Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the HIV/AIDS pandemic has reached staggering proportions. At the end of 2004, an estimated 40 million people were living with HIV/AIDS. Each year, 5 million more people become infected. The United States has demonstrated important leadership fighting the AIDS epidemic. And this leadership is yielding results. At the end of 2004, an estimated 700,000 people in the developing world were receiving antiretroviral therapy. Many of these individuals were receiving treatment thanks to U.S.-supported bilateral and multilateral programs. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2006 includes $2.9 billion for bilateral programs for AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. This amendment would maintain full funding for this component of the President's request. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria is an important component of U.S. efforts, and supports approximately 300 projects in 130 countries. The United States was the first and remains the largest contributor to the Global Fund. To balance the U.S. share and encourage contributions from other donors, the administration supported language in the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 that links U.S. contributions to the Fund to the contributions of other donors. Together with Senator Durbin, I believe Congress should fulfill the commitment implied in the act by matching, on a one-to-two basis, the contributions of other donors. Through a mid-year review process, Congress and the administration should assess anticipated contributions to the Global Fund and ensure that U.S. contributions, at year-end, are at the appropriate one-to-two ratio, and that the U.S. does not exceed 33 percent of total contributions to the fund. For fiscal year 2005, the Global Fund estimates it will renew $2.4 billion worth of effective programs that are already operating on the ground. The administration and the Global Fund Board have said that renewing existing grants should receive funding priority. In order to cover one-third of renewals during fiscal year 2006, and to maintain the one-to-two funding match, the U.S. will need to contribute an additional $500 million above the President's request to keep well-functioning programs funded at a level of $800 million. Senator Durbin and I consider this number to be the necessary level of funding. Failing to renew grants could cut off life-saving treatments in proven programs. Senator Durbin and I firmly believe that funding the global fight against AIDS is a top priority. If adopted by the Senate, this amendment will ensure a level of $3.7 billion for international AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria assistance, including $800 million for the Global Fund. Amendment No. 238

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is one of the most important things we can do to meet the pandemic afflicting Africa right now. The President came up with a great number for bilateral aid. We are still a little short on the global fund. This is to add half a billion dollars to the global fund to make sure we can meet our commitment to provide drugs and services to this pandemic. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, on January 27, the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation released a report requested by Senate Finance Chairman Grassley and the ranking member, Senator Max Baucus, entitled ``Options To Improve Tax Compliance and Reform Tax Expenditures.'' While I fully expect that many of the recommendations will be the subject of extended debate in the Senate over the coming year, I want to highlight one recommendation that should be rejected immediately: the joint committee staff's proposal to revoke the tax-exempt status of fraternal benefit societies. Beginning with the Tariff Act of 1894, every Federal tax law has contained a specific exemption for fraternal benefit societies, and with good reason. These organizations, some of which have existed since the Civil War, are a major force for good in America today. Last year, for example, these organizations incurred almost $360 million in direct fraternal and charitable expenditures, while their individual members devoted more than 80 million volunteer hours--valued at $1.4 billion-- in community and social services. Fraternal benefit societies support their communities in every possible way, including helping families with critically ill children, supporting homeless shelters and homes for the aged, raising funds and supporting local food banks, repairing playgrounds and other community facilities, and helping underprivileged youth stay away from drugs. Fraternal benefit societies are among our Nation's most important first responders; they acted quickly to provide almost $17 million in financial relief to families affected by 9/11, and have raised upwards of $8 million in tsunami relief and counting. What makes this extraordinary effort possible is the requirement under the Internal Revenue Code that fraternal societies also make available to their members insurance against death, disease, and disability, a tradition of mutual aid that goes back to the earliest days of fraternalism. I am troubled, Mr. President, by the fact that the Joint Committee staff has dredged up an old idea that has been rejected once before. In 1984, the Treasury Department made a similar recommendation that resulted in Congress mandating an extensive study of fraternal benefit societies that was issued in 1993. In that study, Treasury concluded that fraternal societies do not use their tax exemption to compete unfairly against commercial insurers, but instead, use the revenues from insurance to support their fraternal and charitable activities. Treasury left the decision up to Congress, but noted that if the exemption was taken away, these fraternal and charitable activities would be extinguished. If anything, the rationale for encouraging fraternal benefit societies is greater today than it has been at any other time in our history. Fraternal societies have shown us that the private sector can and will step in to make a difference. As our need for fraternal societies has grown, so too has their devotion to our communities. Fraternal and charitable expenditures were approximately $242 million in 1985, and the number of volunteer hours on behalf of society members was just over 26 million. Last year fraternal and charitable expenditures were almost $365 million and the number of volunteer hours had grown to 83 million. At the same time, the share of the insurance market represented by fraternals during this time period has remained steady at around 1.5 percent. In other words, the good that these organizations do has gone way up; they are no more a threat to commercial businesses today than they were 20 years ago. Moreover, I can tell you from personal experience that the 10 million Americans who join fraternal societies are more devoted today to the cause that brought them together--whether religious, patriotic, or a shared heritage--than ever before. Pennsylvania is fortunate to be home to many of these organizations and dedicated citizens. The Joint Committee staff has concluded that revoking the tax- exemption of fraternal benefit societies would raise $500 million over 10 years. This pales by comparison to the $4 billion that fraternal societies are likely to put back into their communities over the same time frame in direct fraternal and charitable expenditures, and the annual $1.4 billion that their members devote in volunteer time throughout the country. Recognizing the importance of fostering this type of private sector support for our communities, it is interesting to note that the platform of the Republican National Committee in 2004, 2000, and 1996 contained the following statement: ``Because of the vital role of religious and fraternal benevolent societies in fostering charity and patriotism, they should not be subject to taxation.'' Mr. President, it often has been said that the power to tax is the power to destroy. This is the time to encourage, not destroy, organizations that devote themselves to social good, organizations from which this Nation has benefited immeasurably for more than 150 years. As Congress concluded in 1985, let us again make sure that this joint committee recommendation is taken off the table.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. Today we had an opportunity to discuss and pass a very important piece of legislation. Most people would think I am referring to the budget, which we spent the better part of the day on, but we spent 15 precious minutes talking about an issue that many Americans are thinking about tonight; that is, the case of Terri Schiavo in the State of Florida. I wanted to congratulate my colleague from Florida, Senator Martinez, for his effort in drafting the piece of legislation that could get, frankly, the impossible done--to get in the midst of an at times rancorous budget debate--a very unique consensus in this place, unique in this respect: 100 Senators had to agree to pass this bill. It is difficult enough to get 100 people, much less 100 Senators, to agree to do anything, particularly during an often difficult process that we have been going through, but not only did we get 100 Senators to agree to allow this bill to be passed, but we did so when some Members on the other side of the aisle were not supporting the bill. That is somewhat remarkable. I give a lot of credit to the Senator from Florida, Senator Martinez, the two leaders, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, Senator Harkin, and others who worked to bring this issue to the Senate floor and to deal with it in a way that accomplished something vitally important; that is, giving the family of Terri Schiavo hope that the end will not begin tomorrow. I will talk more specifically about it. I will yield to my colleague, Senator Martinez, and Senator Brownback. Both have been obviously incredibly active and helpful. We are still working this process. The House has passed one bill, and we have passed a different one. I have been, as well as many here in this Chamber, back and forth between the House. I missed the next to the last vote because of meetings I was having over in the House. I never like to miss a vote, but I guess if we miss a vote, this is probably as good a reason to miss one. We are still working very hard to see if we can find some common ground so we can address this issue that is so vitally important--not allowing a death sentence to be handed down to a young woman without a Federal court review. We are working here on the Senate side very diligently. Not only do we work together to pass the bill Senator Martinez authored, but we are working on the House bill. There will be meetings tomorrow with several Members of the Senate who have concerns about that bill to determine whether there is a possibility that we can, in fact, accept the House bill on this side of the aisle. Those meetings will take place tomorrow, and we will have a session on Monday in which we can potentially, if we get an agreement, pass that bill. But that is something we are going to work on. I can tell you, having spoken to both Senator Reid and Senator Durbin, and others on the other side of the aisle--they have helped us arrange meetings with Members who have concerns about that issue, the House bill on the Democratic side of the aisle. We are putting those meetings together. We are going to have those discussions, we are going to see if this is something that can be acceptable and passed, and again we have to pass with unanimous consent. That process is underway. Many in this Chamber believe the House bill is a superior way to go. I know the House strongly feels that way. Relief provided in the House bill does something that is essential; that is, take the case out of the hands of the judge who seems determined to end the life of Terri Schiavo. Removing that case from that judge into the Federal court is the most effective way to get a fair hearing. I think that has a lot of merit. We are hopeful we can have this good discussion. But I will tell you we have had an air of cooperation here in the Senate that, candidly, was heartwarming. We sort of got past not just the particulars, because I don't think there is any politics in this, but even some of the philosophical and policy concerns that people have and understood the genuine concern that many Members here have for the evolving situation in Florida. I commend my colleagues. This was a very fine moment for the Senate. It is continuing to be that as we continue to search for an answer--an answer that can get the House and the Senate together. I am hopeful that the House will do likewise, will reflect on the Senate bill. I know it is a very difficult row to hoe for the House. We will be back in session on Monday. The House will be back in session on Monday. Again, I don't know whether we will be able to get anything solved by then. But I will tell you at least on the Senate side we will continue to work on that. We will continue to see if we can find some common ground. I am hopeful we will be able to reach--in fact, we must reach a conclusion. It would be unconscionable to leave with both parties having expressed a will to do something. Both bodies with identical intent and cannot find the words to come together to accomplish that joint intent that has passed overwhelmingly in both Chambers. That would be a crime on top of a crime that is being committed in the State of Florida. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank all those involved. I thank the two leaders for their conscientious effort in getting this accomplished. I thank Senator Conrad, and Senator Martinez, obviously, for his sponsorship of this legislation, and all the others who worked with us. Even though, as Senator Levin and Senator Wyden said, they oppose this legislation, they understood the importance of this issue to colleagues on both sides of the aisle and were willing to work with us to improve the bill and, nevertheless, to allow us its passage. So I want to thank everyone concerned. I want to explain, very briefly, what this bill does. This bill simply gives a Federal court the ability to review the State court's action. Just yesterday, in California, a man was sentenced to death for killing two people. He will have ample opportunity to have everything the California courts did reviewed by the Federal court under a habeas corpus appeal. He will have multiple appeals for Federal courts to look to see whether the State court in California properly behaved in providing him his due process rights under the 14th amendment--a multiple murder. Terri Schiavo has done one thing wrong: she did not have a living will. But the Florida courts gave her a death sentence. They said that her feeding tube and hydration will be removed until she is dead. And no one but for this bill and the Federal courts will have any right to look to see if her due process rights were followed by the Florida courts. This does not get us involved in a medical decision. This does not get us involved in making decisions of life and death. It simply protects the constitutional rights of someone whose only--only--mistake was not to have a living will. Should we not give someone who is in that situation, who has been sentenced to death by a court on a State level, the right for Federal court review to determine whether her rights were protected by those courts? That is all we ask in this piece of legislation. It is narrow. It applies only to her, to no one else. It sets no precedent. We specified, thanks to Senator Wyden's amendment, that it sets no precedent for any other action. So I would encourage my colleagues, as we just have been through a horrific death penalty case in California, to understand that there is a proper role for Federal courts to look to make sure that due process was followed. That is all we are asking for here today. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Kerry and appreciate the work he has done on this bill over the years. I am also pleased to have a number of Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, join me in cosponsoring this important legislation. The bill we introduce today is intended to ensure that employees are not forced to choose between their religious beliefs and practices and keeping their jobs. It recognizes that an individual's faith impacts every part of their life, including the many hours spent in the workplace. America is distinguished internationally as a land of religious freedom, and it should be a place where people are not forced to choose between keeping their faith and keeping their job. This simple proposition is why we are re-introducing the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA), which provides a balanced approach to reconciling the needs of people of faith in the workplace with those of employers. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was meant to address conflicts between religion and work. It requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious needs of their employees so long as it does not impose an undue hardship on the employer. The problem is that our federal courts have essentially ruled that any hardship is an undue hardship and have thus left religiously observant workers with little or no legal protection. WRFA will re-establish the principle that employers must reasonably accommodate the religious needs of employees. This legislation is carefully crafted and strikes an appropriate balance, respecting religious accommodation while ensuring that an undue burden is not forced upon employers. WRFA is also careful to ensure that the accommodation of an individual employee's religious conscience will not adversely affect the delivery of products or services to an employer's customers or clients. The balance that this legislation seeks to establish is evident in the broad spectrum of groups supporting this bill, including the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Council of Churches, the North American Council for Muslim Women, the Sikh Resource Taskforce, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the American Jewish Committee, Agudath Israel of America, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and many others. America is a great nation because we honor not only the freedom of conscience, but also the freedom to exercise one's religion according to the dictates of that religious conscience. This fundamental freedom is protected and strengthened in this legislation by re-establishing an appropriate balance between the demands of work and the principles of faith. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record after my statement.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Baucus in the reintroduction of the Encouraging Work Act of 2005. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) and We1fare-to-Work Tax Credit (W-t-W) are tax incentives that encourage employers to hire public assistance recipients and other individuals with barriers to employment. The combination of Welfare Reform passed by Congress in 1996 and the assistance to employers found in the WOTC and W-t-W has enabled expanded opportunity for many Americans. Yet more can be done. We were pleased that the Senate JOBS bill passed last year included a permanent WOTC/W-t-W provision along with helpful reforms largely supported by the Administration. Unfortunately, it was only extended in another tax relief bill. Without action by Congress WOTC and W-t-W will expire on January 1, 2006. Under present law, WOTC provides a 40 percent tax credit on the first $6,000 of wages for those working at least 400 hours, or a partial credit of 25 percent for those working 120-399 hours. W-t-W provides a 35 percent tax credit on the first $10,000 of wages for those working 400 hours in the first year. In the second year, the W-t-W credit is 50 percent of the first $10,000 of wages earned. WOTC and W-t-W are key elements of welfare reform. A growing number of employers use these programs in the retail, health care, hotel, financial services, food, and other industries. These programs have helped over 2,700,000 previously dependent persons to find jobs. WOTC and W-t-W eligibility is limited to: 1. Recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) in 9 of the 18 months ending on the hiring date; 2. individua1s receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits; 3. disabled individuals with vocational rehabilitation referrals; 4. veterans on food stamps; 5. individuals in households receiving food stamp benefits; 6. qualified summer youth employees; 7. low-income ex-felons; and 8. individua1s age 18-24 1iving in empowerment zones or renewal communities. Eligibility for W-t-W is limited to individuals receiving welfare benefits for 18 consecutive months ending on the hiring date. More than 80 percent of WOTC and W-t- W hires were previously dependent on public assistance programs. These credits are both a hiring incentive--offsetting some of the higher costs of recruiting, hiring, and retaining public assistance recipients and other low-skilled individua1s--and a retention incentive, providing a higher reward for those who stay longer on the job. After eight years of experience with these programs, their value has been well demonstrated. In 2001, the GAO issued a report that indicated that employers have significantly changed their hiring practices because of WOTC. With the resources provided by WOTC, employers have provided job mentors, lengthened training periods, engaged in recruiting outreach, and listed jobs or requested referrals from public agencies or partnerships. WOTC and W-t-W have become a true public- private partnership in which the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service, the states, and employers have forged excellent working relationships. But the challenges for employers and those looking for better opportunities are real. The job skills of eligible persons leaving welfare are sometimes limited, and the costs of recruiting, training, and supervising low-skilled individuals cause many employers to look elsewhere for employees. WOTC and W-t-W are proven incentives for encouraging employers to seek employees from the targeted groups. Despite the considerable success of WOTC and W-t-W, many vulnerable individuals still need a boost in finding employment. There are several legislative changes that would strengthen these programs, expand employment opportunities for needy individuals, and make the programs more attractive to employers. Combine WOTC and W-t-W. The Administration's FY 2006 budget proposes to simplify these important employment incentives by combining them into one credit and making the rules for computing the combined credits simpler. The credits would be combined by creating a new welfare-to- work target group under WOTC. The minimum employment periods and credit rates for the first year of employment under the present work opportunity tax credit would apply to W-t-W employees. The maximum amount of eligible wages would continue to be $10,000 for W-t-W employees and $6,000 for other target groups ($3,000 for summer youth). In addition, the second year 50-percent credit under W-t-W would continue to be available for W-t-W employees under the modified WOTC. Eliminate Requirement to Determine Family Income for Ex-Felons. Under current law, only those ex-felons whose annual family income is 70 percent or less than the Bureau of Labor Statistics lower living standard during the six months preceding the hiring date are eligible for WOTC. The Administration's FY 2006 budget proposes to eliminate the family income attribution rule. Permanent Extension of WOTC and W-t-W. Permanent extension would provide these programs with greater stability, thereby encouraging more employers to participate, make investments in expanding outreach to identify potential workers from the targeted groups, and avoid the wasteful disruption of termination and renewal. A permanent extension would also encourage the state job services to invest the resources needed to make the certification process more efficient and employer- friendly. Raise the WOTC age eligibility ceiling from 24 to 39 years of age for members of food stamp households and ``high-risk youth'' living in enterprise zones or renewal communities. Current WOTC eligibility rules heavily favor the hiring of women because single mothers are much more likely to be on welfare or food stamps. Women constitute about 80 percent of those hired under the WOTC program, but men from welfare households face the same or even greater barriers to finding work. Increasing the age ceiling in the ``food stamp category'' would greatly improve the job prospects for many absentee fathers and other ``at risk'' males. This change would be completely consistent with program objectives because many food stamp households include adults who are not working, and more than 90 percent of those on food stamps live below the poverty line. WOTC and W-t-W are also key elements of welfare reform. Employers in the retail, health care, hotel, financial services, and food industries have incorporated this program into their hiring practices and through these programs, more than 2,700,000 previously dependent persons have found work. A recent report issued by the New York State Department of Labor bears this out in economic terms. Comparing the cost of WOTC credits, taken by New York state employers during the period 1996-2003 (for a total of $192.59 million), with savings achieved through closed welfare cases and reductions in vocational rehabilitation programs and jail spending (for a total of $199.89 million), the State of New York concluded that WOTC provided net benefits to the taxpayers even without taking into account the additional economic benefits resulting from the addition of new wages. In that regard, the New York State analysis concluded that the roughly $90 million in wages paid to WOTC workers since 1996 generated roughly $225 million in increased economic activity. Perhaps even more importantly, the study found that roughly fifty-eight percent of the TANF recipients who entered private sector employment with the assistance of WOTC stayed off welfare. I mention the New York State study because it is the first of its kind; however, I am certain that similar conclusions would be reached in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or any of the other forty-eight states and the District of Columbia. These programs work and do so at a net savings to taxpayers. In fact, over a 7-year period there were more than 110,000 certifications for both WOTC and W-t-W in Pennsylvania, alone enabling many to leave welfare and find private sector work. The legislation is supported by hundreds of employers throughout Pennsylvania and around the country. WOTC and W-t-W have received high praise as well from the federal government. A 2001 GAO study concluded that employers have significantly changed their hiring practices because of WOTC by providing job mentors, longer training periods, and significant recruiting outreach efforts. WOTC and W-t-W are not traditional government jobs programs. Instead they are precisely the type of program that we should champion in a time when we need to be fiscally responsible. These are efficient and low cost public-private partnerships that have as their goal to provide a means by which individuals can transition from welfare to a lifetime of work and dignity. The Work Opportunity Credit and Welfare-to-Work Credit have been successful in moving traditionally hard-to-employ persons off welfare and into the workforce, where they contribute to our economy. However, employer participation in these important programs can be increased, particularly among small and medium-sized employers. This is due to the complexity of the credits and the fact that they are both only temporary provisions of the tax code subject to renewal every year or two. Small, medium, and even some large employers find it difficult to justify developing the necessary infrastructure to administer and participate in these programs when their continued existence beyond one or two years is constantly in question. This legislation will remedy this problem by combining WOTC and W-t-W into one, more easily administered tax credit, and by making it a permanent part of the tax code. Many organizations including the National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Retail Federation, Food Marketing Institute, National Association of Convenience Stores, National Restaurant Association, American Hotel & Lodging Association, National Roofing Contractors Association, National Association of Chain Drug Stores, American Nursery and Landscape Association, and the American Health Care Association support this legislaiton. Representatives Jerry Weller R-IL, Charles Rangel D-NY, and Phil English R-PA are introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Baucus in the reintroduction of the Encouraging Work Act of 2005. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) and We1fare-to-Work Tax Credit (W-t-W) are tax incentives that encourage employers to hire public assistance recipients and other individuals with barriers to employment. The combination of Welfare Reform passed by Congress in 1996 and the assistance to employers found in the WOTC and W-t-W has enabled expanded opportunity for many Americans. Yet more can be done. We were pleased that the Senate JOBS bill passed last year included a permanent WOTC/W-t-W provision along with helpful reforms largely supported by the Administration. Unfortunately, it was only extended in another tax relief bill. Without action by Congress WOTC and W-t-W will expire on January 1, 2006. Under present law, WOTC provides a 40 percent tax credit on the first $6,000 of wages for those working at least 400 hours, or a partial credit of 25 percent for those working 120-399 hours. W-t-W provides a 35 percent tax credit on the first $10,000 of wages for those working 400 hours in the first year. In the second year, the W-t-W credit is 50 percent of the first $10,000 of wages earned. WOTC and W-t-W are key elements of welfare reform. A growing number of employers use these programs in the retail, health care, hotel, financial services, food, and other industries. These programs have helped over 2,700,000 previously dependent persons to find jobs. WOTC and W-t-W eligibility is limited to: 1. Recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) in 9 of the 18 months ending on the hiring date; 2. individua1s receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits; 3. disabled individuals with vocational rehabilitation referrals; 4. veterans on food stamps; 5. individuals in households receiving food stamp benefits; 6. qualified summer youth employees; 7. low-income ex-felons; and 8. individua1s age 18-24 1iving in empowerment zones or renewal communities. Eligibility for W-t-W is limited to individuals receiving welfare benefits for 18 consecutive months ending on the hiring date. More than 80 percent of WOTC and W-t- W hires were previously dependent on public assistance programs. These credits are both a hiring incentive--offsetting some of the higher costs of recruiting, hiring, and retaining public assistance recipients and other low-skilled individua1s--and a retention incentive, providing a higher reward for those who stay longer on the job. After eight years of experience with these programs, their value has been well demonstrated. In 2001, the GAO issued a report that indicated that employers have significantly changed their hiring practices because of WOTC. With the resources provided by WOTC, employers have provided job mentors, lengthened training periods, engaged in recruiting outreach, and listed jobs or requested referrals from public agencies or partnerships. WOTC and W-t-W have become a true public- private partnership in which the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service, the states, and employers have forged excellent working relationships. But the challenges for employers and those looking for better opportunities are real. The job skills of eligible persons leaving welfare are sometimes limited, and the costs of recruiting, training, and supervising low-skilled individuals cause many employers to look elsewhere for employees. WOTC and W-t-W are proven incentives for encouraging employers to seek employees from the targeted groups. Despite the considerable success of WOTC and W-t-W, many vulnerable individuals still need a boost in finding employment. There are several legislative changes that would strengthen these programs, expand employment opportunities for needy individuals, and make the programs more attractive to employers. Combine WOTC and W-t-W. The Administration's FY 2006 budget proposes to simplify these important employment incentives by combining them into one credit and making the rules for computing the combined credits simpler. The credits would be combined by creating a new welfare-to- work target group under WOTC. The minimum employment periods and credit rates for the first year of employment under the present work opportunity tax credit would apply to W-t-W employees. The maximum amount of eligible wages would continue to be $10,000 for W-t-W employees and $6,000 for other target groups ($3,000 for summer youth). In addition, the second year 50-percent credit under W-t-W would continue to be available for W-t-W employees under the modified WOTC. Eliminate Requirement to Determine Family Income for Ex-Felons. Under current law, only those ex-felons whose annual family income is 70 percent or less than the Bureau of Labor Statistics lower living standard during the six months preceding the hiring date are eligible for WOTC. The Administration's FY 2006 budget proposes to eliminate the family income attribution rule. Permanent Extension of WOTC and W-t-W. Permanent extension would provide these programs with greater stability, thereby encouraging more employers to participate, make investments in expanding outreach to identify potential workers from the targeted groups, and avoid the wasteful disruption of termination and renewal. A permanent extension would also encourage the state job services to invest the resources needed to make the certification process more efficient and employer- friendly. Raise the WOTC age eligibility ceiling from 24 to 39 years of age for members of food stamp households and ``high-risk youth'' living in enterprise zones or renewal communities. Current WOTC eligibility rules heavily favor the hiring of women because single mothers are much more likely to be on welfare or food stamps. Women constitute about 80 percent of those hired under the WOTC program, but men from welfare households face the same or even greater barriers to finding work. Increasing the age ceiling in the ``food stamp category'' would greatly improve the job prospects for many absentee fathers and other ``at risk'' males. This change would be completely consistent with program objectives because many food stamp households include adults who are not working, and more than 90 percent of those on food stamps live below the poverty line. WOTC and W-t-W are also key elements of welfare reform. Employers in the retail, health care, hotel, financial services, and food industries have incorporated this program into their hiring practices and through these programs, more than 2,700,000 previously dependent persons have found work. A recent report issued by the New York State Department of Labor bears this out in economic terms. Comparing the cost of WOTC credits, taken by New York state employers during the period 1996-2003 (for a total of $192.59 million), with savings achieved through closed welfare cases and reductions in vocational rehabilitation programs and jail spending (for a total of $199.89 million), the State of New York concluded that WOTC provided net benefits to the taxpayers even without taking into account the additional economic benefits resulting from the addition of new wages. In that regard, the New York State analysis concluded that the roughly $90 million in wages paid to WOTC workers since 1996 generated roughly $225 million in increased economic activity. Perhaps even more importantly, the study found that roughly fifty-eight percent of the TANF recipients who entered private sector employment with the assistance of WOTC stayed off welfare. I mention the New York State study because it is the first of its kind; however, I am certain that similar conclusions would be reached in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or any of the other forty-eight states and the District of Columbia. These programs work and do so at a net savings to taxpayers. In fact, over a 7-year period there were more than 110,000 certifications for both WOTC and W-t-W in Pennsylvania, alone enabling many to leave welfare and find private sector work. The legislation is supported by hundreds of employers throughout Pennsylvania and around the country. WOTC and W-t-W have received high praise as well from the federal government. A 2001 GAO study concluded that employers have significantly changed their hiring practices because of WOTC by providing job mentors, longer training periods, and significant recruiting outreach efforts. WOTC and W-t-W are not traditional government jobs programs. Instead they are precisely the type of program that we should champion in a time when we need to be fiscally responsible. These are efficient and low cost public-private partnerships that have as their goal to provide a means by which individuals can transition from welfare to a lifetime of work and dignity. The Work Opportunity Credit and Welfare-to-Work Credit have been successful in moving traditionally hard-to-employ persons off welfare and into the workforce, where they contribute to our economy. However, employer participation in these important programs can be increased, particularly among small and medium-sized employers. This is due to the complexity of the credits and the fact that they are both only temporary provisions of the tax code subject to renewal every year or two. Small, medium, and even some large employers find it difficult to justify developing the necessary infrastructure to administer and participate in these programs when their continued existence beyond one or two years is constantly in question. This legislation will remedy this problem by combining WOTC and W-t-W into one, more easily administered tax credit, and by making it a permanent part of the tax code. Many organizations including the National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Retail Federation, Food Marketing Institute, National Association of Convenience Stores, National Restaurant Association, American Hotel & Lodging Association, National Roofing Contractors Association, National Association of Chain Drug Stores, American Nursery and Landscape Association, and the American Health Care Association support this legislaiton. Representatives Jerry Weller R-IL, Charles Rangel D-NY, and Phil English R-PA are introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I would like to reflect on the passing of Max Fisher. On March 3, 2005, Max Fisher passed away at his home in Franklin, MI. The Fisher family has suffered a tremendous loss, and I offer them my condolences and deepest sympathy during this difficult time. Max Fisher was born in my hometown of Pittsburgh, PA. He was a quiet leader who led mostly by example. He inspired his neighbors through his love for and dedication to this country. As the head of several Jewish- American organizations including the United Jewish Appeal, the Council of Jewish Federations, the National Jewish Coalition, and the American Jewish Committee, Max Fisher was able to influence policy with regard to Israeli-American relations and lead an international campaign for Israel after the Arab-Israeli War in 1967. Max Fisher was a respected friend and adviser to many Republican Presidents and Secretaries, as they sought Max's wisdom in Middle East affairs. Max not only leaves behind a legacy in the Jewish community and the world of politics, but also a wonderful family. My thoughts and prayers are with the Fisher family during the days and months ahead.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution that encourages all Americans to increase their charitable giving with the goal of increasing charitable giving in the United States by 1 percent. I am proud to be a citizen of such a charitable nation. However, individual charitable giving rates among Americans have stagnated over the past 50 years. On average, Americans donate 2 percent of their aggregate income to charitable causes. A 1-percent increase to 3 percent could generate up to $90 billion annually. Further, a 1-percent increase in charitable giving has the potential to reduce the Federal deficit, reduce the call for tax increases, and provide our national health, education, and welfare programs with much needed assistance in performing their duties. I also realize the Government's role to make it easier for Americans to be charitable. As legislators, we must provide incentives for charitable giving, opportunities for low-income families to build individual assets, and support faith-based and secular organizations as they provide charitable social services. I remain committed to promoting increased opportunities for the less fortunate to obtain help through faith-based and community organizations. There are people all around the country waiting to give more to charity--they just need a little push. The CARE Act gives that in the form of a series of targeted tax incentives. The bill provides $2 billion in food-donation incentives that would allow farmers, restaurants and corporations to give more of their surplus food to local food banks and soup kitchens. America's Second Harvest estimates this provision translates into an additional 878 million meals for the hungry over the next 10 years. In addition, the CARE Act removes the tax penalties that are preventing larger-dollar donors from rolling over their IRA account funds to assist a wide range of charities, including foundations, colleges and universities. If the CARE Act passes, individuals will be able to give 30 percent more in tax-free IRA contributions than would otherwise be possible. The spirit of giving is part of what makes America great. I submit this resolution to remind us all that more can be done to assist the needy. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to correct the record. I have supported the minimum wage on more than one occasion during my time in Congress. When I started in the House, the last minimum wage that passed I supported. Under the Clinton administration, I voted for an increase. I have voted for an increase in the minimum wage in the past. I voted for a similar minimum wage increase in the last session of Congress, or the time before. I have not had any ideological problems supporting minimum wage. I want to correct the record about what the Senator from Massachusetts said. I would also say with respect to workers not being covered as a result of this provision of raising the threshold, as you know and as the Senator from Massachusetts knows, there are operative State laws which provide worker protections in addition to Federal law. In fact, for the States that do not have operative State laws which provide these worker protections, we leave the threshold at 500-fold. We don't change the threshold for the States that do not have operative worker protections for the things that the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to. I want to make the record clear. No one is falling through the cracks here. The States that only have Federal law covering this area do not change. The ones that do have State laws change accordingly. Again, many of those State laws will remain in place and cover workers who are not covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act under their own State labor protection laws. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. I don't recall exactly what the increase was. I will check and see what the wage was in 1990 as compared to what it is today. We are proposing a modest increase. If the Senator is suggesting it should be a smaller increase, I will be happy to negotiate a smaller increase if it makes the Senator comfortable. The Senator from Massachusetts is not suggesting it should be a smaller increase. He is suggesting there should be no exemption at all and that there was a provision--and that is what the debate is about-- that if they included anyone in interstate commerce, even one employee, that they should be covered. In fact, that is my understanding of how the Labor Department has interpreted this provision. In a sense, there has not been any threshold. Again, if the Senator from Illinois would like to have a threshold that indexes with the minimum wage, I would be happy to accept that as a reasonable index. But I think to suggest it should not change at all over a period of time does, of course, begin to gather and cover more and more businesses that are small by nature and then again it would be a barrier to entry and a difficulty in sustaining those businesses over time. I am willing, if there is a legitimate concern about this as to how much we are raising the cap, again, we are willing to negotiate that. That is not what the Senator from Massachusetts is saying. What the Senator from Massachusetts is saying is there should not be any threshold at all; we should keep the zero threshold which exists today in law. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, does the Senator from Massachusetts yield?

Mr. SANTORUM. I say to the Senator from Illinois, we are increasing-- in fact, my amendment does increase the minimum wage by 20 percent.

Mr. SANTORUM. I would say in response to the Senator from Massachusetts, my understanding of this legislation, the way it is written, there was an error made in the drafting of the statute such that the threshold had been basically ignored because of the provision to which the Senator from Massachusetts refers. It was a difference between an ``and'' and an ``or'' as to how it was written. My understanding is that the intent of the Congress was to exempt small businesses as we do from a variety of different labor laws. I mentioned before the one I am most familiar with, the Family and Medical Leave Act, which has an employee threshold. There are others that have thresholds in the Federal law, where we chose not to include very small businesses in some of the mandates the Federal Government imposes, a variety of different labor mandates. We do so because of the nature of the small business. A lot of these are mom-and-pop businesses, a garage, very small employers, where the burden of complying with a variety of Federal statutes having to do with labor laws when it comes to a small operation can be an onerous one and costly one. It can be a barrier to starting a business. So many, including Senator Harkin and Senator Reid, your leader, have supported this small business exemption as a clean exemption with no ``or'' provision, ``as engaged in interstate commerce.'' Why? Because we understand that Federal law and these kinds of provisions can be very costly to very small businesses and can be a barrier of entry to businesses and can involve them in a cost which they may not be willing to assume. So there has always been, to my knowledge, in almost every, if not every, Federal labor law a small business exemption, what the Senator from Massachusetts has said there should not be in this case. That is a very legitimate position. I do not think the Members of this body would agree--on either side of the aisle, I might add--that there should be no exemption for any business from this provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act. That is what we attempt to correct, to make that comport with what was broadly agreed was the intent. Unfortunately, it has never been remedied. If the Senator from Massachusetts wants to make the argument that there should be no businesses exempt from the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, fine. Make that argument and we will have that debate and we will find out how many votes we have, whether there should be a small business exemption or not. But don't suggest what I am doing here is some sort of subterfuge other than to clarify that there are exemptions for legitimate reasons for very small businesses. The threshold was set at half a million dollars back in 1990. If you index that to inflation, it would be $1.5 million today. We set it at a million, which is lower than the rate of inflation. That is hardly overreaching on the part of this amendment. If the Senator wants to say there should be no exemption, that all businesses should be covered and there should be no small business exemption to any labor law, fine, if that is what the Senator from Massachusetts wants. Understand the consequences, that Democrats and Republicans for years have understood here, which is these mandates on very small startup businesses in particular, but any small business, can be damaging to the economy in our poorest neighborhoods, in the cleaning services, in the landscape businesses, and a whole host of other small businesses where people are trying to make ends meet by pursuing their entrepreneurial spirit. By putting these kinds of requirements and labor laws and regulations on these small businesses, we damage and destroy the very small businesses in this country. I do not think that is where most on his side of the aisle are. That may be where the Senator from Massachusetts is. If that is where he is, fine, but I would be very proud to defend that provision that says the smallest businesses in America should not have these kinds of mandates imposed on them by Federal law.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. So I am reading from the text of the amendment. And again, the Senator from Massachusetts may quibble, and certainly has, with the voluntariness of this program. I think the language certainly expresses my intent and the intent of all those who are supporting this amendment, that it is a voluntary program and an employee goes into it knowingly and voluntarily with a written agreement. If there is other language that the Senator from Massachusetts would like, obviously we are not going to do that today, but I would be happy to sit down and see if there is a word that is more voluntary than ``voluntary.'' I think usually when you use the word ``voluntary'' that sums up voluntary very well. But if there is a better word for voluntary than the word ``voluntary,'' then I am pretty happy to do so. If there is a better word--whether it is ``discretionary''--than the word ``may,'' I am happy to look at a better word than ``may.'' ``May'' is usually a pretty good word when it describes ``you do not have to.'' ``May,'' that is what we usually use. But if ``voluntary'' and ``may'' are not strong enough words, I will be happy enough to sit down with the Senator from Massachusetts and come up with a better one. I repeat, the Senator from Massachusetts has voted for this for Federal employees, and there are quadruple damages--quadruple damages-- for employers who violate this provision and impose this on their workers unknowingly and involuntarily or as a condition of employment. So I would just suggest there are pretty high and threatening damages to employers who abuse this provision. One final point I want to make. The Senator talks about its importance, that this is the only way we are going to help people out of poverty. I would suggest that is simply not the case. There are lots of ways, in fact, I would say very much more complicated ways that people get out of poverty than just by the blunt instrument of the Government setting minimum wages. In fact, looking at this chart, the welfare reform bill we passed in 1996 shows just how effective other ways are. Requiring work is the best way. The Senator put up poverty statistics. What he did not tell you is what those numbers looked like before 1996 and the welfare reform law, which I stood on the floor and argued passionately for. And I was called a whole number of things as to what I was going to do to all these poor children. What happened as a result of the welfare reform bill was that poverty among African-American children, the thing Senator Kennedy referred to, was at its lowest rate ever by the year 2000. It has crept up slightly during the economic decline of the early part of this decade, but it is going back down. So the idea that the minimum wage solves these problems is just a fallacy. There are lots of things that work. One of them is work. Another is marriage. We are going to have an opportunity on the floor of the Senate, when the welfare bill comes up, to talk about how we shift Government policy away from, at best--I think it is ``at best''-- neutrality toward marriage, how we shift Government policy when it comes to interacting with families and being neutral with respect to marriage. See what the huge impact is on the poor, the huge impact on poor communities and poor children, when moms and dads are helped to stay together in marriage and, more importantly, when they are introduced to the concept because many women and, unfortunately, men choose not to marry when children are born out of wedlock. So there will be plenty of time for debate on this issue of other things we can do. But I can tell you, if you look at all these other things we are studying, the thing that is most powerful is, No. 1, jobs. The concern many have--and there are studies we can put into the Record about what the impact of a dramatic increase--not a small increase, as we are proposing, but a dramatic increase--in the minimum wage would have to the employment picture of these very people who came off welfare and their ability to find work and get out of poverty. It will have a dramatically negative impact on them, a 40-percent increase in the minimum wage. But again, there are positive things we can do as we look to the future. This bill, in my opinion, belongs on welfare legislation, requiring work, more work, which is what is going to be required in this bill, as well as some things to bring fathers back into the home with the Father Initiative that Senator Bayh and Senator Domenici and I have been pushing for several years, as well as the marriage initiative that the President has talked about. This is a complex picture and blunt instruments like minimum wages are not the answer. Yes, I am proposing an increase. I am doing one that I think comports with balancing the interest of low-income workers having a better wage with making sure they have a job in the first place because that is the most important thing. I think we have done so with this $1.10 increase and the provisions I have. Yes, it is a long amendment. But there are a lot of things in here that I think will add to the quality of life of many workers and certainly help small businesses absorb some of the costs of the increase in the minimum wage. So with that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. SANTORUM. I think I was pretty clear about that. The answer is yes. Because we raise the threshold from a half million, small business, to a million. As I said before, the half million threshold was set in 1990. It has not been indexed. I hear a lot of comments about why we should index things here. We should index the minimum wage, we should index a whole host of other things that have the benefit of, in this case, increasing workers' pay. If that is the case, if we thought $500,000 was a legitimate threshold in 1990, I don't know why it should not be indexed to include in real terms that same class of small businesses at this time.

Mr. SANTORUM. I say to the Senator from Massachusetts--