Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I had the opportunity to listen to the Democratic leader for a few moments talking about the House of Representatives and the compromise the House of Representatives just achieved on their ethics consideration. Three comments about that compromise: No. 1, it is interesting that ``compromise'' means the Republicans do what the Democrats insisted upon them doing. That is a compromise, No. 1. No. 2, that compromise meant the House went back to the way the House has always done things when it came to ethics. The compromise was to go back to the precedent and rules of the House they have always used. Third, that compromise means--and the Senator from Oklahoma has had experience over in the House, as have I--the rules of the House will continue to be that if a Member has an ethics claim filed against them by someone--and the Ethics Committee is equally divided--particularly, if it is a Member where there happens to be political value in having an ethics claim filed against them, if the other side decides, politically, they are simply not going to hear the case, it stays on the docket forever, for as long as the session lasts, with no need to dispose or rule on that. So the ethics charge hangs out there without a decision. It automatically goes forward, in other words, unless there is a decision on the part of a bipartisan majority to end the discussion. I think what we have seen in the past--and I know Members of the House are concerned about this--is that there has been an abuse, a politicization of the ethics process. We all know how damaging it is because the only thing we have in this body and before our constituents is our word and our reputation. They are intangible things that are easily affected and certainly are affected when ethics charges are filed. That does not mean ethics violations have been found but simply that ethics charges have been filed. The mere fact a charge has been filed is a very damaging thing to the reputation of a Member. To have that out there, without any need for disposition, I think is very dangerous and has proven to be--and I think will continue to be--a bad precedent. But that is compromise. I make the argument that capitulation is not compromise. But I will agree on the second point I made, that going back to the way we have done things in the past is usually a pretty good idea when you really aren't sure how to deal with things. So I too say I am glad that the speaker, the leader, and others in the House have broken this logjam, and they have done so in a way they can at least move the process forward in the House. I too commend the Republican leadership for trying to move it forward. I will say the same thing could be done here in the Senate. If we have a sincere disagreement as to how we should proceed with respect to judicial nominations, we could look to the example of the House of Representatives and go back to the way we did things for years and years and years. The way we have done things for years and years and years, 214 years prior to the last session of Congress, was that nominations that came to the floor of the Senate received an up-or-down vote. It was very interesting. The Senator from Nevada criticized one of our Republican Members who suggested that we would be willing to compromise by not including all executive nominations, just including certain executive nominations. When that was proffered, the Senator from Nevada criticized this compromise and said: It is disingenuous because it is not intellectually consistent. Lots of compromises aren't. But that was for the sake of compromise, to say that we believe--and 214 years of history have shown, and the tradition and the precedent of the Senate is--when executive nominations arrive on the floor of the Senate, they receive an up-or-down vote. That is the precedent. There is not one instance in which someone who had majority support here on the floor of the Senate for a judicial nomination did not receive an up-or-down vote and get confirmed, not one precedent until 2 years ago. Then things changed. So we have suggested we would like to go back to that 214-year precedent that served this country very well. We didn't have the acrimony we see here today. The Senator from Nevada repeatedly talked about how the public wants us to get things done. Then don't change the rules of the game and then complain the public is angry with the fact that we are not getting things done. Look at the cause of the controversy. The cause of the controversy lies with the previous leader of the Democrats, who put forward a strategy, a plan, a scheme to fundamentally shift the power away from the President to 41 Members of the Senate to determine what nominees will be confirmed in the Senate. That could have been done. I would agree with the Senator from Nevada and everybody else here. It could have been done 200 years ago. It could have been done 100 years ago. It could have been done 10 years ago. But it never was done. We showed restraint. I showed restraint. The Senator from Nevada talked about how I could look back at the Clinton administration and see how President Clinton's nominees were disadvantaged. Let's look back to the Clinton administration. I can think of two people I recall very clearly to whom I was adamantly opposed. They had records as judges that were deplorable in my mind. They didn't follow the law. They were activists on the court. They put their interpretation and their views ahead of the law repeatedly. Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon were their names. They were nominated for the circuit court. I adamantly opposed them. They were bad judges and, in my opinion, this country would be in worse shape by having them on the circuit court. I wanted them defeated. They were against a lot of what I strongly believed was bad for this country. That is what they were for, things which I strongly believed were bad for the country. There were a lot of groups outside, a lot of conservative groups, just as they are hearing from a lot of liberal groups, who said: Do it, block their nomination. Yes, they have majority support, but block their nomination because they will do so much damage. They are bad. That is what these outside groups were saying: These folks will undermine the judiciary. There is always a temptation to let the current fury cloud your judgment and to think about the immediate political posture or the next election or the folks who brought you here and do what they ask you to do. We had a leader, at that time, in Trent Lott, and we had a chairman, in Orrin Hatch, who said: I understand how you feel. I oppose these judges too. But there is something more here in the Senate than the passions of the day. There is something more than the groups who may support your campaigns today. When we do things that change the precedent of the Senate, it ripples, maybe forever, and can fundamentally change the balance of power, the way the judiciary functions, the way the executive functions and, as you have seen in the last 2 years, the way this body functions or ``misfunctions'' as a result. So for that moment in which I really wanted to block their nominations, when Trent Lott and Orrin Hatch filed cloture on those two nominees to move the vote forward, not to block their nomination, but to move their vote forward, I voted along with 85 of my colleagues. A vast majority of Republicans and all the Democrats voted to allow their vote to come. Richard Paez did not get 60 votes when his confirmation came up. In other words, had we wanted to filibuster Richard Paez, we would have been successful. He would not have gotten 60 votes. He would not be a judge on the circuit today had we wanted to block his nomination. But my belief is--and the vast majority of Republicans' belief was at that time--as much as we opposed the nomination, we supported the tradition and the precedent of the Senate because we are but stewards of this place. We don't own this institution. Yes, we say we run this institution. We don't run this institution. We are simply stewards. We are passersby. When we crack the foundation of the way things have been done and worked for this country for 200-plus years, we leave behind a foundation that may not sustain us as a people. To stand before the Senate, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done repeatedly over the last few weeks, and talk about how they are being aggrieved by what the Senate Republicans are trying to do and calling this the nuclear option repeatedly, and suggesting somehow or another this is destroying the filibuster, when it was never used--underscore that, never used--to block a judge on the floor of the Senate prior to the last session of Congress, when the Democratic minority decided they could not resist, they had to put politics over process. They had to put partisanship over the stability of this institution for the long term. I suspect there are a lot of folks on the other side of the aisle who regret that happening, and they probably regret it today. Where are the statesmen? Where are the folks who quietly whisper to one another that this was wrong? Where are they to stand up and set it straight? I desperately hope we do not have to cast this vote on the floor of the Senate to return the precedent of the Senate to the way it has been for 214 years because it would show what two sides were able to do for 214 years. I say to the Presiding Officer from Oklahoma, think about all of the conflicts and passions that have occurred through all of the great debates in the Senate. People were shot in the Senate, and there were fisticuffs and beatings. The passions must have been incredible at certain times. But we always were able to understand that there were some things bigger than the passion of the moment. This institution is one of them. The way this institution functioned to balance powers was one of them. What the other side of the aisle is doing, I say to the Senator from Illinois, is fracturing the foundation of this institution. So I hope we don't have a vote. I hope we don't have a vote. I hope there will be some on both sides of the aisle who would look to the 214-year precedent when, in spite of strong disagreements, the Senate was able to find comity to get things done. We need to get things done. I know the Democratic leader has threatened to shut down the Senate--his words, not mine, ``shut down the Senate''--if they don't get their compromise. What is their compromise? They want to continue to do what they did in the last session of the Congress. That is their compromise. I find it somewhat remarkable that the Senator from Illinois praised the Senator from Nevada for his ``compromise.'' His compromise says if the ten judges they were blocking from the last session--they have successfully blocked three because they have been withdrawn, and now they are suggesting they want to block at least three more. They don't care which ones they are. I know this was all driven by pure concern about each and every one of these, but for some reason they can pick which three. Some might suggest this is less about the individual and more about politics, but now we are sort of in this compromise and, fine, let's compromise. Fine. We will take ten, we get to kill six, and you get to pick the four we move forward with. That is compromise. Oh, and by the way, we reserve the right to continue to do this in the future. This is the great Henry Clay type of statement that we see before the Senate: Of the ten that we have blocked--against every precedent of the Senate--we will take six, and these fine individuals, all well qualified by the ABA--the ``gold standard,'' in Senator Leahy's words, not mine--we will take these fine upstanding people in the community and tarnish their reputations for the rest of their lives. By the way, you pick the three we are going to tarnish, and we will let you have four nominees. By the way, you can go ahead and expect that we will block others in the future. That is their compromise. That is the great olive branch: We will continue to abuse 214 years of history. I ask anyone if you can point out one nominee for the court on the floor of the Senate who had majority support who was blocked by filibuster. Name one who had majority support. It never happened. So what is the compromise? The compromise is that six judges who had majority support on the floor of the Senate will be denied confirmation, and we will do so to others in the future if we so desire. That is the compromise. I don't think most people objectively looking at that would see that as much of a compromise. The Senator from Illinois said another remarkable thing. I will go back and check the record. I find it hard to believe. He said Senator Frist came to the floor yesterday and said he would not be a party to any negotiation on this issue. That is what the Senator from Illinois said. Let me review the record. Senator Frist, in the last session of Congress, offered a compromise with Zell Miller called the Frist-Miller approach. It was a compromise. It is still a compromise that is out there. I know for a fact--and I suspect others on the other side of the aisle do, too--that Senator Frist has repeatedly offered compromises to the Democratic leader. I know also for a fact that the Senate majority leader, Senator Frist, is very much open to negotiation and compromise, to return the precedent of the Senate and find a way in which we get back to what was just lauded by the other side of the aisle--returning, as the House just did, to the way they have always done things. So, too, would we like to do that--return to the way we have always done things. But that is too much of a reach, I suspect, for some because we have partisan agendas. We have, even more so, I suggest, not just partisan agendas because I think in part it is driven by partisanship, but I think it is mostly driven by ideology. What I think is sadly true is that the agenda of the other side of the aisle--which we have not seen a whole lot of as far as solutions; we have seen a lot of obstruction, not a whole lot of ideas but a lot of obstruction--is not accomplished in democratic forums anymore. It is accomplished through the courts. So I think what we are seeing is a gasp of saying that we can no longer win elections on our agenda. We can no longer win votes on the floor of the Senate with our agenda--the most radical elements of our agenda, anyway--so we must hold on to the courts. We must hold on and make sure those individuals who are willing to be activists on the court and overturn the will of the Congress, create new rights in the Constitution, bypass the democratic process, amend the Constitution through court edict, as opposed to the traditional way laid out by our Founders, we want to make sure that we still have the ability to enact our agenda on the courts. Another point I will make is that I am very much for the filibuster. I believe the filibuster is exactly what our Founders intended when it comes to legislation--absolutely what they intended, that the Senate would be a place where the hot tea would be poured into the saucer and cooled. I support it and, in fact, I voted to support it because when I was first elected to the Senate, some Democratic Members offered a change to the rules that would have eliminated the filibuster and gone to a simple majority on all legislative matters. This was interesting because at the time, as I said, the Republicans were in the majority, and yet Democrats were offering this rather savory morsel out there for those of us who recently came to the Senate and wanted to get a lot of things done and understood how difficult it would be. We had a Contract With America, we may recall--the House was moving forward and wanting to pass a lot of bills. We had a lot of momentum over here. There was a part of me that said: That would be great, we could get rid of this. I said: No, the Founders had it right, the traditions of the Senate are right. We do not need to change this institution because of the whims of the moment, because of the passions of the day, because of the interest groups off Capitol Hill that would want us to do so. No, we have a higher duty. We have a higher duty. That duty is to this institution because this institution is the bulwark of this democracy that protects us from doing rash and sometimes irrational things in which at times the public gets swept up. No, that is what this institution is for when it comes to legislative passions. By the way, there were 19 people, 19 Democrats who voted to end the legislative filibuster, but not one Republican. Not one. So the legislative filibuster is important, and it will remain in place as a result of anything we do over the next few weeks with respect to judicial nominations. I close by saying I am hopeful we can find a compromise, but what I keep hearing from the other side is this incredible spinning that somehow or other what has gone on here in the last 2 years was part of the normal course, and the fact that this was done in previous Congresses, as the Senator from Nevada mentioned, in committee, in committee these nominations were killed. Were these nominations killed? Some nominations were held and defeated in committee, that is right. By whom? By the majority--by the majority. The majority on the floor of the Senate has defeated nominations. The majority in committee has defeated nominations. But never before has the minority in committee defeated a nomination. Never before has the minority on the floor defeated a nomination. Never before has the minority been able to dictate to a President who they will nominate either for their Cabinet or for some of the most important positions in the judiciary. Never before until now. This is taking power away from a popularly elected President who, under the Constitution, has the right to nominate people. President Clinton, I believe, had over 350 judges confirmed. I think I voted against maybe 5, 6, something like that; less than 10, I know that. I did not agree ideologically with probably more than 10, but as I went home and had to face some of my constituents who were upset with me for voting for one judge or another because they did not like their politics, I said: You will have to take it up with the American people because President Clinton won the election, and he has a right to nominate who he wants as long as they are within the mainstream. That does not mean they are going to agree with me philosophically. There are a lot of people in the mainstream who are center and left of center who have a right to serve, as people who are right of center have a right to serve, and I am not going to impose my ideology on somebody else's nominees. That is what is going on today. It is an ideological litmus test, and it is now infecting this body to the detriment of the Senate. I hope cooler heads will prevail, and that those of us who showed restraint and did not vote for filibusters, voted for cloture on nominees we did not like--that there will be those who will stand up and do the same on the other side of the aisle in the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I would like to congratulate Just Born, Inc. in Bethlehem, PA, on an outstanding accomplishment, shipping Peanut Chews nationwide for the first time. Pennsylvanians should be honored to have a wonderful company such as Just Born in our State, and I join in congratulating Just Born on their recent accomplishment. Until the Spring of 2003, Peanut Chews were produced by the Goldenberg Candy Company. The Goldenberg Candy Company was founded in Philadelphia in 1890 by David Goldenberg and called D. Goldenberg, Inc. Beginning as a retail confection business, which produced and sold fudge, marshmallow, lollipops, and chocolates, Goldenberg's also created a walnut molasses confection that later became the foundation for the Peanut Chews recipe. As we all know, Peanut Chews offer a unique combination of a chewy peanut and molasses based center with a dark chocolate coating, making for a tasty candy. Just stop by my desk on the Senate floor to see for yourself. Peanut Chews were developed during World War I and used by the U.S. military as a ration bar. The high energy, high protein recipe and unique taste made it popular with the troops. Following the war, Peanut Chews were first sold in the Philadelphia area of Pennsylvania. However, their popularity soon spread to New York, Baltimore, and Washington, DC. In the 1930s, Peanut Chews were sold under the brand name Chew-ets and were often sold in movie theaters. The name stuck until 1999 when the Goldenberg's changed the packaging and the name of Chew-ets to Milk Chocolatey Peanut Chews. Just Born purchased the Goldenberg Candy Company in 2003, adding the Goldenberg's 61 associates to the already growing Just Born family. Just Born produces two million Peanut Chews candy pieces every day. This month, April 2005, Peanut Chews will be launched nationally, for the first time reaching beyond to the East Coast. This is quite an achievement, and I send Just Born my best wishes in the future as their company continues to expand.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The America Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement, and Education (ASPIRE) Act of 2005'' along with Senator Corzine, Senator Schumer and Senator DeMint. A bipartisan group of members is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The bill creates a Kids Investment and Development Savings (KIDS) Account for every child at birth and creates a new opportunity for the children of low-income Americans to build assets and wealth. This country has seen a growing number of Americans investing in the stock market and has witnessed an historic boom in homeownership, which has increased to record high levels. However, this growth in assets has not reached every American. While many middle- and upper-income families have increased their assets in the past decade, many low- income families have not had the same financial success. A recent study conducted by the Federal Reserve found that the median net worth of families in the bottom 20 percent of the nation's income level was a mere $7,900--an amount that is far too low to ensure a comfortable economic future for their family. This challenge needs to be addressed to ensure that lower income families have a significant opportunity to accrue wealth and expand opportunities for their families. Under this legislation, KIDS Accounts would be created after a child is born and a Social Security number issued. A one-time $500 deposit would automatically be placed into a KIDS account. Children from households below the national median income would receive an additional deposit of $500 at birth and would be eligible to receive dollar-for- dollar matching funds up to $500 per year for voluntary contributions to the account, which cannot exceed $1,000 per year. All funds grow tax-free. Access to the account prior to age 18 would not be permitted, but kids--in conjunction with their parents--would participate in investment decisions and watch their money grow. When the young person turns 18, he or she can use the accrued money for asset building purposes such as education, homeownership, and retirement planning. Accrued funds could also be rolled over into a Roth IRA or 529 post- secondary education account to expand investment options. I would like to highlight what I view as the two major benefits of this legislation. The first, and most apparent, is that this bill will help give younger individuals, especially low-income Americans, a sound financial start to begin their adult life. For example, a typical low- income family making modest but steady contributions can create a KIDS Account worth over $20,000 in 18 years. Second, and perhaps more important, is that KIDS Accounts create opportunities for all Americans to become more financially literate. The account holders and their guardians will choose from a list of possible investment funds and will be able to watch their investment grow over time. All Americans will have the opportunity to see firsthand that a smart investment now can grow over time into considerable wealth. I believe that this bill could be a significant and strategic step forward in the effort to expand asset opportunities to all Americans, and lower-income Americans in particular. I encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The America Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement, and Education (ASPIRE) Act of 2005'' along with Senator Corzine, Senator Schumer and Senator DeMint. A bipartisan group of members is introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The bill creates a Kids Investment and Development Savings (KIDS) Account for every child at birth and creates a new opportunity for the children of low-income Americans to build assets and wealth. This country has seen a growing number of Americans investing in the stock market and has witnessed an historic boom in homeownership, which has increased to record high levels. However, this growth in assets has not reached every American. While many middle- and upper-income families have increased their assets in the past decade, many low- income families have not had the same financial success. A recent study conducted by the Federal Reserve found that the median net worth of families in the bottom 20 percent of the nation's income level was a mere $7,900--an amount that is far too low to ensure a comfortable economic future for their family. This challenge needs to be addressed to ensure that lower income families have a significant opportunity to accrue wealth and expand opportunities for their families. Under this legislation, KIDS Accounts would be created after a child is born and a Social Security number issued. A one-time $500 deposit would automatically be placed into a KIDS account. Children from households below the national median income would receive an additional deposit of $500 at birth and would be eligible to receive dollar-for- dollar matching funds up to $500 per year for voluntary contributions to the account, which cannot exceed $1,000 per year. All funds grow tax-free. Access to the account prior to age 18 would not be permitted, but kids--in conjunction with their parents--would participate in investment decisions and watch their money grow. When the young person turns 18, he or she can use the accrued money for asset building purposes such as education, homeownership, and retirement planning. Accrued funds could also be rolled over into a Roth IRA or 529 post- secondary education account to expand investment options. I would like to highlight what I view as the two major benefits of this legislation. The first, and most apparent, is that this bill will help give younger individuals, especially low-income Americans, a sound financial start to begin their adult life. For example, a typical low- income family making modest but steady contributions can create a KIDS Account worth over $20,000 in 18 years. Second, and perhaps more important, is that KIDS Accounts create opportunities for all Americans to become more financially literate. The account holders and their guardians will choose from a list of possible investment funds and will be able to watch their investment grow over time. All Americans will have the opportunity to see firsthand that a smart investment now can grow over time into considerable wealth. I believe that this bill could be a significant and strategic step forward in the effort to expand asset opportunities to all Americans, and lower-income Americans in particular. I encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community Development Homeownership Tax Credit Act. I am very pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Kerry, Smith, Stabenow, Allard, and Sarbanes, who are original cosponsors of this legislation. Homeownership is a key component of the American Dream. Many people around this country dream of and plan for the day they can buy a home of their own in which to raise their children, to settle down in a community, and to build equity and wealth. They see the importance of homeownership and the stability it can bring to families and neighborhoods. It is often homeownership that financially anchors American families and civically anchors our communities. But I believe our focus on homeownership also returns our attention to the basic ideals of the American Dream. Ensuring access to homeownership is among the most significant ways we can empower our citizens to achieve the happy, productive and stable lifestyle everyone desires. Having a house of one's own that provides security and comfort to one's family and that gives families an active, vested interest in the quality of life their community provides is central to our collective ideas about freedom and self-determination. As a nation, we know that homeownership helps the emotional and intellectual growth and development of children. We know that homeowners show greater interest and more frequent participation in civic organizations and neighborhood issues. We know that when people own homes, they are more likely to accumulate wealth and assets and to prepare themselves financially for such things as their children's education and retirement. In America today, homeownership is at a record high. Unfortunately, there remains a significant homeownership gap between minority and non- minority populations, leaving homeownership an elusive financial prospect for many. According to the Census Bureau, in 2004, the homeownership rate for non-Hispanic whites reached 76 percent, compared to 49.1 percent for African-Americans and 48.1 percent for Hispanics or Latinos. The bill I introduce today enjoys strong bipartisan support in the Senate and will encourage increased homeownership rates, more stable neighborhoods and strong communities. This legislation would give developers and investors an incentive to participate in the rehabilitation and construction of homes for low- and moderate-income buyers. It will also spur economic development in low- and moderate- income communities across our country and provide an important stimulus for the development of our nation's economy. This proposal is modeled after the very successful low-income rental tax credit. It will allow states to allocate tax credits to developers and investors to construct or substantially rehabilitate homes in economically disadvantaged communities, including rural areas, for sale to low- or moderate-income buyers. These tax credits will help bridge the gap between the cost of developing affordable housing and the price at which these homes can be sold to eligible buyers in low-income neighborhoods where housing is scarce. It provides investors with a tax credit of up to 50 percent of the cost of home construction or rehabilitation. It is estimated that this legislation will encourage the construction and substantial rehabilitation of up to 500,000 homes for low- and moderate-income families in economically distressed areas over the next ten years. President Bush has long supported the creation of a homeownership tax credit as have the majority of both the House and Senate in the last Congress. This proposal also has the backing of a large and broad coalition of housing-related groups, including the National Association of Home Builders, the National Council of State Housing Agencies, and the National Association of Realtors. In addition, this initiative has the backing of major non-profit groups, including Habitat for Humanity, as well as the Local Initiatives Support Corporation and the Enterprise Foundation. This important legislation addresses a key issue facing many Americans today, housing affordability. It also addresses the community development needs of many neighborhoods. It continues to have strong bipartisan support, and I am hopeful that it will be enacted this year. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting homeownership by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I rise to reflect on the passing of Peter F. Flaherty. On Monday, April 18, 2005, Peter Flaherty passed away at his home in Mount Lebanon, PA, after a battle with cancer. The Flaherty family has suffered a tremendous loss, and I offer them my condolences and deepest sympathy during this difficult time. Pete Flaherty has had incredible influence over the Pittsburgh region and also over his party. As a Democrat, Pete Flaherty did not always follow the party line, which sometimes got him into trouble, but mostly made him an effective leader. Pete's roots extend back to Alpine Avenue in the north side of Pittsburgh where he was born. He attended St. Peters, a Catholic elementary school, went on to Latimer Middle School, and graduated from Allegheny High School. His family, devout Irish Catholics, attended St. Peters in Pittsburgh, where Pete served as an altar boy. Before attending Carlow University and Notre Dame Law School, Pete joined the Army Air Corps and was trained as a navigator. As the war was coming to a close, Pete was shipped to a B-29 squadron in Guam. It was after law school that Pete began his political career. He was elected to his first office as city council in 1965. It did not take long for Pete to make his mark on Pittsburgh. In more than 40 years of public service, Pete was three times the Democratic nominee for statewide office, served as deputy U.S. attorney general, was mayor of Pittsburgh, and was a county commissioner for 12 years. His career of public service was truly remarkable. Pete Flaherty not only leaves behind a legacy but also a wonderful family. My thoughts and prayers are with the Flaherty family during the days and months ahead.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community Development Homeownership Tax Credit Act. I am very pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Kerry, Smith, Stabenow, Allard, and Sarbanes, who are original cosponsors of this legislation. Homeownership is a key component of the American Dream. Many people around this country dream of and plan for the day they can buy a home of their own in which to raise their children, to settle down in a community, and to build equity and wealth. They see the importance of homeownership and the stability it can bring to families and neighborhoods. It is often homeownership that financially anchors American families and civically anchors our communities. But I believe our focus on homeownership also returns our attention to the basic ideals of the American Dream. Ensuring access to homeownership is among the most significant ways we can empower our citizens to achieve the happy, productive and stable lifestyle everyone desires. Having a house of one's own that provides security and comfort to one's family and that gives families an active, vested interest in the quality of life their community provides is central to our collective ideas about freedom and self-determination. As a nation, we know that homeownership helps the emotional and intellectual growth and development of children. We know that homeowners show greater interest and more frequent participation in civic organizations and neighborhood issues. We know that when people own homes, they are more likely to accumulate wealth and assets and to prepare themselves financially for such things as their children's education and retirement. In America today, homeownership is at a record high. Unfortunately, there remains a significant homeownership gap between minority and non- minority populations, leaving homeownership an elusive financial prospect for many. According to the Census Bureau, in 2004, the homeownership rate for non-Hispanic whites reached 76 percent, compared to 49.1 percent for African-Americans and 48.1 percent for Hispanics or Latinos. The bill I introduce today enjoys strong bipartisan support in the Senate and will encourage increased homeownership rates, more stable neighborhoods and strong communities. This legislation would give developers and investors an incentive to participate in the rehabilitation and construction of homes for low- and moderate-income buyers. It will also spur economic development in low- and moderate- income communities across our country and provide an important stimulus for the development of our nation's economy. This proposal is modeled after the very successful low-income rental tax credit. It will allow states to allocate tax credits to developers and investors to construct or substantially rehabilitate homes in economically disadvantaged communities, including rural areas, for sale to low- or moderate-income buyers. These tax credits will help bridge the gap between the cost of developing affordable housing and the price at which these homes can be sold to eligible buyers in low-income neighborhoods where housing is scarce. It provides investors with a tax credit of up to 50 percent of the cost of home construction or rehabilitation. It is estimated that this legislation will encourage the construction and substantial rehabilitation of up to 500,000 homes for low- and moderate-income families in economically distressed areas over the next ten years. President Bush has long supported the creation of a homeownership tax credit as have the majority of both the House and Senate in the last Congress. This proposal also has the backing of a large and broad coalition of housing-related groups, including the National Association of Home Builders, the National Council of State Housing Agencies, and the National Association of Realtors. In addition, this initiative has the backing of major non-profit groups, including Habitat for Humanity, as well as the Local Initiatives Support Corporation and the Enterprise Foundation. This important legislation addresses a key issue facing many Americans today, housing affordability. It also addresses the community development needs of many neighborhoods. It continues to have strong bipartisan support, and I am hopeful that it will be enacted this year. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting homeownership by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005 to clarify the responsibilities of the National Weather Service (NWS) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, NOAA. This legislation modernizes the statutory description of NWS roles in the national weather enterprise so that it reflects today's reality in which the NWS and the commercial weather industry both play important parts in providing weather products and services to the Nation. Back in 1890 when the current NWS organic statute was enacted, and all the way through World War II, the public received its weather forecasts and warnings almost exclusively from the Weather Bureau, the NWS's predecessor. In the late 1940s, a fledging weather service industry began to develop. From then until December 2004, the NWS has had policies sensitive to the importance of fostering the industry's expansion, and since 1948 has had formal policies discouraging its competition with industry. Fourteen years ago the NWS took the extra step of carefully delineating the respective roles of the NWS and the commercial weather industry, in addition to pledging its intention not to provide products or services that were or could be provided by the commercial weather industry. This longstanding non-competition and non- duplication policy has had the effect of facilitating the growth of the industry into a billion dollar sector and of strengthening and extending the national weather enterprise, now the best in the world. Regrettably, the parent agency of the NWS, NOAA, repealed the 1991 non-competition and non-duplication policy in December 2004. Its new policy only promises to ``give due consideration'' to the abilities of private sector entities. The new policy appears to signal the intention of NOAA and the NWS to expand their activities into areas that are already well served by the commercial weather industry. This detracts from NWS's core missions of maintaining a modem and effective meteorological infrastructure, collecting comprehensive observational data, and issuing warnings and forecasts of severe weather that imperils life and property. Additionally, NOAA's action threatens the continued success of the commercial weather industry. It is not an easy prospect for a business to attract advertisers, subscribers, or investors when the government is providing similar products and services for free. This bill restores the NWS non-competition policy. However, the legislation leaves NWS with complete and unfettered freedom to carry out its critical role of preparing and issuing severe weather warnings and forecasts designed for the protection of life and property of the general public. I believe it is in the best interest of both the government and NWS to concentrate on this critical role and its other core missions. The beauty of a highly competent private sector is that services that are not inherently involved in public safety and security can be carried out with little or no expenditure of taxpayer dollars. At a time of tight agency budgets, the commercial weather industry's increasing capabilities offer the Federal Government the opportunity to focus its resources on the governmental functions of collecring and distributing weather data, research and development of atmospheric models and core forecasts, and on ensuring that NWS meteorologists provide the most timely and accurate warnings and forecasts of life-threatening weather. The National Weather Service Duties Act also addresses the potential misuse of insider information. Currently, NOAA and the NWS are doing little to safeguard the NWS information that could be used by opportunistic investors to gain unfair profits in the weather futures markets, in the agriculture and energy markets, and in other business segments influenced by government weather outlooks, forecasts, and warnings. No one knows who may be taking advantage of this information. In recent years there have been various examples of NWS personnel providing such information to specific TV stations and others that enable those businesses to secure an advantage over their competitors. The best way to address this problem is to require that NWS data, information, guidance, forecasts and warnings be issued in real time and simultaneously to all members of the public, the media and the commercial weather industry. This bill imposes just such a requirement, which is common to other Federal agencies. The responsibilities of the commercial weather industry as the only private sector producer of weather information, services and systems deserve this definition to ensure continued growth and investment in the private sector and to properly focus the government's activities. We have every right to expect these agencies to minimize unnecessary, competitive, and commercial-type activities, and to do the best possible job of warning the public about impending flash floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and other potentially catastrophic events. I encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005 to clarify the responsibilities of the National Weather Service (NWS) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, NOAA. This legislation modernizes the statutory description of NWS roles in the national weather enterprise so that it reflects today's reality in which the NWS and the commercial weather industry both play important parts in providing weather products and services to the Nation. Back in 1890 when the current NWS organic statute was enacted, and all the way through World War II, the public received its weather forecasts and warnings almost exclusively from the Weather Bureau, the NWS's predecessor. In the late 1940s, a fledging weather service industry began to develop. From then until December 2004, the NWS has had policies sensitive to the importance of fostering the industry's expansion, and since 1948 has had formal policies discouraging its competition with industry. Fourteen years ago the NWS took the extra step of carefully delineating the respective roles of the NWS and the commercial weather industry, in addition to pledging its intention not to provide products or services that were or could be provided by the commercial weather industry. This longstanding non-competition and non- duplication policy has had the effect of facilitating the growth of the industry into a billion dollar sector and of strengthening and extending the national weather enterprise, now the best in the world. Regrettably, the parent agency of the NWS, NOAA, repealed the 1991 non-competition and non-duplication policy in December 2004. Its new policy only promises to ``give due consideration'' to the abilities of private sector entities. The new policy appears to signal the intention of NOAA and the NWS to expand their activities into areas that are already well served by the commercial weather industry. This detracts from NWS's core missions of maintaining a modem and effective meteorological infrastructure, collecting comprehensive observational data, and issuing warnings and forecasts of severe weather that imperils life and property. Additionally, NOAA's action threatens the continued success of the commercial weather industry. It is not an easy prospect for a business to attract advertisers, subscribers, or investors when the government is providing similar products and services for free. This bill restores the NWS non-competition policy. However, the legislation leaves NWS with complete and unfettered freedom to carry out its critical role of preparing and issuing severe weather warnings and forecasts designed for the protection of life and property of the general public. I believe it is in the best interest of both the government and NWS to concentrate on this critical role and its other core missions. The beauty of a highly competent private sector is that services that are not inherently involved in public safety and security can be carried out with little or no expenditure of taxpayer dollars. At a time of tight agency budgets, the commercial weather industry's increasing capabilities offer the Federal Government the opportunity to focus its resources on the governmental functions of collecring and distributing weather data, research and development of atmospheric models and core forecasts, and on ensuring that NWS meteorologists provide the most timely and accurate warnings and forecasts of life-threatening weather. The National Weather Service Duties Act also addresses the potential misuse of insider information. Currently, NOAA and the NWS are doing little to safeguard the NWS information that could be used by opportunistic investors to gain unfair profits in the weather futures markets, in the agriculture and energy markets, and in other business segments influenced by government weather outlooks, forecasts, and warnings. No one knows who may be taking advantage of this information. In recent years there have been various examples of NWS personnel providing such information to specific TV stations and others that enable those businesses to secure an advantage over their competitors. The best way to address this problem is to require that NWS data, information, guidance, forecasts and warnings be issued in real time and simultaneously to all members of the public, the media and the commercial weather industry. This bill imposes just such a requirement, which is common to other Federal agencies. The responsibilities of the commercial weather industry as the only private sector producer of weather information, services and systems deserve this definition to ensure continued growth and investment in the private sector and to properly focus the government's activities. We have every right to expect these agencies to minimize unnecessary, competitive, and commercial-type activities, and to do the best possible job of warning the public about impending flash floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and other potentially catastrophic events. I encourage my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am introducing the ``Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2005.'' Amazingly, every year quality firefighting equipment worth millions of dollars is wasted. In order to avoid civil liability lawsuits, heavy industry and wealthier fire departments destroy surplus equipment, including hoses, fire trucks, protective gear and breathing apparatus, instead of donating it to volunteer fire departments. The basic purpose of this legislation is to induce donations of surplus firefighting equipment by reducing the threat of civil liability for organizations, most commonly heavy industry, and individuals who wish to make these donations. The bill eliminates civil liability barriers to donations of surplus firefighting equipment by raising the liability standard for donors from ``negligence'' to ``gross negligence.'' By doing this, the legislation saves taxpayer dollars by encouraging donations, thereby reducing the taxpayers' burden of purchasing expensive equipment for volunteer fire departments. The Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2005 is modeled after a bill passed by the Texas state legislature in 1997 and signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush which has resulted in more than $10 million in additional equipment donations from companies and other fire departments for volunteer departments which may not be as well equipped. Now companies in Texas can donate surplus equipment to the Texas Forest Service, which then certifies the equipment and passes it on to volunteer fire departments that are in need. The donated equipment must meet all original specifications before it can be sent to volunteer departments. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania have passed similar legislation at the State level. In the 108th Congress, Representative Castle introduced the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act, which had 64 bipartisan cosponsors in the House of Representatives. It is also supported by the National Volunteer Fire Council, the Firemen's Association of the State of New York, and a former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, James Lee Witt. The legislation passed overwhelmingly in the House by a vote of 397-3. The bill has been reintroduced as H.R. 1088 in the 109th Congress and already has garnered 64 cosponsors. I introduced the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2004 in the 108th Congress that also enjoyed support from the National Volunteer Fire Council. Federally, precedent for similar measures includes the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Act, Public Law 104-210, named for the late Representative Bill Emerson, which encourages restaurants, hotels and businesses to donate millions of dollars worth of food. The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, Public Law 105-101, also immunizes individuals who do volunteer work for non-profit organizations or governmental entities from liability for ordinary negligence in the course of their volunteer work. I have also previously introduced three Good Samaritan measures in the 106th Congress, S. 843, S. 844 and S. 845. These provisions were also included in a broader charitable package in S. 997, the Charity Empowerment Act, to provide additional incentives for corporate in-kind charitable contributions for motor vehicle, aircraft, and facility use. The same provision passed the House of Representatives in the 107th Congress as part of H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act, in July of 2001, but was not signed into law. Volunteers comprise approximately 73 percent of firefighters in the United States. Of the total estimated 1,078,300 firefighters across the country, 784,700 are volunteers. Of the more than 30,000 fire departments in the country, approximately 22,600 are all volunteer; 4,800 are mostly volunteer; 1,600 are mostly career; and 2,000 are all career. In 2000, 58 of the 103 firefighters who died in the line of duty were volunteers. This legislation provides a commonsense incentive for additional contributions to volunteer fire departments around the country and would make it more attractive for corporations to give equipment to fire departments in other States. All of America has witnessed the heroic acts of selflessness and sacrifice of firefighters in New York City, Northern Virginia, and Pennsylvania. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this incentive for the provision of additional safety equipment for volunteer firefighters who put their lives on the line every day throughout this great Nation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am introducing the ``Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2005.'' Amazingly, every year quality firefighting equipment worth millions of dollars is wasted. In order to avoid civil liability lawsuits, heavy industry and wealthier fire departments destroy surplus equipment, including hoses, fire trucks, protective gear and breathing apparatus, instead of donating it to volunteer fire departments. The basic purpose of this legislation is to induce donations of surplus firefighting equipment by reducing the threat of civil liability for organizations, most commonly heavy industry, and individuals who wish to make these donations. The bill eliminates civil liability barriers to donations of surplus firefighting equipment by raising the liability standard for donors from ``negligence'' to ``gross negligence.'' By doing this, the legislation saves taxpayer dollars by encouraging donations, thereby reducing the taxpayers' burden of purchasing expensive equipment for volunteer fire departments. The Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2005 is modeled after a bill passed by the Texas state legislature in 1997 and signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush which has resulted in more than $10 million in additional equipment donations from companies and other fire departments for volunteer departments which may not be as well equipped. Now companies in Texas can donate surplus equipment to the Texas Forest Service, which then certifies the equipment and passes it on to volunteer fire departments that are in need. The donated equipment must meet all original specifications before it can be sent to volunteer departments. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania have passed similar legislation at the State level. In the 108th Congress, Representative Castle introduced the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act, which had 64 bipartisan cosponsors in the House of Representatives. It is also supported by the National Volunteer Fire Council, the Firemen's Association of the State of New York, and a former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, James Lee Witt. The legislation passed overwhelmingly in the House by a vote of 397-3. The bill has been reintroduced as H.R. 1088 in the 109th Congress and already has garnered 64 cosponsors. I introduced the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2004 in the 108th Congress that also enjoyed support from the National Volunteer Fire Council. Federally, precedent for similar measures includes the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Act, Public Law 104-210, named for the late Representative Bill Emerson, which encourages restaurants, hotels and businesses to donate millions of dollars worth of food. The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, Public Law 105-101, also immunizes individuals who do volunteer work for non-profit organizations or governmental entities from liability for ordinary negligence in the course of their volunteer work. I have also previously introduced three Good Samaritan measures in the 106th Congress, S. 843, S. 844 and S. 845. These provisions were also included in a broader charitable package in S. 997, the Charity Empowerment Act, to provide additional incentives for corporate in-kind charitable contributions for motor vehicle, aircraft, and facility use. The same provision passed the House of Representatives in the 107th Congress as part of H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act, in July of 2001, but was not signed into law. Volunteers comprise approximately 73 percent of firefighters in the United States. Of the total estimated 1,078,300 firefighters across the country, 784,700 are volunteers. Of the more than 30,000 fire departments in the country, approximately 22,600 are all volunteer; 4,800 are mostly volunteer; 1,600 are mostly career; and 2,000 are all career. In 2000, 58 of the 103 firefighters who died in the line of duty were volunteers. This legislation provides a commonsense incentive for additional contributions to volunteer fire departments around the country and would make it more attractive for corporations to give equipment to fire departments in other States. All of America has witnessed the heroic acts of selflessness and sacrifice of firefighters in New York City, Northern Virginia, and Pennsylvania. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this incentive for the provision of additional safety equipment for volunteer firefighters who put their lives on the line every day throughout this great Nation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Conrad as a proud cosponsor of a resolution which recognizes the immense bravery of the crew and passengers on flight 93. Over 3\1/2\ years have passed since September 11, 2001, but we, the American people, have not forgotten the bravery and selflessness that was shown by our fellow citizens on that day. During the 108th Congress, the 9/11 Commission investigated the events that took place on September 11, 2001, including flight 93's crash in Somerset County, PA. As a result of a series of Senate hearings held to evaluate and gain a clearer understanding of the 9/11 Commission's findings, the actions of flight 93's passengers and crew have become increasingly evident. We know with near certainty now that the terrorists had plans of causing severe destruction to either the White House or the Capitol Building. Having realized through phone calls to loved ones that three other planes had already been crashed that morning by terrorists, the passengers on flight 93 acted quickly and collaboratively to overtake the hijackers and force them to crash the plane into a rural part of Pennsylvania, keeping the plane's intended target safe from harm. As a result of the 9/11 Commission's findings, we conclude that America is indebted to the heroic actions of those on flight 93, who showed great bravery so that many other lives could be spared from ruin. We who work here in the Capitol are particularly indebted to those on board flight 93. In addition to saving the lives of thousands, the passengers on flight 93 ensured the preservation of one of the greatest symbols of America's freedom and democracy. In an effort to recognize and honor the heroes on flight 93, I am proud to submit this resolution with Senator Conrad. This resolution is an expression of our deep gratitude for what those on flight 93 did for each of us here in our Nation's Capital, as well as an expression of sorrow and condolence to their families and friends. Additionally, this resolution provides for a place in the Capitol Building to be memorialized in the name of the crew and passengers of flight 93, with a remembrance plaque placed at the location. This day presents an opportunity to remember all of those who died on September 11, 2001. Additionally, our volunteers, first responders, and the American people deserve a heartfelt ``thank you'' for the strength and strong resolve they showed in the face of destructive, cowardly acts. I hope that all of my colleagues will join with Senator Conrad and me in this bipartisan effort to honor the crew and passengers on flight 93 for what they did on that infamous day in America's history. May their selfless actions, taken for us and the American people, never be forgotten.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I would like to reflect on the recent passing of Ensign James Randolph Motley McMurtry, a member of the U.S. Navy and a beloved son and friend. Ensign McMurtry tragically died while on vacation in February 2005. The McMurtry family has suffered a tremendous loss, and I offer them my condolences and deepest sympathy during this difficult time. Ensign McMurtry grew up in Harrisburg, PA, attending the Harrisburg Academy in Wormleysburg. He was an exemplary student and excelled in athletics. As he continued his education at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, he served as platoon commander, drill sergeant, and drill officer. After graduating from the Naval Academy in 2003, Ensign McMurtry was assigned to the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon. For all those who worked with Ensign McMurtry at the Pentagon, they knew him as quiet, purposeful, and respectful. Ensign McMurtry had dedicated his life to protecting the freedom and liberties we hold dear as Americans. I value Ensign McMurtry's courage and patriotism. I am also inspired by this young man's conviction and desire to spend his life serving our Nation. I am deeply saddened that his life ended so tragically. Ensign McMurtry leaves behind wonderful family, friends, and coworkers. My thoughts and prayers are with those that were blessed to know Ensign McMurtry.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the tax on beer to its pre-1991 level. In 1990, Congress raised taxes on luxury items like expensive cars, fur coats, jewelry, yachts and private airplanes and doubled the Federal excise tax on beer. This was the single largest tax increase on beer in American history and resulted in some 60,000 people losing their jobs in brewing, distributing, retailing and related industries. The tax burden on beer is higher than the average consumer good in the American economy, an astounding 44 percent of its retail price. As a result of this tax increase the Government collects approximately seven times more in beer taxes than the Nation's brewers make in profits. The doubling of the beer excise tax in 1990 was regressive, and therefore unfair, because it hits lower income taxpayers the hardest. Most beer consumers have household incomes below $40,000. Regular beer drinkers--Americans raising a family--are the people most affected by the increase in the Federal excise tax on beer. Lowering the beer tax means more money in the pockets of these hard-working men and women. The beer excise tax was first enacted as an emergency measure to help finance the Civil War. It is an anachronism in our tax code. Since its enactment, dozens of corporate and payroll taxes have been imposed on brewers just as they have on other businesses. Yet the beer excise tax remains. A rollback of just the 1990 beer tax increase would also help maintain good-paying American manufacturing jobs and will create new opportunities and a boost to the economy. The U.S. system of alcohol beverage control has been the maintenance of a domestic presence for the industry with independent supplier, wholesale and retail tiers. Brewers, wholesalers and retailers are heavily regulated and to the extent the U.S. maintains a strong domestic industry, the Federal, State and local agencies will continue to ensure accountability and responsible business practices. The brewing industry has a major presence in many U.S. cities and provides a significant source of manufacturing jobs. The industry directly and indirectly accounts for close to 2.5 million jobs nationwide--a reduction of the beer tax would help brewers maintain or grow their workforce. Brewing, wholesaling and retail combined contribute over 41,000 jobs to the economy of my home State of Pennsylvania. All of the other luxury taxes enacted in 1990 have been repealed. Yet the beer tax increase remains in place. It is time to roll back the Federal excise tax increase on beer and provide another measure of tax relief to America's working men and women. The Federal Government will still collect almost $3.7 billion in excise taxes and the industry will pay an additional $21 billion in Federal, State, and local taxes. This is a modest and reasonable measure of tax relief to a significant American industry.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the tax on beer to its pre-1991 level. In 1990, Congress raised taxes on luxury items like expensive cars, fur coats, jewelry, yachts and private airplanes and doubled the Federal excise tax on beer. This was the single largest tax increase on beer in American history and resulted in some 60,000 people losing their jobs in brewing, distributing, retailing and related industries. The tax burden on beer is higher than the average consumer good in the American economy, an astounding 44 percent of its retail price. As a result of this tax increase the Government collects approximately seven times more in beer taxes than the Nation's brewers make in profits. The doubling of the beer excise tax in 1990 was regressive, and therefore unfair, because it hits lower income taxpayers the hardest. Most beer consumers have household incomes below $40,000. Regular beer drinkers--Americans raising a family--are the people most affected by the increase in the Federal excise tax on beer. Lowering the beer tax means more money in the pockets of these hard-working men and women. The beer excise tax was first enacted as an emergency measure to help finance the Civil War. It is an anachronism in our tax code. Since its enactment, dozens of corporate and payroll taxes have been imposed on brewers just as they have on other businesses. Yet the beer excise tax remains. A rollback of just the 1990 beer tax increase would also help maintain good-paying American manufacturing jobs and will create new opportunities and a boost to the economy. The U.S. system of alcohol beverage control has been the maintenance of a domestic presence for the industry with independent supplier, wholesale and retail tiers. Brewers, wholesalers and retailers are heavily regulated and to the extent the U.S. maintains a strong domestic industry, the Federal, State and local agencies will continue to ensure accountability and responsible business practices. The brewing industry has a major presence in many U.S. cities and provides a significant source of manufacturing jobs. The industry directly and indirectly accounts for close to 2.5 million jobs nationwide--a reduction of the beer tax would help brewers maintain or grow their workforce. Brewing, wholesaling and retail combined contribute over 41,000 jobs to the economy of my home State of Pennsylvania. All of the other luxury taxes enacted in 1990 have been repealed. Yet the beer tax increase remains in place. It is time to roll back the Federal excise tax increase on beer and provide another measure of tax relief to America's working men and women. The Federal Government will still collect almost $3.7 billion in excise taxes and the industry will pay an additional $21 billion in Federal, State, and local taxes. This is a modest and reasonable measure of tax relief to a significant American industry.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. I would like to ask a question about the 6 percent of the workforce that does not participate in Social Security. They are State and local workers. My first question is, Do you support requiring--just as you did in 1983 by requiring Federal workers to participate in Social Security--those State and local workers to participate in Social Security? And if you do not, then why would you deny current workers who are in the Social Security system the opportunity to have a personal account like those workers do and allow them to continue to have their funded pension system and funded Social Security system, not allow current workers to have at least a partially funded Social Security system?

Mr. SANTORUM. I would answer that and say that as you see, we have a surplus right now that can be used to fund these accounts for the next 10 years. After that we run a deficit in the Social Security Program, and we would have to come up with a way of financing that deficit. What the President has suggested is that with Social Security, if we fix it the old-fashioned way, the way you did in 1938, which was increase taxes and cut benefits, workers would be paying more and getting less. With personal accounts, you have the opportunity of getting more because you use the compound interest, you use the miracle of the markets, and a balanced investment portfolio that is being used by pension funds all over the country to fund their accounts. And so what we would suggest is you initially use the surplus money and then you balance for future workers--again, no reduction in benefits today, but you balance for future workers. What the President has talked about is a promise, a lower promise of benefits but a better opportunity for a return because you have the personal savings accounts which can exceed the promised benefit. So you have at least the opportunity to do as well as the current system promises but cannot pay--promises but cannot pay--and you have the opportunity of not having to have future tax increases, again, because you are able to compensate with the amount of money that is earned in these accounts, again, because of the compounding of interest and because of the diversified portfolio of investments you have. To me, this is a balanced approach. It takes the good part of the Social Security system which is the security of having money go into this old system, keeps that in place for about two-thirds of the money, and a third of the money will be able to offset what would have to be a future reduction of benefits with the growth in the personal account.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank my colleagues from Illinois and Michigan, and my colleague from South Carolina and my colleague in the chair on this debate. I think it was a good and spirited debate. Hopefully, we added a little light to the issue. Let me try to focus a little bit. The Senator from Illinois used a quote: We are not in it alone. If you are a 20-year-old today, you are feeling pretty lonely because there are only two of you going to be paying for every one retiree. When FDR said that, there were 42, and he could say we are not in it alone. You are pretty close to being in it alone today, and that is why we need a different system, a system that prefunds, that actually uses the money, the surplus today, and saves it for future retiree benefits. We are not taking money out of the system. We are putting the money, instead of for the Government to spend and giving an IOU to replace it, we are putting it in real assets that will be real benefits when real workers really retire. Second, I want to comment on the cost of administering the program. The cost of administering the program has been estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, not at 20 percent--I can maybe understand the difference--it is 20 basis points. That is .2 percent, not 20 percent. It is 20 basis points, which is .2 percent of the amount of money. So I believe that is a dramatic difference. It is actually less expensive to administer this system than to administer the current Social Security system. The other thing I would like to mention, if we can go to the next chart, three times we asked the question, How are you going to fix the Social Security system? The only answer we got was to repeal the Bush tax cuts which, of course, does nothing to the Social Security system because that money is not paid to the Social Security system. So repealing the Bush tax relief would simply put more money in the general fund, but it would have no impact at all, no actuarial impact at all on the Social Security system. So when the Senator from Illinois said we had to make difficult choices in 1983, that may have been the case in 1983, but so far we have not heard word one of the difficult choices that the other side would like to present to the American people. Several Republicans have come forward with plans, plan after plan after plan of details of how we are going to save this program, and all we have gotten from the other side is sniping at the plan that we put forward and no answers. If we do not solve the problem----

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank both chairmen for structuring this debate. I am here to talk about the problems confronting the Social Security system. Then my colleague Senator DeMint will talk about in more detail the solutions we are putting forth--many of us on the side of the aisle are putting forward. The problem with Social Security is it is driven by demographics. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. That means the people working pay into the system for those who are retired. The system worked well when you had a lot of people working and only a few people retiring. But that has fundamentally changed over the years. As a result of that change, what you see in the red line is a dramatic increase in taxes--from 2 percent, which is what the tax was on Social Security in 1936, now up to 12.4 percent. It was 2 percent on the first $3,000 you made. That is the green bar. Now it is up to 12.4 percent of the first $90,000 you make. If you are working in the system now, that is when you start, high based; in other words, almost every dollar most people make is going be taxed at a very high rate. This is a big tax burden on future generations of America as we stand today. But this tax right now doesn't pay for the benefits that are going to be provided for future generations. Why? Demographics are changing. The first thing to happen is the fact that we are not having as many children. There are some exceptions to that. But we are not having as many children as we had in previous years. You see the baby boom generation, 6.3 children of women of childbearing age. We are now going to be below a sustainable birth rate. But for immigration, we would be losing population in America. We see a gradual decline in the number of workers going into the system. That is No. 1. No. 2, we have a problem--a good problem. People are living longer. Life expectancy at the time Social Security started was age 61. Truly, at the time, Social Security was an old-age program. What does that mean? It was for people who could no longer work. People didn't live to age 65 back in 1936. Now we are seeing seniors living to age 77, and increasing 1 month every 2 years. What we are going to be asking future generations of Americans to do--these workers, fewer of them--is to support seniors up to almost one-third of their lifespan in ``retirement'' on Social Security. People are living longer, fewer people paying benefits, and the final big blow to the demographic perfect storm is the number of people turning 65. If you look back over the last 40 years, back and beyond 1982, the average number of people turning 65 in America was 2 million. When boomers start to retire, as you can see in the year 2011, the average going out over the next 40 years is going to be 4 million people. We are going to double the number of people retiring, and they are going to be living longer, and fewer people are coming into the workplace to pay for those benefits. As a result of this combination of three factors, we see this very important distinction. This is what is driving the personal accounts. That is what is driving the need for changes in the Social Security system. It worked fine when you had a lot of people paying 42 to 1. Now we have a system where almost one person is paying for one person in retirement; it is two to one. Franklin Roosevelt would never design a system where workers were paying for retirees if you only had two workers paying for one retiree. No one designing a system today would design a system with demographics looking like this. In a sense you are almost paying for one person's retirement. If you do that, anyway, why not have a personal account? Why not have the money paid to you and accrue that money over time, earn interest, have the miracle of compound interest being used to benefit from the taxes you are paying, instead of simply paying it to someone who is getting a transfer payment from you as you work today. Franklin Roosevelt was right; Members never thought a Republican would say that. He was right to design a system such as this because it made sense. There was a very small burden on taxpayers. But we have changed. America has changed. And as a result of that change we need to look at the system differently. Here is what happens now because of this demographic. Huge deficits in the future. Why? Fewer people paying and more people retired live longer. We have a short window of 10 or 12 years when we are paying more into the system than we need to pay benefits. Why don't we lockbox that? How do you lockbox it? You can't lockbox it. Every Senator I have ever talked to says the money goes to pay for other Government programs. The answer is right. How do we lockbox it? Put it into personal savings accounts for their benefits in later years. That is how you lockbox Social Security today. That surplus that is there right now, put it into personal accounts. If we don't do that, we will have a cashflow problem in our ability to pay benefits. We cannot pay benefits with IOUs. The President showed that today in Parkersburg, WV. You have to pay benefits with cash. That is the cash deficits we will be running in the Social Security Program alone: $63 billion in 10 years, $250 billion cashflow. What does that mean? Someone will have to pay more in taxes in 10 or 15 years, someone will get less benefits, or we will have huge borrowing to pay current benefits--not doing anything about saving money, not doing anything about having a better benefit, just to pay the current benefits being promised and that we cannot deliver on.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask either of my colleagues, they have heard of the solution we have put forward, and I guess the question I have is, the Senator from Illinois suggested we can fix it the way we fixed it in the past. The way it was fixed in the past is we raised the payroll tax from about 10.4 percent to 12.4 percent and we raised the base and indexed it. And then secondly, we increased the retirement age from 65 to 67. Also, we taxed benefits for the first time on higher income individuals. We taxed benefits, increased the retirement age, and we raised taxes. So my question is: If my colleagues do not want to go the personal account route, and if they accept at some point--pick the time--at some point there will be a shortfall in the system, how are we going to solve this problem? What tax are we going to increase or by how much? How much are we going to cut benefits, or how much are we going to tax benefits?

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator. This is really an interesting question, and I think everyone admits that there is a gap between the amount of money coming in and the amount of money that we are going to need to pay, and that is shown by this cash deficit. The fact is, we have to somehow or another in Social Security bring these two lines together. I think everyone would agree that is the option. Right now, the shortfall over the life of the program is $11 trillion between the revenue line and the benefit line--the benefit line being up here, the revenue line down here. How do we bring those lines together, and how do we keep it solvent in the future? What the President suggested is that if we do some-- let us assume it is all borrowing. We cannot make any spending cuts. We borrow up to-- again, according to Alan Greenspan--$1 trillion to $2 trillion over the next 15 to 20 years to prefund Social Security, just like we prefund every other retirement system in America. In fact, they are required by law to prefund. We put the money into a diversified portfolio of investments and then that borrowing at the beginning creates an elimination of the $11 trillion long-term problem. So I would ask, is a $2 trillion investment now worth saving $11 trillion and making the system permanently solvent in the future? I would answer that question with a resounding yes, and we put the Social Security system on stable funding forever and have it supported by ownership. Of course, we all know ownership has its privileges. One of the things is it can be passed to the next generation. One can do better than the current system promises and cannot pay for. Let me repeat that. The promised benefits we cannot pay for for my generation and for future generations of Americans. What we want to give is ownership to future generations. We want to give them a good chance. This gamble--go to every union pension plan and tell them their union is gambling.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the chart is not accurate. According to the Congressional Budget Office, extending the tax cuts would cost about .7 percent of the gross domestic product between now and 2050, whereas the Social Security deficit is 1.4 percent of GDP. Even if we repeal all the tax cuts, not just on the wealthiest but on everybody that we provided--that is child credit, that is marriage penalty, all of those things--if you take all of those tax reductions the President has put forward, they only make up half, according to the Congressional Budget Office, of the shortfall. It does not solve the problem, No. 1, and it also would be mixing apples and oranges. We have never in the history of this system had a general fund tax transfer to Social Security. We have always funded Social Security within the Social Security system through payroll taxes, and I showed the increases of taxes over time. So now we are talking about something fundamentally different. We are talking about general fund revenue to fund Social Security. I do not think most people would see that as an insurance policy anymore. I think they start to see it as a transfer program looking more like a welfare program than what has historically been a social insurance program. I do not think we want to head down that road. I think we want to keep the integrity of the Social Security system in place. That is why what we are suggesting, which is personal retirement accounts, where the money stays in the system--there is a lot of talk saying you are taking money out to put in these accounts. Remember, these accounts pay Social Security benefits. The money stays in the system. It does not come out of the system. It is used as a way of actually saving and capturing this money that right now is going to the Federal Government to spend, and in exchange we are getting this IOU. Is the IOU an obligation to pay? Yes. How does the Government pay benefits? It pays benefits on the ability to take either tax revenue or borrow money and pay out benefits. What we are suggesting with this chart of showing the cashflow problems is the deficits are going to be huge in the future, and that is going to be a problem of cash-flowing benefit payments in the future. It is not that we will not pay them; it is the deficits are going to be huge.

Mr. SANTORUM. Now my question. I asked this question, Senator DeMint asked the same question of both of my colleagues, and in neither instance did we get a response. So I will give my colleagues one last try. We asked, what would my colleagues do, what is their plan? I just want to get the transcript. In neither case did either my colleague from Michigan or my colleague from Illinois put forward specifically what increases in taxes do they recommend, what reduction in benefits do they propose, or how much are we going to tax existing Social Security benefits to make up the shortfall. Pick the date as to when my colleagues want to solve the problem, whether they want to wait until 2018 or 2042 or 2052, whatever the case may be. How are they going to solve this problem that at least some on their side of the aisle admit exists?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for morning business with 10 minutes equally divided between Senators Cornyn and Durbin, and following the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate stand in adjournment as under the previous order.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.