Floor Statements

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. 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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I thank and congratulate the Senator from Colorado for his terrific work on this issue, as well as the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, for his great work in the committee in moving this constitutional amendment forward.

This is a very difficult debate for a lot of people. It is very hard, sort of sad in some respects, that we are here talking about the issue of marriage, that talking about marriage is somehow a difficult debate. But it is for a lot of people. I know in many meetings of our colleagues when the issue of marriage comes up, heads drop. It is an issue that people feel uncomfortable talking about, something that maybe in some respects they feel like, Why is this even an issue?

That is a good question. Why is it an issue? I will talk about that in a minute.

There is a foundational question I would like to talk about that up until a couple of days ago I was not planning to talk about, which is, Why are we doing this now? This is the big buzz in the media. Oh, this is being brought up for political purposes; and this is all about politics and has nothing to do with the substance of the matter, and the media--which loves to pawn off issues and give spin to issues--has adopted this approach.

As Senator Allard would affirm, we have been considering now for several months what the best timing would be to bring this legislation up. We had a very forceful voice being heard from the American public. In fact, there is a chart of all the States that approved constitutional amendments in the last election of 2004. We are now up to 19 States in the country that have spoken; the people have spoken in those States.

There was a lot of momentum coming out of the 2004 election, so when we reconvened in 2005 we thought maybe this was a good time to bring it up, now that we have just had an election. We thought, in looking at this, it would be better if we had more court activity between the election and when we bring this amendment up. That, really, the issue is, as we have heard repeatedly in the Senate, we are trying to bring about a decision on marriage in this country through a democratic process.

I can't think of anything more democratic involving more people than a constitutional amendment. It takes two-thirds of this House, two- thirds of the other House and three- quarters of the States; 38 States have to ratify this amendment. Talk about a public debate where there is huge public input across America. The constitutional amendment is the way to do it. It is the most democratic way of making a decision on anything in this country.

We thought it would be a good juxtaposition to see further court erosion, further decisions made by courts to erode the public's will on the issue of marriage. I say the ``public's will'' only because we have 19 States and many others that have said what there really is with respect to marriage. So we are debating, almost month to month, and we have had conversations, Is this the right time?

We had a Nebraska decision which has been talked about where a Federal court overturned the State constitutional amendment in the State of Nebraska. There was a case in Washington State. Washington State is an interesting State because, unlike Massachusetts, there is no residency requirement for marriage. Any couple from anywhere in the country can go to Washington and get married if the Supreme Court of Washington were to overturn their statute. Washington so far has not issued their opinion. They have had the case for 15 months and for some reason or another they have not decided to decide. We were waiting, trying to see if this was an appropriate time.

Last year we decided that we were not going to wait around for courts and we set this date for the first of June. That is why we are here today--not for any political reason. If it was purely politics, we would be debating this in September. We are debating it in June because we thought we would have 3 or 4 days as opposed to being compressed to 1 day in September. So we are here to give this the proper attention this vitally important issue deserves.

The other question that I did want to talk about is, How did we get here, not why are we doing it now, but how did this issue come about? There were a couple of States that were playing around with this issue for a while--Vermont and Hawaii. But the issue really got jump-started with the court decision--not surprisingly, a big court decision--the court decision that occurred in Washington with the United States Supreme Court is the Lawrence v. Texas case.

Lawrence v. Texas opened the floodgates for a variety of different litigation going across this country using, now, a constitutional right established by the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence. It was a seminal decision, there is no question about it.

We have a classic example of the U.S. Court forcing its will on establishing a right and then giving other courts the right or the ability to then project its power on to the people, to make decisions and force decisions, force legislation, as in the case of Massachusetts, onto the people.

I want to talk about that decision because I think it is important, but I want to talk about the decision before that. Just a few years ago, 15 years before Lawrence v. Texas was decided, a similar case was decided, Bowers v. Hardwick. I want to take a look at Justice White who wrote for the majority in Bowers, saying sodomy laws were constitutional, that moral laws passed by the States dealing with sexuality were, in fact, constitutional. There was no constitutional right that barred States and the public from regulating in this area. He said:

The right pressed upon us here [this is what the litigants

in the Bowers case were

arguing] has no similar support in the text of the

Constitution, it does not qualify for recognition under the

prevailing principles for construing the 14th amendment. Its

limits are also difficult to discern . . .

This limit of consensual sexual activity being a constitutional right which was made by the litigants, saying we have the right as individual adults under the Constitution to any kind of sexual behavior that we desire and the State cannot limit us.

He said:

Its limits were difficult to discern . . . And if

respondent's submission is limited to the voluntary sexual

conduct between consenting adults, it would be difficult,

except by fiat, to limit the claimed right to homosexual

conduct while leaving exposed to prosecution adultery,

incest, and other sexual crimes even though they are

committed in the home. We are unwilling start down that road.

What the Court said here was that if you open up the standard, the legal standard, if you change it for a constitutionally protected activity from that activity within marriage to that activity between consenting adults--and that was the decision here, change the standard from a Constitution that protects the marital union from State intrusion to consenting adults with respect to homosexual activity--in this case, the Court said: No, we can't go there. Because only by fiat could we then limit other activity beyond that.

Let's fast forward to shortly before the Lawrence v. Texas decision.

If . . . you have the right to consensual sex within your

home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right

to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right

to adultery. You have the right to do anything.

That comment has been reprinted probably 100,000 times in the last few years as an outrageous comment made by a U.S. Senator. It was the same comment that was made by Justice White in the majority opinion.

Let's fast forward a few months after that, Justice Scalia in the dissenting opinion in the Lawrence v. Texas case:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest,

prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication,

bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in

light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices.

Every single one of these laws is called into question by

today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the

scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.

What he is saying is that now that road which Justice White and the Court back in 1986 refused to go down, this Court in Lawrence v. Texas had headed us down that road.

Justice Scalia went on to say:

Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional

law that has permitted a distinction to be made between

heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal

recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation

of homosexual conduct is ``no legitimate state interest'' for

purposes of proscribing that conduct; and if, as the Court

coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), ``[w]hen

sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with

another person, the conduct can be but one element in a

personal bond that is more enduring,'' what justification

could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage

to homosexual couples exercising ``[t]he liberty protected by

the Constitution.'' Surely not the encouragement of

procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to

marry. The case ``does not involve'' the issue of homosexual

marriage only if one--

And they are quoting the majority opinion again because the majority opinion said this doesn't deal with marriage, Scalia says this case does not involve the issue of homosexual marriage--

entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing

to do with the decisions of this Court.

The fact is, principle and logic have everything to do with judicial decisions. That is the problem with them. That is why they are different from legislative decisions. You see, when a court makes a judicial decision, they do so based on a judicial foundation that has a logical and rational basis to it and logical consequences. The logical consequence to the Lawrence v. Texas case is the next case, not a Supreme Court case before the U.S. Supreme Court but before involving Massachusetts.

What Massachusetts did was the logical thing from Lawrence v. Texas. In fact, they cite Lawrence v. Texas 5 times in the main opinion and 11 times in the combined majority opinions. It is the basis upon which they build their decision. Because unlike the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas which says this has nothing to do with marriage, it had everything to do with marriage.

The interesting thing about the Lawrence v. Texas decision--and this goes even more to judicial activism--they could have decided the Lawrence v. Texas decision for the plaintiffs in that decision. They could have found that statute unconstitutional. And in fact, had they done so--and in fact, they did in part of their opinion; they found it unconstitutional under equal protection grounds--had they limited their opinion to that, I would have agreed with the decision. I think the Texas statute probably was unconstitutional under equal protection grounds. And so when they started the decision out and they said: This is unconstitutional because of equal protection, I said that is right.

Here is what the court did and, unfortunately, what courts increasingly do. While we are here, we are going to establish a new constitutional right. While we are here, since we have the opportunity, since this case is before us, we are going to be activist jurists, and we are going to create a whole new body of law that will have huge ripples throughout society. So they did. They didn't have to, but they did. We are now debating this amendment because of it. They have this ripple effect which we are seeing throughout courts throughout the country, Federal as well as State.

Here in the Goodrich decision, it says:

It is clear from the quote below that the Goodrich decision

was considered the ``logical next step.''

Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a

charter of governance for every person properly within its

reach. ``Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not

a mandate of our own moral code.''

There they were quoting Lawrence v. Texas. It went on to note that the Lawrence case ``specifically affirmed that the core concept of common human dignity protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes government intrusion into the deeply personal realms of consensual adult expressions of intimacy and one's choice of an intimate partner. The Court also reaffirmed the central role that decisions whether to marry or have children bear in shaping one's identity.''

The ``logical next step,'' so the Goodrich decision is very much in conformity with the Lawrence v. Texas decision. That is why we are here. We are here because of judicial activism.

Our plea to the Members of the Senate is to allow the people to make the decision with respect to this foundational institution of our country--the traditional family, marriage--that courts who just happen to be deciding a case that didn't need them to decide it this way or use this logic or rationale, that courts just can't decide that they want to involve themselves into legislative affairs and send shock waves throughout our culture without the public having a right to say something, without the public having a right to put their stamp of approval on what is moral and just.

Some have said that the States can handle this. Some have said this is a federalist issue; We should not have Federal legislation on this; This is usurping States rights.

I don't know what involves the States more than having every State legislature in the country debate this issue. That is not usurping States rights; that is placing in the hands of the States the decision as to whether to move forward. Thirty-eight of the fifty States have to affirm this constitutional amendment. This is not an easy thing to do. That is why we don't have very many amendments to the Constitution. But it is a purely democratic process, just like the debate in the Senate. I think we should give the States, the people, the right to make this decision before a group of unelected judges, following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court, do it for us.

First and foremost, this constitutional amendment is about democracy. It is about the people expressing their will on potentially the greatest moral issue of our time, and that is the integrity of the traditional family. That is issue No. 1.

Issue No. 2 is an important one, also. I heard the Senator from Kansas talk about this eloquently, so I won't spend

a lot of time. He did as good a job as any on the issue. That is the impact of the deconstruction of marriage on society. I heard the Senator from Kansas say that marriage is already in trouble in America. There is certainly little to argue that that is not true. It is true, marriage is in trouble. But I agree with him by saying just because something is in trouble doesn't mean you need to get rid of it altogether. Without question, once you change marriage from an institution whose societal purpose is focused on having children, being an institution that is the best place to rear future generations of society, once you change marriage from being principally about children, although not exclusively, certainly, but principally about children, to exclusively about adults, then you change marriage forever.

We did that in part 30-plus years ago with no-fault divorce laws. When they came into place, they said children will be helped by this. There will be fewer unhappy homes. I don't think there is a whole lot of evidence out there that would suggest children have been helped by the rapid increase in divorce. I know the Senator from Kansas had some charts up of how children in two-parent families don't end up in poverty as much, do better in school. I don't know of a social indicator out there that doesn't suggest that being in a married home is not more beneficial for children. That is certainly not to say that children raised in single-parent homes can't and don't do well. Most do. But the point is, society should be advocating for what is best for children and should set a standard for what is best.

We know what is best. We know it intrinsically, but we have supporting evidence as to what is best for children--less substance abuse, less abuse or neglect, less criminal activity, less early sexual activity, fewer out-of-wedlock births, fewer behavioral problems. It goes on and on. We know marriage is inherently good for children.

We also know that when we destroy marriage, when we deconstruct marriage, bad things happen. We saw that with no-fault divorce. More people got divorced. We changed the definition of marriage, and we say marriage is no longer about children, no longer about the next generation. Marriage is simply the affirmation of affection of two adults. Or, as Justices Scalia and White suggested, why limit it there. Why not, as we see in cases now being filed all over the country, why not three adults, four adults, five adults? What is the difference from the standpoint of a rationale? If marriage is not about one man and one woman for the purpose of a relationship of which to have children and continue society, if it is about two women and two men or two women and three men, why not whatever arrangement? If gender does not matter anymore, why does number matter? What is the significance? What is the logical argument to draw the line here? As Justice White said, it would be by fiat to draw the line.

So we have a situation where without question, marriage would be undermined by this deconstruction. In fact, we see it. I have an article by Stanley Kurtz on what is going on in Europe, in countries that have, in fact, changed the definition of marriage. Those countries are now seeing dramatic declines in the number of marriages, not increases in the numbers of same-sex marriages but declines in the number of heterosexual marriages and dramatic and steady increases in the number of children being born out of wedlock.

I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. President, the final point I want to make--and I will try to come back to the floor when I have more time--is regarding the impact of this movement in the country by the courts on religious freedom. There was an article written, which was on the front cover of the Weekly Standard, called ``Banned in Boston,'' where Maggie Gallagher talks about Catholic Charities in Boston having to get out of the adoption business because they will not consent, under their Catholic orthodox faith, to place children into same-sex couple homes. It is against the Catholic faith to do so. There is a very clear message from Rome that this is not proper behavior. They were refused their license, and now one of the longest standing adoption agencies in Massachusetts no longer places children for adoption. Why? Because all around faith, all around churches and parachurch organizations, and missionary organizations is, whether we like it or not, the Government.

When the Government comes down with things that are contrary to that faith group there will be friction.

In fact, Mark Stern, who is a lawyer for the American Jewish Committee, is quoted as saying:

It is going to be a train wreck, a very dangerous train

wreck.

So not only will this new right that the court has established in the follow-on--the right of same-sex marriage--going to cause problems with democracy and problems with marriage, it is going to create huge problems for our faith-based organizations. It is something that we need to address. Thank you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

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. 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.

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

Mr. President, the Senate is scheduled to vote today on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. With thousands of illegal immigrants rushing across our borders every day, straining every sector of our society, congressional attention to this issue is appropriate and overdue. Unfortunately, S. 2611 is not the right way to reform our immigration system.

As the son of an Italian immigrant who came to the United States in 1930, I understand the important and valuable contributions immigrants have made and continue to make to our country. I have great respect for those who have legally come to our Nation seeking a better life for their families, just as my grandfather and father did.

However, as the Senate comes to a vote on S. 2611, I firmly believe that the rule of law and our safety and security must be given by importance. Who is traveling across our borders and why they are doing so is as important as any issue we currently face. It is a complicated issue, with far-reaching implications that will impact our national security, our economy, and our culture.

Securing our borders is and must be our first priority. It is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. An immigration policy that does not control who is entering our Nation is not an immigration policy at all. The best way we can do this is by strengthening and supporting our Border Patrol, both through greater numbers and technological advancements. To this end, I cosponsored and voted for a successful amendment that authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to construct 370 miles of triple-layer fence and 500 miles of vehicle barriers at strategic locations along our southern border.

I also cosponsored the Ensign amendment which provides reimbursement for the temporary use of the National Guard to secure the southern border of the United States. With the approval of the Secretary of Defense, the Governor of any State may order the use of the National Guard for not more than 21 days in a year to provide ``command, control and continuity of support'' such as ground and airborne reconnaissance, logistical, tactical, and administrative support, communications services, and emergency medical services. I was pleased to see both of these amendments pass as they are solid first steps towards border security.

But the reason I voted against cloture and why I simply cannot vote for this bill is that it gives amnesty to the immigrants who came to this country illegally. I believe those who have entered this country illegally must return to their native land and move through the legal process just like everyone else. The idea that those who have been here illegally for an arbitrary number of years--a number that is, frankly, undeterminable as their time here is by nature undocumented--should be able to stay in America simply by paying back taxes is an insult to all those who have waited, patiently and lawfully, for their chance to come here and pursue the American dream.

There were many opportunities to fix this throughout Senate debate, but I am afraid many of my colleagues have not truly heard the call of their constituents to oppose amnesty. I was disappointed that 58 of my colleagues rejected a reasonable amendment offered by Senators Kyl and Cornyn to ensure that the temporary worker program was actually temporary and not a shortcut to legalization or citizenship. I also voted against the Feinstein amendment earlier this week which would have given all illegal immigrants in the United States a path to citizenship without having to leave the country.

I cannot support an amnesty proposal now because amnesty has failed in the past. In 1986, Congress attempted to address this same issue, though on a much smaller scale. Estimates of the size of the illegal- immigrant population in the United States in 1986 placed the total number close to 1 million; today we are dealing with around 12 million. If providing amnesty to 1 million illegal immigrants yielded 12 million over the course of 20 years, with how many additional millions will we be burdened in 2026 by offering amnesty now?

But this is not the only way S. 2611 rewards illegal immigrants. I cosponsored an amendment offered by Senator John Ensign that would ensure illegal immigrants have a valid Social Security number before they can accumulate credit to qualify for Social Security. This amendment was intended to reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity. In other words, this prevents illegal immigrants from getting Social Security benefits based on their illegal work history, often with an invalid number. Unfortunately, a majority of my colleagues voted to kill this amendment. By doing so, the Senate has rewarded illegal immigrants by putting our current elderly beneficiaries, who paid into the Social Security system for decades in order to collect the benefits they receive today, further at risk in an already stretched system.

I would like to speak briefly on an amendment offered by Senator Sessions that would prohibit aliens unlawfully present in the United States with a green card from the H-2C visa program from claiming the earned income tax credit, EITC, when filing annual tax returns. This amendment has good intentions, but I reluctantly must oppose it. The cost of EITC for the illegal-turned-legal population is steep. However, this amendment goes further than I am comfortable with by treating these resident aliens different from others. In my mind, a better option is another amendment offered by Senator Ensign that would limit illegal aliens from any kind of tax refund or an EITC claim on back taxes for the time that they were here illegally. I believe this amendment strikes the right balance.

America is a nation of immigrants, a nation that derives much of our strength from those who come here to live the american dream. But the immigrants who have contributed so much to the character of our Nation came here legally. We devalue their sacrifices and hardships if we fail to ask the same of today's immigrants. This bill does not do that. It rewards illegal behavior, threatens our social welfare system, devalues the legal immigration process, and provides amnesty to illegal immigrants. I will vote against S. 2611, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I congratulate my cosponsor, Senator Mikulski, for the excellent work we did as a team on this amendment. It took a long time to work this through the process, but we are very pleased today this amendment will be accepted.

Mr. President, when a country is a staunch defense ally and partner in the war on terror, they should have the opportunity to participate in the Visa Waiver Program on a probationary basis while they work to come into full compliance. I previously introduced and called up a similar amendment, No. 3214, cosponsored by Senator Mikulski. After consultation with the Judiciary Committee and the Department of State, this modified version seeks to address some of the concerns that have been raised.

I believe it is time that we allow average citizens from our allies in the war on terror to come to the U.S. for weddings, birthdays and funerals without the arbitrary determination of an embassy bureaucrat. This amendment provides an opportunity--just an opportunity--for our allies to allow their citizens to visit here for average events that we all take for granted. It does not provide an open-ended opportunity, just a 2-year window.

Any country that meets the probationary criteria then must come into full compliance within 2 years--if not, they are terminated from the program. This amendment also addressed a particular concern related to certain countries with a Cold War history where even in the post-Cold War era is held accountable for decades-old problems. This provision ensures that overstay and refusal rates are based on current issues after the country's admission into the European Union, and not its past history.

Finally, the amendment provides a one-time option to the Secretary of State to extend a country's probationary status under certain specific criteria. After researching countries that could meet the criteria of the amendment, my staff indicates that the only country currently meeting the eligibility requirements is Poland.

Poland has been a strong ally to the United States at a critical time in history. Poland was a staunch ally to the U.S. in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Poland has committed up to 2,300 soldiers to help with ongoing peace efforts in Iraq, and currently assumes command of the Multi- National Division--MND--Central South in Iraq. Poland demonstrated its commitment to global security by becoming a member of NATO. Poland also just recently became a member of the EU. And in 1991, Poland unilaterally repealed the visa requirement for U.S. citizens traveling to Poland for less than 90 days. Today, more than 100,000 Polish citizens travel to the United States annually.

On February 10, 2005, I introduced S. 348 designating Poland as a visa waiver country, with Senator Mikulski. This bill designates Poland as a visa waiver country. Under this amendment, Polish citizens visiting the U.S. within a 90-day period would not need to apply for a visa. Representative Nancy Johnson introduced identical legislation March 8, 2005 in the House, H.R. 635. Cosponsors of the bill are Representatives Crowley, Jackson-Lee, Hart, LaHood, Shimkus, Lipinski and Weiner.

I wrote a letter on February 9, 2005 to Secretary of State Rice urging the State Department's support for this legislation. Following up on that letter, I had conversations with Secretary Rice in the Spring of 2005. Then in February 2006, I again wrote to Deputy Secretary Zoellick urging his support for this legislation and offering to address any concerns the State Department may have. To date, and despite my staffs continued outreach, they have failed to take us up on the offer.

So instead of working for a compromise, we continue not to move forward on a bill to support the allies that have supported us. On August 31, 2005 Poland celebrated the 25th anniversary of the 1980 shipyard strikes in Gdansk and the creation of the Solidarity Trade Union. I was an original cosponsor of the Senate-passed resolution. The Senate passed a resolution commemorating this anniversary. I had the incredible privilege of meeting with Lech Walesa in October 2004 upon introduction of my bill designating Poland as a member country of the Visa Waiver Program. He is ``the symbol of the solidarity movement.'' Since the demise of communism, Poland has become a stable, democratic nation. Poland has adopted economic policies that promote free markets and economic growth.

When President Bush and then-Polish President Kwasniewski met in February 2005, they affirmed the goal of Poland entering the Visa Waiver Program--VMP, and agreed to a ``roadmap'' of mutual steps to advance this goal in conformity with U.S. legislative criteria. Through pressure from Congress and advocacy groups this issue has been advanced further than ever before, making this ``road map'' possible. Although the State Department has assured me it is working hard to implement a ``clean slate'' so immigration violations before 1989 will not render them ineligible for a U.S. visa, we know that a key element will be the 2006 review of visa overstay rates based on new 2005 data from Poland's first year in the EU. Another part of the agreement includes the U.S. working with Poland to meet the visa waiver requirements, particularly with regard to refusal and overstay rates, and exploring the provision of technical assistance to bring Poland's passports in compliance. I hope the cooperation that has begun will continue in earnest to ensure that Poland comes into full compliance in the 2-year window under this provision.

The current roadmap is a step in the right direction, but it continues to move at a very slow pace. We can and should do more for those that have stepped up to the plate and been incredible allies in the war on terror. Today, as we consider who should be allowed to immigrate to our country and how, we are focused on how to ensure security and the rule flaw for those that have come into our country illegally. For a moment I propose to turn the discussion to how to help those who have stood with us--indeed those who have fought and died with us--a preferred legal way to obtain a visa to come to this country.

I am here to stand with the Polish people in asking each of you to support bringing Poland into the Visa Waiver Program. Why is it that countries such as Brunei, Liechtenstein and San Marino are in the Visa Waiver Program, but not Poland or other allies in the war on terror? Polish troops have fought alongside American and British and Australian troops from day one of the war in Iraq. Just like Congress did in 1996 when it legislatively brought Ireland in as a full participant in the Visa Waiver Program, it is time for us to take a stand and support our allies in the war on terror.

As a country, we look forward to continuing our strong friendship with Poland and its new President Lech Kaczynski. Is this then a country that we don't want to allow its citizens to come to this country? Is this a country we want to say ``thanks for your help'' but we won't help your citizens come to the U.S.? I think there is a better course of action. Colleagues, this is an to opportunity for us to strengthen that relationship in a real and substantial way. Open a pathway for those that have supported us to come visit our country. In that way--in this small way--we can reach back the hand of an ally that has reached out to help us in the War on Terror. I urge my colleagues to support the Santorum-Mikulski-Frist amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, I am happy to be here in strong support of a bill that I guess I was somewhat responsible for in giving its title to: the Tax Increase Prevention Act. We first called this a jobs or growth package or something such as that, but that is not what it is. Taxes are going to go up if we don't extend these provisions to allow people to keep more of their own money, to not have the alternative minimum tax kick in that is going to affect over 350,000 taxpayers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. They will have to start paying the alternative minimum tax. As an AMT payer myself, I can tell you: You don't want to pay this tax. This isn't fair for increasingly average-income people who, if we don't fix it today, will now be thrown into this alternative minimum tax situation which will cost them thousands of dollars in their tax bill. We stop that from happening. The problem doesn't go away, though. We need to continue to work on this to make sure we don't have this problem into the future.

The second thing we do is capital gains and dividends. Capital gains and dividends is a vital part of the growth that we have seen in our economy. Since we passed them, we have seen 5.3 million new jobs. We just heard the Senator from New Jersey talk about how the benefits of capital gains and dividends all go to these high-income individuals. What he forgot to mention was the 5.3 million people who have jobs today in large measure because of the tax policy that we put in place in 2001 and 2003. So while they may get a small financial benefit-- although every financial benefit, depending on your income level, is a benefit--the fact of the matter is, in many of these cases, over 5 million cases, they have a job, and they have a job paying at 20 percent above the average compensation of most jobs in America. So these are good jobs. These are jobs that are family-sustaining jobs, and these are jobs I am sure these 5.3 million people--net new jobs that we have--are very happy to have.

I will tell you what. I bet if we polled all of those folks who received those jobs in the last few years, they would be happy to have someone who created that job, who had a tax incentive to grow their business so that they could, in fact, invest to make that job possible for them. They are very happy to have someone who had a tax break because of a capital gains rate reduction or a dividend rate reduction or the AMT not being in place or the marginal rates being lower or having an expense of capital equipment as a small business. Those folks would be very happy to get these jobs, from 2003 to today, I am sure, to allow that tax break to be in place so they could have the job in the first place.

That is what we are talking about. We are talking about growing the economy by investing in small businesses, by investing in people who are creating economic activity, who are creating jobs, who are building wealth, who are creating a better economy for all of us. When we passed this legislation in 2003, the unemployment rate was 6.1 percent. It is now 4.7 percent. In Pennsylvania, it is below that. We have had a great run, as Senator McConnell talked about. The stock market is at all-time highs. That doesn't just mean wealth for people who own stocks and trade. We are talking about pension funds; pension funds which were on the brink and are still having problems. But can you imagine what we would be debating in the pension reform bill that we are trying to pass if we had the market at 20 or 30 percent below where it is today. A lot more pension funds would be in trouble. A lot more folks would not have the savings they have to be able to enjoy their retirement.

A lot of good things have happened because of the tax policy we have put in place.

Let's talk about the deficit. The Senator from New Jersey--I love to hear people get up on the other side of the aisle and gnash their teeth and woe, how terrible it is about these huge deficits--I mean huge deficits--when we are talking about letting people keep their money. But when it comes to

spending their money, we never hear a word about deficits on the other side of the aisle. Never. We went through the process of a budget, and amendment after amendment, billions after billions after billions, hundreds of billions of dollars of amendments were offered on the other side of the aisle to spend more money, to increase the deficit by spending more money and not one word about how bad the deficit is. No. If Washington spends it, if the bureaucracy spends it, if we are growing the size of government, we are OK with bigger deficits. We only have a problem with deficits if we let you keep your money. Then there is a problem. This is the kind of misguided economic policy which the American public thankfully has rejected time and time again.

I am very proud to be here today to say I am on the side of the taxpayer. I am on the side of the people who are the middle-income folks today and who are not going to see their taxes go up this year because of the alternative minimum tax. They are going to see capital gains and dividends policy extended for a couple more years so we can continue to see growth in our financial markets, more responsibility in the corporate board room, the kind of benefit to the average taxpayer where 28.1 percent of Pennsylvania tax returns claimed income from dividends. Over half of that money came from returns--over half of those returns have an average adjusted gross income of under $50,000.

We are looking at, not high-income people claiming dividend income but a lot of my seniors--and I don't have a lot of high-income seniors as a percentage compared to some of the other States where folks retire in the South. We have a lot of moderate- and low-income seniors, and that dividend income is a big deal. Not having to pay those taxes--it may only be $40 or $50 to the Senator from New Jersey, who doesn't have to worry about $40 or $50, but there are a lot of folks who worry about $40 or $50.

I hear complaints all the time from the other side of the aisle: When it comes to prescription drugs we can't have a $2 copay or a $3 copay. It has to be a $1 copay or something like that. Or we can't increase it by a dollar or two. Then they throw off $50 in a tax break as if it means nothing. Again, the idea if it is Government, it is OK; if it is letting people keep their money, it is not OK. It is OK in the minds of most people to have the people who earn the money, who made the investment, be able to keep the investment, get the fruits of their labor or wise investment, and be able to keep as much of it as possible. That is what this bill does.

I am proud of the fact we have been able to make this happen. We have not concluded the exercise. We have more work to do on the tax side. I have been a staunch advocate of making sure that we do something this year to help our charities. Over the past 25 years we have seen charitable giving go down from 2.5 percent of GDP to under 1 percent. That is not to say we are not a generous country, but the bottom line is we are not giving as much as we have in the past. I think part of that is the tax structure that we have. We need to create more incentives for folks to give to those who are helping millions of people across this country in need. The charitable giving package I continue to fight for in the followup tax bill that is coming along, we need to get that done. It is something vitally important.

There are several other issues we are working on in that second bill that, in the interest of time, I will not go into. But I will tell you there is more work to be done. This is a good start. This is a solid start on a package of legislation that is going to stop taxes from going up. This is not a tax reduction, this is a tax increase prevention, and that is the least we should do at a time when we want to keep this economy growing.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from Wyoming yield for a question?

Is the Senator from Wyoming aware we have had votes on the extension of the May 15 deadline at least on two occasions or more? Has the Senate already voted on this issue repeatedly?

So what the Senator from Illinois is asking is to have another vote after the Senate has already, on more than one occasion, voted it down. So it is not that we have not discussed that issue. We have discussed that issue in the past, and the Senator does not like the decision of the Senate, but that does not mean we have not debated that issue.

The second issue on which I wish to ask a question is the stem cell issue. I think you said this, but I want to make it very clear. Is the leader not in discussion right now with the Democratic leader on setting up a framework to bring up stem cell? And did not the leader say that he would bring this issue to the Senate, and he gave a commitment, and isn't his intention--hasn't he stated it clearly--that he will bring this issue to the Senate in a timely manner before the end of this session?

And the third issue on which the Senator says we have to have a vote is the importation of drugs. Have we not debated that issue repeatedly in the Senate, and the position the Senator from Illinois has taken has repeatedly failed; is that not the case?

I ask the Senator from Wyoming, have we ever debated and brought to the Senate small business health plan reform for the opportunity of small businesses to be able to get insurance for their employees, to take care of one of the biggest problems Members on both sides of the aisle have talked about, which is the rate of uninsured in this country? Have we ever debated this issue in your bill, in the Senate?

Let me understand, if I am correct, the Senator from Illinois is objecting to moving forward with a bill that has never been considered, that has support, I assume, from both sides of the aisle, that is important from the standpoint of insuring more people; and the reason he does not want to let that go forward is to bring up two issues that have repeatedly been brought up in the Senate, including this session of Congress, and he has been defeated on, and a third issue which the majority leader has already said he would give time for. That is his reason for objecting to this unanimous consent?

Will the Senator yield?

Does the Senator from Illinois recall what the estimates were as to how many seniors would sign by the date of May 15?

By the Congressional Budget Office, which scores the bill.

Between 28 and 30 million.

Does the Senator from Illinois know how many have signed up?

Mr. President, I would also say, we know what the other side believes in. We know they believe in higher taxes. We know they believe in more Government spending. We have seen amendment after amendment come here.

I cannot believe I hear again, repeatedly, from the other side of the aisle the woe and complaint about deficits when it comes to letting people keep their money, but no concern about deficits when it comes to spending and increasing the size of Government.

I want to correct the Senator from Illinois on a couple of points he made with respect to the Medicare Program. He said I was wrong when I said the Nelson amendment lost. He said it got 52 votes. Well, a motion to waive the Budget Act requires 60 votes. Fifty-two is less than 60. It lost. I want to make sure the Record is clear that I was correct and, in fact, the amendment did lose.

I also want to make sure the Record is clear when it comes to low- income eligible seniors signing up for Medicare. The Senator from Illinois said more than half the people who need to go out and sign up for Medicare have not done so. The bottom line is, my understanding is, according to the HHS News of May 10, 2006, a total of 37 million seniors have signed up for the Medicare prescription drug coverage, of a total of around 44 million to 45 million seniors. Now, that does not look like half to me. It looks like a lot more than half have signed up, and a very small percentage have not.

As far as low-income individuals, 10 million of the 13 million have signed up for the program. And those who have not signed up and do not sign up by May 15 will not be penalized. They will suffer no penalty. So if you are a low-income individual, you will not suffer a penalty.

So let's understand now, 37 million have signed up, and there are 3 more

million who, if they do not sign up, will not receive a penalty. So you have 40 million people who either signed up or will not receive a penalty for not signing up, which leaves about 4 million people who will receive a penalty if, in fact, they do not sign up.

Again, there were still, as of this number, 5 days. And as we have seen with other programs--just like as with Congress, we wait until the last minute to do things--we will probably see, and I think we are evidencing, there will be a number of people who will come in and sign up.

The other thing is, believe it or not--I know this is hard for some to believe--some people do not want the program. Some people do not want to participate in a Government program. They are very happy to not participate. They are very happy to purchase their prescriptions on their own.

I know that might come as a shock to some, but there are people who don't like to participate in Government programs, who don't participate in a whole variety of programs the Federal Government offers. As we know, with Medicaid there are lots of people who do not participate. With Medicare, there are people who do not participate, even though they can. It has nothing do with complexity, when you have that high a percentage, much higher than was anticipated by all of those who looked at this, including the Congressional Budget Office. And if you look at the satisfaction of people who have been in the program, more than three-quarters of the people surveyed said they are happy with the benefit. So let's get the facts right.

The reason the Democratic whip objected to Senator Enzi's request to move to a vote on cloture allowing the Durbin-Lincoln amendment was because they don't want to move to cloture. They don't want to pass small business health plans. They don't want to make this happen for small businesses because of another ideology they stick to. That is, they want a big Government-run health care system, and they don't want us to cover other people. I appreciate their sticking to their ideology, even though it has been proven to be a failure in every other country where it has been used and is not popular with the American public.

Mr. President, I am here today to stand in strong support of S. 22 and S. 23. I do so as a Senator from Pennsylvania representing a State that has been racked by the consequences of having a tort liability system that is simply out of balance, out of whack. That imbalance is causing real tragedies to occur on a daily basis in the Commonwealth. People are not getting access to the kind of care they deserve because, as I will lay out in great detail, physicians are leaving the State and hospitals are closing down because of the cost of awards, in particular in areas that serve high-risk patients in some of our communities where there are underserved populations, whether they are inner city or very rural. Patients are not getting access, whether it is to neurosurgery or high-risk obstetrics or orthopedic care and other types of high-risk specialties, and physicians are leaving areas in our State, both rural and urban, because of this liability crisis.

I had hoped that the Commonwealth itself and our State legislature would have responded to this problem. They have tried on a couple of occasions, and the Governor has vetoed legislation to make that happen, and so we are here today to try to solve this problem on a national level.

I believe that while Pennsylvania is severely impacted, probably as much as any State in the country, this is a problem which has national impact. It impacts the Medicare and Medicaid system which this Congress and which the Federal Government pay for. So I do believe it is appropriate for us to consider it.

I wish to make sure that folks understand what we are trying to accomplish. I have had people come to me on more than one occasion and ask questions about why we are trying to limit people's right to sue. No. 1, we are not limiting anybody's right to sue. People can sue a physician or a hospital or a drug company or anybody else in the health care arena. They can sue as many times as they want and as often as they want and for as much as they want. The only thing we are attempting to do as far as a limitation in this bill is to limit the award in one category of damages.

There is, of course, more than one category of damages allowed in most liability suits.

Certainly there are economic damages allowed for income loss, so that if you lost income as a result of the injury you incurred, you have lost the ability to earn future income or some portion of future income, that is fully recoverable. If you have medical bills in the past or going forward--for example, let's say you were left without the use of an arm or maybe you ended up in a wheelchair as a result of medical malfeasance on the part of a provider--there is no limit on the amount of medical recovery you could have. Nothing in the bills we are looking at limit recovery in those areas whatsoever. There are also punitive damages that are available. Punitive damages are damages against someone who does something malicious or willful to harm you in the conduct of providing care, and there is no limit whatsoever on any punitive damages in this legislation.

All we attempt to do is take one category of damages, which is loosely known as pain and suffering, and try to put a cap on that; we try to quantify that. It is very hard to quantify it in the first place, but we are just trying to say that we want to put a cap on that. Why? Why would you want to put a cap on that? Because in some cases, you look at the harm that has been done to somebody and you say: Wow, I can't even think about how much pain or how much suffering or how that person's life has changed, and I would like to help. Well, the reason we need to put some sort of limitation on it is in order to strike a balance between the desire of our fellow citizens, through a jury or judge, to compensate someone for the injury they had in exchange for the costs associated to our society and to the medical system, which results in other people not getting care.

We can go to a recent conference I attended in Philadelphia where it was relayed to me that we have had I think it is nine maternity wards in the city of Philadelphia close down over the past few years--nine-- one most recently in northeast Philadelphia and the last one in the most densely populated area of Philadelphia, an urban population, where the OB ward closed down. So if you live in northeast Philly, which is again the largest area population-wise in the city of Philadelphia, there are no hospitals to deliver babies. You have to come into the Center City area or the neighboring county to get obstetrical care. You have consequences. You have consequences of high-risk pregnancies where people do not get to the delivery room on time and mothers and children are harmed.

One of the reasons I have introduced S. 23, the bill we are going to have a cloture vote on later today in order to proceed, is, in fact, to say that this is of crisis proportion in my State, and even if we can't do a broader bill, let's try to do a narrower bill that deals with the issue of mothers and children to make sure there is care for those particularly vulnerable in our population.

I had an ER doctor in suburban Philadelphia tell me that just over the last couple of years, they have been able to document I think seven people who have shown up in emergency rooms in suburban Philadelphia with head traumas who were not treated because there were no neurosurgeons available on call. There just was no one to come. As a result, seven people are now dead who, had there been someone on call and available, without question would have lived. You ask the question: Who do the family members of those deceased people sue? The answer is they can't sue anybody. They get no recovery. They get nothing. Why? Because we have a system that rewards a very few--maybe justifiably. I am not arguing that their award isn't justifiable. I would probably argue for an enormous amount of money, depending on what the injury is. The question is, How do we balance that person's right to be compensated with another person's right in the future to get health care?

That is what this attempts to do: balance the rights of those who are injured with the rights of those who will be injured if we don't limit those first rights. We see that happening every day in Pennsylvania, and that is one of the reasons I feel so passionate about bringing this legislation to the floor and trying to attempt to do something here on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

What we do in trying to limit rights is actually different from what we have done in the past here. We try to limit the ability to recover-- not the right to sue but the ability to recover--in some small way. It most cases, it will be a small way.

What this does is it provides certainty in the insurance market. Right now, you have a category of damages called pain and suffering. I think if you asked 100 people how much suffering--if you took a case and said: How much should this person be awarded for this much suffering, would you get 100 different answers. It is hard to insure against those 100 different answers about what a judge or a jury is going to do. So by putting a limit here, you are

then able to quantify for insurance purposes and allow insurance companies to offer reasonable insurance packages for physicians and hospitals, and you put physicians in--this is also important--you put physicians in a position where they are not simply practicing defensive medicine, which drives up the cost of health care precipitously.

The cap we are talking about here is a $250,000 cap on a physician, a $250,000 cap additionally on the health care provider, on the institution where the care is provided. If there is more than one institution, it is a total cap of $500,000, so two or more institutions could combine, for a total of $500,000. So it is a $750,000 total cap, which is three times what we voted on here last session of Congress.

So this is a much higher cap. I have said in the past, both on the floor and around my State, that I thought the $250,000 cap was a bit low, and I feel more comfortable with this cap, and it allows flexibility for the States to do something different. This just takes care of situations where there aren't any caps in place by the State.

So I think we have a situation where we have a bill that puts in a reasonable limitation on damages. Even though I certainly can make the argument that there may be cases where this would be a difficult limit, it is a balance between limiting somebody's recovery and making sure that by doing so, you have access to care for other people who will be harmed if we don't limit that recovery.

I want to talk about the situation specifically in Pennsylvania. This is a tragic situation that we have seen evolve over the past several years where the liability costs have just gone through the roof. We have a situation where, if you look between 1999 and 2005, the 20 most populous States saw a 15-percent to 35-percent increase in the number of Medicare physicians. In Pennsylvania we saw a 10-percent decline in the number of physicians available to treat Medicare patients.

The number of doctors in training who stayed in Pennsylvania? In Pennsylvania we are very blessed with a lot of great medical schools. We train a lot of physicians and train a lot of health care workers generally in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and in between. Twelve years ago, in 1994, we had a rate of about 50 percent of all the physicians we trained in Pennsylvania stayed in Pennsylvania. Two years ago it was 7.8 percent. We went from 13th in the country, during this time, of the percentage of physicians under the age of 35--we were 13th in the country in the percentage of physicians under the age of 35. Today we are 45th in the country in the percentage of physicians under the age of 35. We have older and older doctors; fewer and fewer are staying. This is a crisis. It is horrible now. It is only going to get worse if we do not do something about it.

Why? If you look at it, the payouts have skyrocketed from $180 million in 1991 to $450 million 2 years ago. The average liability payout per physician--the average is $6,000 nationwide. It is $16,000 in Pennsylvania, almost three times as much. This is a serious problem in our State.

We are looking to Washington, DC, to help. They are saying just in a couple of years we could have a shortfall of nearly 10,000 physicians in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. So this is a pressing problem, one I hope we can get to.

Just allow us to bring up the bill, allow us to debate. Here we are, the greatest deliberative body in the world. We have a huge problem in my State, and I suggest we have others stand up and talk about the problem in their States. If you don't like the solution we have put forward, then let's have a debate. Let's have some amendments. Let's talk about how we can change the bill around to move it forward. But not allowing us to bring it up is not a reasonable alternative.

We have heard from folks in our State. This is a petition. We have gotten a whole bunch. I just wanted to reproduce one of the hundreds of petitions we have received, particularly focused on what is going on with our obstetrical care. These are citizens, in this case, from West Reading, PA, who said:

Every day OBGYNs are closing doors because of America's

medical liability crisis. Is yours next? We the undersigned

are in favor of keeping women's health care availability and

strongly urge Congress to enact meaningful legislative

relief.

That is what we are trying to accomplish today. It is amazing, the effect of this on--I always say physicians, but it is health care professionals, not just physicians. ``One-third of residents''--

This is from the Department of Health Policy and Management in the Harvard School of Public Health. They did some surveys and talked to physicians out in our State. It says:

One-third of residents in their final or next to last year

of residency planned to leave Pennsylvania because of the

lack of availability of affordable malpractice coverage. . .

. Those who are about to leave Pennsylvania named malpractice

cost as the primary reason three times more often than any

other factor.

I met with a woman graduating from the University of Pennsylvania in thoracic surgery. She had a decision to make: to come to Washington DC, or stay in Philadelphia. She is from Philadelphia; her family is there. She wants to stay. The cost of malpractice insurance in Washington is $4,000 for her specialty. In Philadelphia, $40,000, 10 times the amount, plus the complexity of not being able to practice the medicine she wants to practice.

Seventy-one percent of residency program directors reported

a decrease in retention of residents in the state since the

onset of the professional liability crisis. For some programs

the decreases were very large.

An environment of mounting liability costs in Pennsylvania

appears to have dissuaded substantial numbers of residents in

high risk specialties from locating their clinical practices

in the state.

This is a serious problem. I am going to talk about it some more. We probably are not going to be successful today, but I will be back on the floor, not just today but in the future to continue to talk about this critical crisis that we have in our commonwealth. It is not just about making sure that we have reasonable malpractice rates. It is about access to care. It is about people who are going to be hurt and are going to die because we have not put this medical liability system in balance. We need to do so and it would be a great start if the Senate would allow us to proceed to that debate today.

Mr. President, I want to continue on with some of the comments I was making earlier about the critical situation in Pennsylvania with respect to this liability crisis and a couple of examples of how out of control the system has become. I was at St. Luke's Hospital up in the Lehigh Valley, and I was saddened by the changes that have happened with some of the losses of physicians that have occurred in there. It is one of the growing areas of our State, and this is an area that has been hit with very high rates of malpractice and obviously, as I will discuss here, losing physicians.

I want to talk about a couple of things. One is a case that St. Luke's was involved in that tells you how absurd, and particularly in this case, the jury awards are in Philadelphia, which has been the big problem area in Pennsylvania--some of the jury awards that have come out of Philadelphia.

We had a case in September and October of the year 2000 which involved a baby girl born 3 months premature to a 17-year-old mother whose medical records indicated a crack cocaine addiction. The mother began experiencing complications, including a partial placental abruption and premature labor. The mother was admitted to another hospital for these complications and then transferred to St. Luke's. The mother was placed on strict bed rest and given medication to stop the onset of labor and to prevent progression of the placental abruption. Despite warnings from her doctor about the risks to her baby of premature birth and possible neurological damage, possibly death, the mother, against medical advice, left the hospital. She turned up 3 days later with complete placental abruption and premature delivery could not be avoided at that point. Emergency surgery was performed. The baby was delivered weighing 4.1 pounds. The baby had a common condition with premature babies which is an opening in the heart that usually closes shortly after birth. The baby was treated for 29 days in the neonatal intensive care unit at St. Luke's, was given medication to attempt to close the opening in the heart. The baby had an adverse reaction to the medication. Surgery was required to close the opening. The surgeon was unsuccessful. There were no documented complications in the surgery, no allegations that St. Luke's did anything wrong or improper in her care.

The baby was transferred to another hospital for further surgery. During treatment at the second hospital, the baby had complications, was transferred back to ICU at St. Luke's. Again, no documented complications during the second stay at St. Luke's up

until the child's release. The mother during this time gave up parental rights. The baby was adopted down the road by parents who elected not to seek legal action. But--and this is somewhat unknown--somehow or another, an attorney in Philadelphia was appointed the guardian ad litem to the child because of the child's nexus to a second hospital located in Philadelphia County. So the lawyer sued on behalf of the baby without the consent or knowledge of either the actual parent or the adopted parent.

The verdict in the case was $100 million against the hospital--a $100 million verdict in this case. So you wonder: Well, gee, why are we trying to put caps on awards? A $100 million verdict in this case. That verdict would have shut down this hospital, which is a major medical center in the Lehigh Valley. Subsequent to the verdict, they negotiated a settlement for substantially less money. But the bottom line is, you have a situation where things get out of control because bad things happen to people. People are injured. In this case this little baby, because of a whole lot of factors I have detailed, is going to have a tough life. But is it the fault of St. Luke's Hospital? Is it the fault of the physicians who were attending? The answer from all indications is no. But you have someone who feels bad that this child is going to need some help, so you give verdicts of $100 million.

The consequence at St. Luke's was that since 2000, 32 private physicians have left St. Luke's as a direct result of the malpractice insurance crisis. Twelve OB-GYNs, 5 neurosurgeons, 2 pulmonary specialists, 3 orthopods, 3 general surgeons, 2 internists, and 1 pain management specialist. There has been a 44-percent decline in the number of private practice OB-GYN physicians on their medical staff.

One of the reasons I have introduced S. 23 is because it is not just a problem at St. Luke's, it is a problem in Philadelphia, a problem in Pittsburgh. We are down to I think three maternity wards in the city of Pittsburgh. This is a problem across our State. Unfortunately, the heavy hand of politics is played not just here in Washington but also in our State Capitol.

There was a study done that showed that the trial attorneys in America in the 2003-2004 election cycle contributed $182 million to political campaigns--$182 million. That sounds like a lot of money. It is a lot of money. But it is actually a pretty good investment on the part of the trial attorneys. Because for that $182 million, they were able to collect $18 billion in fees--$18 billion in fees. That is a 10,000-percent rate of return. Not a bad investment. So they are investing in the political climate here. They are investing to make sure there is no balance in the system. They are investing because they want to keep things out of whack. They want to keep those 40- and 50- percent awards, the percentages of contingency fees to these big awards, so they can keep the gravy train coming.

That is something our health care system cannot afford. We cannot afford to allow this kind of litigation to be practiced in the health care arena. It is destroying our ability to keep physicians in Pennsylvania. It is destroying our ability to have responsible medicine practiced--not defensive medicine but appropriate medicine and responsible medicine that treats patients the way they should be treated, not the way they need to be treated to avoid possible litigation.

That is not responsible medicine. That is not the medicine physicians want to practice. But, increasingly, in my State, that is the medicine they are practicing, and unless we do something tonight, in a few minutes, they are going to have to continue to practice that way.

Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to come to the floor of the Senate to give good words of encouragement to my colleagues to support Tom Golden for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania judgeship. This is a vacancy that the Office of Administration at the U.S. Courts has determined is a judicial emergency, so it is high time that we get this vacancy filled. Tom Golden has proven to be just the right medicine for us to be able to move this process very quickly in the Senate.

On April 27 he was moved out of committee by a voice vote, so I guess, from all reports at least, unanimously. Certainly there were no vocal objections. He now comes to the floor for confirmation. I congratulate him in anticipation of a strong positive vote today on his successfully negotiated, what can be tough shoals in the Senate when it comes to judicial nomination.

The record speaks for itself. This is a man of great legal ability, as well as someone who is a fine member of his community and citizen of this country. He started out with great potential. He graduated from Penn State University, which happens to be my alma mater, and also graduated from the Dickinson School of Law, which happens to be my alma mater. He has a fine background and education, and he has come forward from that education to work at a law firm in Reading, PA. He is from Berks County. Berks County is one of the larger counties in our State. It has not had a judge there for some time, even though there is a courthouse in Reading. We are quite excited. Folks in the Eastern District are rather exited about the opportunity of having their cases heard and their filings be filed before judges and motions be heard in Reading as opposed to having to travel all the way to Philadelphia to have their cases proceed.

This is not just a good moment for Tom Golden, but it is a good moment for all of the litigants in the western part of the Eastern District, to be able to have their cases heard in a much more convenient fashion.

Aside from a variety of involvements in charitable organizations and specific organizations, I want to mention the fact that Tom was very active in the bar association. In fact, not only is he in the House of Delegates at the ABA, and has been since 2002, he was the president of the Pennsylvania Bar Association from 2003 to 2004 and served, as you can imagine, often as chair leading up to his election to the presidency in 2006. He has been active in the Berks County Bar Association and a whole lot of other legal areas.

He was rated ``well-qualified,'' not surprisingly, by the bar association. He is coming here with the highest recommendations from the legal community, as well as the community at large in Berks County.

It is a pleasure to come here with a noncontroversial nomination, someone who has the highest character, as well as great legal ability, and someone who, I am confident, will do a fine new job as judge on the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague from Alaska, Senator Ted Stevens, on a topic of importance to our Nation's military and our industrial base. The issue of importance concerns additional funding included by the House of Representatives for Bradley fighting vehicles and Hercules improved recovery vehicles. The House added $250 million for Bradley ODS vehicles and another $100 million for Hercules vehicles.

I want to thank the Senator from Alaska for his efforts to address these and other Army programs in this supplemental appropriations bill. I recognize that there are financial limitations on what the Committee on Appropriations is able to do

with respect to addressing the Army's recapitalization needs.

I thank my colleague for his remarks and I stand ready to provide whatever assistance might be necessary to secure supplemental appropriations funds for Bradley fighting vehicles and Hercules improved recovery vehicles.

public housing energy costs

I thank the Senator from Oregon for his indulgence. I call up amendment numbered 3640 and I send a modification to the desk.

Madam President, this is an amendment to add $25 million to the money that the President requested for prodemocracy efforts for Iran within the Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental. It is vitally important to understand how important this effort is in the face of what we are dealing with in Iran today.

We have heard lots of talk in the press about military options, given the potential nuclear threat from Iran. This is not a military option; this is a diplomatic option. It is a vitally important option. It is an option that says we in the United States are going to step forward and provide funding, a robust level of funding, for efforts through telecommunications as well as by seeding prodemocracy movements within Iran to effect change within the country of Iran so they do not move forward with this technology, do not move forward and continue to support terrorism, do not move forward and continue to be a disruptive force in Iraq, do not move forward and continue to be a disruptive force in the world, by having a more prodemocratic regime in this country.

What this amendment does is add $12.5 million for the Broadcasting Board of Governors--again, for public diplomacy in Iran--as well as $12.5 million for the Iran Democracy Fund. It is a total of $25 million in addition to the 75 in the bill. We also authorize using the language from the Iran freedom and support bill. This is a bill that has strong bipartisan support, close to 60 cosponsors, I think 56 or 57 as of this date. It is very strongly bipartisan. It is supported by a lot of the groups with interests in the Middle East.

We put authorizing language in here to make sure this money is spent in conformity with how the Congress would wish it to be spent. This is Congress putting its imprimatur on this supplemental appropriation language the President has put forward.

Having spoken to Secretary Rice and the President about this language, one of the reasons they put forward this money in the supplemental is because of the strong support Congress has shown both in the House and the Senate for the Iran Freedom and Support Act. We are using this opportunity to provide more direction for the use of this fund from the Congress, which I think is vitally important.

In my opinion, today there is no more important foreign policy area than in dealing with the emerging and present threat of Iran. To be very honest, the Congress has done nothing to address this issue. We have not stepped forward and articulated what our policy is within Iran. We do this with this amendment. We say as a sense of the Senate that we express support for a transition to democracy within Iran. That is language included in this amendment. We make clear statements about what we intend and what our direction is, what this money is to be used for. We provide a broader outline than what is in the current legislation.

I hope this language would be supported. We fence this money within the money for the State Department in this legislation so we are not stealing money from anywhere else. We are just making sure that the $100 million is spent in this area and we provide more guidance for the administration to do so.

I am hopeful this language can be accepted by both sides. As I said before, this is a bill that has strong bipartisan support and this language also has very strong bipartisan support.

I thank again the Senator from Oregon for his indulgence.

I yield the floor.