Senate. I don't see any reason not to support the Biden amendment. I have no problem with the language. It basically says that we hope for a resolution to the diplomatic efforts under way, a positive resolution with respect to Iran not pursuing nuclear weapons. That is no problem for me. But it doesn't do anything other than say we wish you well. The amendment I have offered is an amendment that is in substance the bill that passed the House of Representatives in April with over 300 votes. At the time it passed, prior to the negotiations that were commenced at the end of May by the administration, as the Senator from Delaware suggested, when it passed in April, the administration opposed it. I suspect, although I will let the Senator from Delaware speak for himself, I know he is not a cosponsor of my bill that is in the Foreign Relations Committee, and, to my knowledge, Senator Lugar has not supported this legislation. The State Department has not supported my legislation. It is not surprising to me that they don't support this amendment. They don't generally support amendments that have to do with sanctions and forcing them to do things they don't want to do. We are a coequal branch of Government, and it is vitally important for us at a critical time--and I agree with the Senator from Delaware on this, this is a critical time. I disagree with him on several things. One of the things on which I disagree with him, I think these negotiations are more important than North Korea. I think the threat of Iran and Islamic fascism is more significant than the threat posed by North Korea. I believe this is a vitally important negotiation. I think it is vitally important during the course of these negotiations to speak to them and to speak in support not only in words but in deeds of what the President is trying to accomplish. The deeds here are very clear. It is twofold. The Senator from Delaware suggested there are not very many good options on the table. The two options on the table, other than military force, are in this amendment. Those two options are to support prodemocracy efforts within Iran, to try to see if we can get a peaceful transformation of that government. The second is to try to dissuade the Iranians from moving forward and dissuade others, companies and countries, from working with them in development of their nuclear weapons program. Those are the options. The President is trying to do it through a diplomatic arrangement. I wish him the very best. But I remind everybody here who is going to vote, this is not going to the President today. It is not going to the President next week. It is not going to the President next month. This is an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. It will be months, I am sure. I would be amazed if we were able to get this done before September or October. This bill is not going to be decided upon, this amendment is not going to be concluded and passed on to the President before these negotiations come to a conclusion. What we do here is put ourselves in a position to have an amendment in conference ready to move if these negotiations do not work. Putting off this amendment is not such an easy thing to do. Putting off this amendment and finding a vehicle to attach it to, particularly over the next few weeks, is not going to be easy to do, as we bring up appropriations bills. So this may be the last vehicle between now and the summer recess in August and potentially the rest of this Congress to debate this issue. It is important for us to speak to this issue now. This is not a radical piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that has 61 cosponsors that passed with over 300 votes in the House of Representatives. It has broad bipartisan support. I understand it is opposed by the Department of State. Senator Warner was kind enough to show the letter that came from the Department suggesting their opposition. I remind all Members, they opposed this bill and have consistently, not just because of these negotiations but have opposed this bill, period. They opposed it when the House passed it in April. So this is nothing new. I suggest that the opportunity we have on the most important national security issue facing this country, the threat of Islamic fascism and the threat of Iran as the principal cog in orchestrating, supporting, financing, and encouraging this type of behavior, is to speak into the moment where we are confronting them right now with our administration in their development of nuclear weapons. For the Congress to remain silent, for the Congress to step back and say: We wish you well, Mr. President, but we are not going to go on record of really supporting you, in deed not just in word, will be interpreted one way, in my opinion, the way words are always interpreted. I think the Senator from Delaware said that this will play into the hardliners in Iran. Let me remind the Senator from Delaware, the hardliners run Iran. The hardliner is the President of Iran. The hardliners are the mullahs who run the country. There are not hardliners and then the governing powers of Iran. The hardliners are the governing powers of Iran. They are the ones making the decision. We are not playing into their hands. We are telling them we are serious, as serious as the President is about doing something about their development of nuclear weapons and their desire and explicit statements about their willingness to use those weapons on the State of Israel and others. This is a very serious debate. This is a very serious vote. This is a very serious message that we either will or will not send. Are we going to send a message to the Iranian hardliners that we are going to stand by our President in word and action and that we are not going to let their talk of maybe possibly down the road potentially coming and talking to us, which is all they are talking about right now, dissuade us from acting while they are acting right now in developing nuclear capability, which they are. They are acting right now. They are developing. They are pursuing. They are saying they are going to use it. All we are going to say is: Well, your talk about maybe talking to us in the future will dissuade us from acting? No, it should not. We should act today. We have 61 cosponsors of this legislation. I hope that all 61 and then some stand by and say to the Iranian hardliners/ government that we will stand with our President in word and deed and make sure that we do everything we can through peaceful means, and that is what this amendment is about, to stop them from getting nuclear weapons. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I would be happy to do so after we have had discussions about how we can dispose of this amendment, absolutely.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I have tremendous respect for my former chairman. I say to the Senator, I served 8 absolutely remarkable and wonderful years on your committee, and got to serve under Senator Thurmond and then your great leadership. I certainly will do everything I can to work with you to make sure we can come to some agreement as to how we can dispose of this amendment, whether it is a vote or whether it is accepted or whatever the case may be. I am certainly not going to push for a vote today if that is not what you desire. But, obviously, this is a very important issue. I remind the chairman there are 61 cosponsors on a similar piece of legislation, and it has very broad support here in this body from both sides of the aisle. It passed, as I said, with well over 300 votes in the House. And this issue is quite timely. So I would be happy to suspend any request for votes until we can negotiate how we would dispose of this amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, what I would certainly say to the chairman is, this is the Defense authorization bill. We will probably be here the remainder of this week and maybe going into next week finishing this bill. Usually, the Defense authorization bill takes months to be able to discern the differences between the two bodies, of which this amendment, pending in this legislation, will be part of that discussion. So I do not anticipate there will be any final resolution to this particular amendment that I am offering until several months. If the President is serious about what the President has said, that they do not have months but weeks, I do not anticipate that anything we do here today will have any impact on the deadline or any of these negotiations. I think what they will do is signal to the Iranians that not only is the House serious about this, but even now that they are engaged potentially in a negotiated settlement, that the Senate is serious about pursuing this if, in fact, the Iranians do not come forward with an agreement. If there is an agreement, we may want to take another look at this. But I do not think any harm is done by passing this legislation and putting us in the conference so if, in fact, things do not go well or if, in fact, we believe--whatever the result is of these negotiations-- that it is important for us to go on record on some of these or all of these things, that we are in a position to produce a bill relatively quickly and send that message.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would say that the developments have been--I would not call them dramatic. I would say they are modest in this respect: they are modest in the sense that the United States, for the first time, has decided to join with other countries in making an offer to Iran. The wisdom of that can be debated. What would be dramatic is if Iran would seriously consider doing what is being suggested, and I don't see any indication they are willing to do so nor do I anticipate their willingness to do so. My concern is--and the President has been very clear about this--that Iran is already jockeying around, seeming to extend the time for consideration and drawing this out, certainly, to their advantage. If you are developing a program, and you are actively pursuing developing a capability, the longer you can stall any action by your adversaries to stop you from doing so, buying that time is of great value to Iran. What we are seeing with this development already, Iranians are trying to buy time. The President has said, and I am not sure the other countries have been quite as firm as the United States has--that they have weeks, not months, to make this decision. However, I have seen no indication that the Iranians are anywhere near accepting this proposal. I will make the argument that this is actually a very good time for the Senate to speak and say we see this as a very serious issue, that we need to at this point speak into this very critical juncture. I would say it is more important now that we have this vote, or more important now that we pass this, to show the Iranians that both Chambers support this President in his desire, our country's desire, a bipartisan desire, to see that Iran does not develop this capability. The Senate going on record, codifying sanctions, increasing sanctions and, the point I did not get a chance to discuss but I will momentarily, funding prodemocracy, authorizing funding for prodemocracy groups, and for more communication, public diplomacy within the country of Iran to communicate to the dissidents within Iran and encourage the dissidents within Iran is exactly the kind of message we want to send if we want to force the Iranians' hand to actually come to the table. I think pulling this back, in my mind, would be seen by the Iranians as a sign that the U.S. Senate does not support this President, does not support getting tough. Because the President has been very clear: If the Iranians do not come to the table here, they are going to seek resolutions at the U.N. to begin the process toward a different way of resolving this dispute--maybe that is the best way to put it--in a way that could be a lot more confrontational. So I think the Senate speaking at this moment is actually critical for us to force the Iranians' hands. I am not particularly hopeful, by the way, that the Iranians will come to the table or will agree to any of the provisions that the groups have laid out. I understand why the President has done so. I do not believe they have any desire to comply. I think it is important for us not to blink. I think this is a moment for us to deal with this issue, to debate it here, and to vote on it or to approve this amendment to send a very clear message to the Iranian Government that we stand four square behind this President and this administration in doing what we can here at this point in time both from the standpoint of sanctions as well as supporting a change of regime from within Iran.

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. President, if I can just finish the explanation of the legislation, I talked about the sanctions portions of this legislation. The final component of the legislation deals with what we call the pro- democracy side. This is very interesting. I introduced this legislation last year. Actually, I introduced it 3 years ago. It provided, at the time we introduced it 3 years ago, $10 million for the pro-democracy component of this. I felt very strongly this was really the key to this legislation. In fact, just meeting a few weeks ago with a student dissident who had recently escaped from Iran, I am even more convinced there is a strong anti-regime movement within Iran. There is a very strong pro-American component of the Iranian population that understands the tremendous effort that our country has put forward in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, like most people around the world, seek self-determination and freedom. It is very important for us to communicate that in unequivocal terms. One of the concerns I have with the diplomatic efforts being taken right now is that we are potentially muddying the waters somewhat with respect to our opinion of the regime in Iran. I want to make it very, very clear that personally that regime is the greatest threat to this country and must be removed. That is how I feel. Now, that is not in this legislation. But that is, to me, one of the highest national security priorities of this country. I think the best way to do that under the current circumstances is to support pro-democracy groups, to support groups that would like to see changes within Iran and peaceful changes. The one gentleman I met with just recently, a couple weeks ago, was very clear about the intention of at least the student movement within Iran to be a peaceful movement, similar to what happened in the old Soviet Union. They believe they can, in fact, rally support. But they need support. They need resources. They need to communicate. One of the things this legislation does is provide not $10 million but $100 million for that purpose. The reason I talk about the difference is that in the interim the President, thankfully, took some of the provisions of the Iran Freedom Support Act, which is the bulk of this amendment that I am proposing today, and proposed that in the emergency supplemental that he sent up and that we will be voting on, in all likelihood, tomorrow. So that money is being appropriated, in this case, before it is being authorized. But this is the authorization, and sets an authorization level of $100 million, which is what the President's request was. Excuse me, the President's request was $75 million. We make it $100 million. So we think this is important to send another strong signal that we support efforts for peaceful change within Iran, that we support those who on the evening of 9/11 stood in the city of Tehran in candlelight vigils in support of Americans. We support the Iranian people who would like to see the oppression end in that country that they have suffered under now for over 25 years. So this is a vitally important component of this authorization, and it is a very important signal to the people of Iran. When I met with that student leader a few weeks ago, he told me how evil this regime was on a personal level, not only with his imprisonment for leading student protests, but also with the current group of students who are, in the eyes of the regime, a great threat to the future of that regime. He talked about how his sister, who is a student at one of the universities in Iran, recently had to sign a document as a condition of attending the university. The document was a commitment to be a suicide bomber. So now every student in colleges within Iran has to sign a document pledging their commitment to be a suicide bomber. In fact, shortly after those documents were signed in every university in Iran, they conducted training courses for the students on how to strap on and detonate a suicide bomb. This is the enemy we are confronting. This is why I think it is important for us to step forward now and have this debate, to step forward now and pass this legislation, to send a signal now, while they are deciding whether to engage the United States and the free world in the pursuit of peaceful nuclear energy as opposed to nuclear warheads. It is important for the Senate to act. This is our moment in history. This is the great threat that faces us. This is the war we are currently engaged in, and this is the principal player on that stage today. We must act. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. April of this year.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is an amendment that I spoke about yesterday and which I wanted to bring to the floor. I think it is a very important one. It is an amendment that is embodied in the bill I introduced last year dealing with Iran. It now has 61 cosponsors. We have had lots of debates on the floor of this Senate. We have not had a debate on what I believe is the greatest foreign policy threat to this country at this time; that is, Iran, what our policies should be toward Iran, and what we as a Congress and the Senate should do with respect to supporting the President's policy or modifying the President's policy with respect to Iran. This legislation which I have introduced as an amendment brings together a couple of pieces of legislation into this one amendment. Before I describe what the amendment is about, let me describe what I believe is the problem that faces us and then lay out a prescription of what Congress can do in the interim to support the process of a diplomatic or peaceful solution to the problem that I am about to describe. It is not a surprise to anyone reading the papers that Iran is in pursuit of a nuclear weapon. They are fairly clear about their desire to gain more nuclear technology. They have been very clear about their desire to enhance their ability to reprocess uranium. It is also clear to observers that they are doing so with the intent of developing nuclear weapons. As a result of that, the United States has been engaged in discussions, both with multinational organizations, as well as with some of our allies who are similarly concerned about this attempt by Iran to develop this type of capability, to get them to cease to do so. We have had attempts by the Russians to get them to rely on them for this technology. We have now seen recent efforts by the United States and a group of countries to approach Iran in multilateral talks about the possibility of getting a different type of nuclear reactor there that does not lead to the potential for development of nuclear weapons. We have seen a whole host of attempts on the part of the world to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of this regime. The question is, Why? What is the great concern about Iran? Why do we have more concerns about them than, say, other countries in the Middle East and in southeast Asia which have, in fact, developed nuclear weapons? The answer to me is obvious, but it is important we lay that out as to what the great threat to this world is if Iran has the nuclear capability they seek to develop. We are fighting a war right now and everyone focuses on the war in Iraq. Certainly that is important and that is the major field of battle right now, but the war in Iraq is part of a broader war. The President described it as a war on terror. I prefer to describe it as a war on Islamic fascism, Islamic extremism. The President has referred to it as Islamic totalitarianism. It is a movement within Islam, within the Middle East, within southeast Asia, but it actually goes beyond the Middle East and southeast Asia that believes in, eventually, the domination of the entire world, the Islamization of the entire world under this rather radical ideology, this fascist ideology. This is not one particular group or one particular faction that is in charge. This is not one group--al-Qaida or Islamic jihad or the nation State of Iran--but it is a mosaic of different organizations, some of which are not necessarily allied with each other but coordinated with each other. We saw that the other day when Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi was killed. We saw Hamas come forward and call this al-Qaida leader a brother in the struggle. These are not organizations, at least from all of our intelligence, that are closely tied, but they have a common theme. Even though they have different views of Islam, they have a general idea of a war, a jihad, against the West and against the infidels, if you will. So we have this mosaic of different organizations, different Islamic fascist organizations. They are commonly called within the media terrorist organizations. Terrorism is just the tactic they use. What ties them together is not just their terrorism but their ideology. Although there are different strains and different ideas, they are tied together in a common theme at a common enemy, more importantly. The largest piece of this mosaic, the dominant piece of this mosaic-- and it is the dominant piece because it happens to be the biggest piece with the biggest wallet, the most resources--is Iran. The mosaic is a big mosaic, but the major piece which tends to touch all of the other pieces in one way or another is Iran. Iran not only supports these organizations--some of them very directly, others very indirectly--but it is itself a threat to the world. How do we understand what this threat is to America? We only need to look at the new leader of the country: Ahmadinejad is the new President. To Americans, the President is the leader of the country. In Iran, the President is an important position but traditionally has not been the most important position within the country of Iran. However, it seems to be that Ahmadinejad has taken that position to a new level because of his support from the ruling clerics within the country. As we know, this is a country ruled by these clerics, these mullahs. And the lead mullah is a spiritual adviser to Ahmadinejad, a supporter of his. He has been very forthright about what his design is. He has been very forthright. He has stated publicly that he would like to wipe out Israel off the face of the Earth. This is a leader of a country that is trying to develop nuclear weapons, that has the resources and the capability if not stopped to do so, that has been very clear about its desire to use these weapons to eliminate the State of Israel. He has also made a lot of other comments that would lead one to believe he does not want to stop there with respect to his designs on the war against the ``infidels.'' So we have in the person of this President a character that has the resources, is developing the technology, has the desire, and wants to use this capability if it was developed, and has said so publicly, repeatedly. That is a pretty serious threat. In fact, I can think of no other threat that is more serious than that. This man and this country is actively pursuing the development of these weapons. I don't know of anyone in the world who does not believe that is what Iran is doing. The Senate has, so far, not taken any action to try to deter that development, to try to change the political dynamic within Iran. Obviously, we have not taken any action to pursue any military force to stop them from doing so. These are our three options, the way I see it: to get some sort of political dynamic going on within the country to change the regime; to impose sanctions or to get collaboration with other governments to stop them from developing these weapons; or, third, a military option. I don't think we are prepared at this point to offer a military option, but with this amendment I am offering the other two. I am offering an amendment that will both support and codify Executive Order sanctions already in place against Iran; impose additional sanctions, not on Iran but on other entities that are doing business with Iran; and then try to impose a prohibition on importing into this country nuclear fuel assemblies made outside of this country if they do business with Iran. Companies have to make a choice whether they want to do business with Iran or whether they want to do business with the United States. That is the sanctions part of it. So we need to enact these provisions because a lot of what is in place right now is done through Executive Orders. Part of the amendment directs the President to cut off foreign assistance to the host country of a company investing more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector; allow the President to waive that under certain circumstances--and, by the way, that is a prospective investment. It is very important we send a signal to companies and countries that if they are going to continue to support this development within Iran, there are consequences to the country and to the company for continuing to do that. There are a variety of different sanctions we place in this legislation. By the way, the sanctions portion of this legislation has already passed the House of Representatives. It passed by a vote of over 300 votes in the House--well over 300 votes in the House. So the House has already spoken on this issue, has already said we want to codify the sanctions that are in place. We want to impose new sanctions on companies and countries that do business with Iran, particularly in their energy sector, and we want to make companies choose between doing business in the United States with respect to the nuclear program versus Iran and the nuclear program.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation requiring the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to conduct a study evaluating a pristine area in the northeastern part of Pennsylvania, called Cherry Valley, for its potential designation as a national wildlife refuge. Known for its unspoiled wetlands and riparian forests, Cherry Valley provides an important habitat for one of the largest known populations of the threatened bog turtle, as well as for a plethora of endangered and rare species. Also, due to its location along the Kittatinny Ridge Migration Corridor, Cherry Valley is centrally located along an important migration route for eagles and the broad-winged hawk. Recognized as an environmental treasure by local officials and residents, there is widespread support for Cherry Valley's designation as a wildlife refuge. Some landowners have, however, expressed private property concerns with the proposed designation. It is my hope that by requiring a study, during which the Secretary must consult with landowners and other interested parties, we can fully understand the value of the Cherry Valley area, as well as address any concerns landowners may have. Representative Paul Kanjorski introduced similar legislation in the House. I ask for the support of my colleagues in authorizing this study to determine whether beautiful Cherry Valley should be preserved and designated a national wildlife refuge.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation requiring the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to conduct a study evaluating a pristine area in the northeastern part of Pennsylvania, called Cherry Valley, for its potential designation as a national wildlife refuge. Known for its unspoiled wetlands and riparian forests, Cherry Valley provides an important habitat for one of the largest known populations of the threatened bog turtle, as well as for a plethora of endangered and rare species. Also, due to its location along the Kittatinny Ridge Migration Corridor, Cherry Valley is centrally located along an important migration route for eagles and the broad-winged hawk. Recognized as an environmental treasure by local officials and residents, there is widespread support for Cherry Valley's designation as a wildlife refuge. Some landowners have, however, expressed private property concerns with the proposed designation. It is my hope that by requiring a study, during which the Secretary must consult with landowners and other interested parties, we can fully understand the value of the Cherry Valley area, as well as address any concerns landowners may have. Representative Paul Kanjorski introduced similar legislation in the House. I ask for the support of my colleagues in authorizing this study to determine whether beautiful Cherry Valley should be preserved and designated a national wildlife refuge.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Catholic Charities case in Boston, just 2 years after the introduction of same-sex marriage in America, highlights the growing concerns and indicates that the impact of this development on religious freedom has ceased to be a hypothetical discussion. As Maggie Gallagher wrote in her Weekly Standard piece ``Banned in Boston,'' ``[w]hen religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought . . . [and that the] First Amendment . . . will protect religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage.'' So who is right? Is the fate of Catholic Charities of Boston an aberration or a sign of things to come? Some say we are overreacting, but the truth is that while the ramifications in the battle for social policy, procreation, and even protecting children may be clear, the real--but hidden--battlelines are for the religious liberty of all faiths. Recently the Becket Fund convened a group of scholars to discuss the implications of same-sex marriage on religious liberty. This group was from all parts of the political spectrum and had varying viewpoints, but all agreed on one thing--the legalization of same-sex marriage posed a real threat to the free exercise of religion. As I mentioned before, one of the participants, Maggie Gallagher, went on to write a prescient account of the participants' views on this issue, and I admit it was disturbing to read. In times past, it would have been unthinkable for a Christian or Jewish organization that was opposed to same-sex marriage to be treated as racists or bigots. But today the unthinkable may have become the inevitable. As Anthony Picarello summarizes, ``All the scholars we got together see a problem; they all see a conflict coming. They differ on how it should be resolved and who should win, but they all see a conflict coming.'' Why? Because of cases like that of Catholic Charities in Boston. As I discussed a little bit on the floor yesterday before I ran out of time, Catholic Charities in Boston has been the adoption provider in Massachusetts for many of the hardest to place children, including children with special needs. Following the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, the Boston Globe reported that Catholic Charities of Boston had placed a small number of children with same-sex couples. Cardinal O'Malley of Boston responded that Catholic Charities would adhere to the Vatican statement prohibiting such placements in the future. That produced a hubbub with the Catholic Charities Board that was later quelled, but if Catholic Charities thought that was the end of the issue it was wrong. Like many States, Massachusetts requires that an entity be ``licensed'' by the State in order to do adoptions. And to get the State license, the entity must agree to obey State laws barring discrimination--including in Massachusetts the prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, discrimination against same- sex couples was also prohibited. These requirements juxtaposed with Catholic doctrine put the Catholic Church-affiliated Catholic Charities into a bind--one that legislatures, including this one, have often solved by allowing faith-based and religious organizations to maintain their integrity. Knowing that, Cardinal O'Malley and Governor Romney tried to get a religious exemption for Catholic Charities from the Massachusetts legislature. The silence from the politicians in that State was deafening. Without that protection, the bottom line is that the legislators in Massachusetts chose to put Catholic Charities out of the adoption business. Some say that the rightwing is pushing to pass this amendment, but I take you back to the scholars from the Becket Fund conference. Marc Stern, the general counsel for the center-left American Jewish Congress can hardly be called a rightwinger, but when asked what he would say to people who dismiss the threat to free exercise of religion as evangelical hysteria his quote was--``It's not hysteria, this is very real . . . Boston Catholic Charities shows that.'' He went on to say that ``in Massachusetts I'd be very worried.'' Stern noted that while the churches themselves might have a first amendment defense if a State government or State courts tried to withdraw their exemption, ``the parachurch institutions [affiliated organizations such as Catholic Charities and United Jewish Communities] are very much at risk and may be put out of business because of the licensing issues, or for these other reasons--it's very unclear. None of us nonprofits can function without [state] tax exemption. As a practical matter, any large charity needs that real estate tax exemption.'' Anthony Picarello of the Becket Fund sounded a more ominous note, that this change could fundamentally alter our view of religious liberty. ``The impact will be severe and pervasive,'' Picarello says flatly. ``This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations.'' Recent years, he predicts, will be looked back on as a time of relative peace between church and state, one where people had the luxury of litigating cases about things like the Ten Commandments in courthouses.'' Picarello points out something I discussed yesterday--that the church is surrounded on all sides by the government, and often the boundaries are hidden because of the ease with which they are navigated. However, as he notes, ``because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter.'' But not all of these scholars agree on the intensity or imminence of these consequences. Doug Kmiec of Pepperdine law school argued that the public could tell the difference between racial discrimination and the differentiation of traditional and same- sex marriage, saying that racial discrimination is ``irrational, and morally repugnant'' and the issue of same-sex marriage is ``at least morally debatable.'' Doug Laycock, a religious liberty expert at the University of Texas law school, noted that the legal situation is a long way away from equating sexual orientation with race in the law. However, Stern and Feldblurn were much more clear on the coming legal issues that religious organizations will face in the wake of same-sex marriage. And it is that distinction that is important--if sexual orientation is like race, then anyone, religious or otherwise, who opposes same-sex marriage will be viewed as and likely treated in the same way as the bigots who opposed interracial marriage. It is the political pressure-- and in some cases the legal pressure--that will ``punish'' those of differing opinions. For Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown law professor who refers to herself as a leader in the movement to advance LGBT--lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual--rights, the emerging conflicts between free exercise of religion and sexual liberty are real. ``''When we pass a law that says you may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, we are burdening those who have an alternative moral assessment of gay men and lesbians.'' Raised an Orthodox Jew, Feldblum argues that ``the need to protect the dignity of gay people will justify burdening religious belief, [b]ut that does not make it right to pretend these burdens do not exist in the first place, or that the religious people the law is burdening don't matter.'' What effects could this ``sea change'' have on religious liberty? Let's consider a few examples. A religious educational institution could have its admissions policies, employment practices, housing rules, and regulation of clubs challenged. For example, Marc Stern is concerned about a California case where a private Christian high school expelled two girls who according to the school announced they were in a lesbian relationship. Will the schools be forced to tolerate both conduct and proclamations by students they believe to be acting in a sinful manner? Public accommodation laws can be used to force commercial enterprises to serve all comers, which begs the question of whether religious camps, retreats, or homeless shelters are considered places of public accommodation. Could a religious summer camp operated in strict conformity with religious principles refuse to accept children coming from same-sex marriages? What of a church-affiliated community center, with a gym and a Little League, that offers family programs? Must a religious-affiliated family services provider offer marriage counseling to same-sex couples designed to facilitate or preserve their relationships? Licensing issues will continue to be a bone of contention in not only adoption but psychological clinics, social workers, and marital counselors. We had to face this issue already in the Access to Recovery Program where program administrators were interpreting language in a way that sought to penalize faith-based providers such as Teen Challenge. And there are probably a plethora of other areas of friction that will emerge. Will speech against same-sex marriage be allowed to continue unfettered? Will anyone be able to again say that marriage should be between a man and a woman without being branded a bigot? Will a minister be able to preach from I Corinthians 6:9 that the unjust and immoral such as adulterers, prostitutes and sodomites will not inherit the earth? Will our local Catholic Charities lose their tax-exempt status if they do not bend their religious faith to the new norm? Will a rabbi or priest be forced to preside over same-sex marriages in order to continue to be able to consecrate traditional marriages? The scope of the ramifications of this debate are unclear, but there is no doubt that very serious issues arise. As Maggie Gallagher noted in her article, ``Marc Stern is looking more and more like a reluctant prophet: `It's going to be a train wreck,' he said `A very dangerous train wreck.' '' I urge my colleagues to think carefully about the implications of doing nothing to protect the sanctity of marriage. If we do not act, then not only are we leaving this important issue in the hands of unelected judges, we are leaving the fate of all of these faith-based organizations in their hands as well. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Let's move forward in the democratic process and let the people decide. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Product Safety, and Insurance be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 6, 2006, at 10 a.m. on Compliance with All-Terrain Vehicle Standards.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Tuesday, June 6, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226. The agenda will be provided when it becomes available. Matters Discussion of the possibility of subpoenas and a closed session for a Telecom/NSA Information Sharing hearing.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Examining DOJ's Investigation of Journalists Who Publish Classified Information: Lessons from the Jack Anderson Case'' on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226. Witness list Panel I: Matthew Friedrich, Chief of Staff for the Criminal Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Panel II: Rodney Smolla, Dean and Professor, University of Richmond School of Law, Richmond, VA; Gabriel Schoenfeld, Senior Editor, Commentary, New York, NY; Kevin N. Anderson, Fabian & Clendenin, Salt Lake City, UT; Mark Feldstein, Director of Journalism Program and Associate Professor of Media and Public Affairs, School of Media and Public Affairs, George Washington University, Washington, DC.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM

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