Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

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. Mr. President, I will be brief. I know the Senator from Iowa is here. I do not want to stop him from making his remarks. I just want to respond to several of the things the Senator from Massachusetts said. First, I would be happy to look at the letter from the Ohio State professor and see how he, in my opinion, misread the provision we had. I think I am very clear on the intent. If there is some language clarification, I would be happy to sit down and work on that. I know Senator Enzi, of course, from the HELP Committee worked on this language and would be willing to do so also. A couple of comments. The Senator from Massachusetts talked at length about economists and others who are suggesting that we need--I think I am using the Senator's words--a modest increase in the minimum wage. I did not see any of the charts that he brought out that supported his particular minimum wage increase. And he used the term ``modest'' repeatedly. I am not sure there would be too many economists in the economy of today who would say a 40-percent increase in the minimum wage would be modest. I think a 40-percent increase, by definition, probably is outside the bounds of what most people would consider modest. I would make the argument that a 20-percent increase--this is what we are suggesting--a 21-percent increase would probably be extending the bounds of modesty, but it would certainly be much more within what most people consider to be the traditional definition. I would just like to thank the Senator from Massachusetts for bringing up support for my amendment because I think, in comparing the two, the increase we are putting forth of $1.10 comports very well with what the economists are saying would not be damaging to the economy and fit in very well with what would not be damaging to employees and employers. So the $1.10, fits the modest framework. Secondly, the issue of flextime. Again, I would just point the Senator to the actual language in the amendment. On page 3 of the amendment, it says: Except as provided in paragraph (2), no employee may be required to participate in a program described in this section. So it is purely voluntary. It says employers may do this. Employees may participate. It provides for a written agreement arrived at with collective bargaining. Obviously, the collective bargaining unit, the labor union, would be responsible for any kind of flextime, which is the way it would be under the law. Here, with respect to an employee who is not represented by a labor organization: No. 1, ``a written agreement arrived at between the employer and employee before the performance of the work involved if the agreement was entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employee and was not a condition of employment.'' Now, again, I would ask the Senator from Massachusetts, if there is stronger language he would like us to use to make sure this is a voluntary agreement and that the employee and employer enter into it willingly--there are quadruple damages if the employer violates this. Also, the Senator from Massachusetts talks about how onerous this is on employees. The Senator from Massachusetts voted for this with respect to Federal employees. He voted for this provision, as we see here, flextime, for Federal employees on more than one occasion. As you know, we now have this provision, this ``onerous'' provision, which, I can tell you, my employees do not see as onerous. They see it as something that is of a great benefit to them and their families. So again, if the Senator from Massachusetts has some tougher language he would like--but I think the language I have read from my amendment-- and I am not reading the summary. This is my amendment. Amendment No. 128 (Purpose: To promote job creation, family time, and small business preservation in the adjustment of the Federal minimum wage) In fact, Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. SANTORUM. I refer the Senator to line 20 through line 25. If the Senator would read that, he will find that any State which prohibits any portion of employee tips from being considered as wages, so that is the operative language that limits this provision--just in the States that do not allow a tip credit.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to offer an alternative to the Kennedy amendment on minimum wage. I listened in part to my colleague from Massachusetts describe that. Obviously I have a slightly different take on what my amendment does than the Senator from Massachusetts suggests, and I will go through that point by point and point out where the Senator from Massachusetts may have exaggerated some of the claims about what destruction this amendment would do to workers in my State or any State. I start out by suggesting why I am offering an increase in the minimum wage. On this first chart it is important to see this green line which is the percentage of hourly workers who are paid the minimum wage. Since the minimum wage was instituted--actually not since it was instituted but in the last 25 years we can see that the percentage of workers now covered by the minimum wage is actually the lowest it has been in quite some time. It is 2.7 percent of hourly paid workers who now get paid the minimum wage. When one looks at that number, it sort of cries out a bit and says it is time to bring it back up to be not the absolute bottom where no one is paying that and there is effectively no minimum wage--very few people are paid it--to a point which sort of comports with at least recent history. That is what we are trying to accomplish with our amendment, which is to bring it back up to about here. Our $1.10 increase over a period of 2 years would cover about 7.4 percent of all workers, which is actually slightly higher than it has been over the last 15 years and is a little above historic trends. Senator Kennedy's increase would actually put it to about almost 17 percent of workers in the economy who would be making minimum wage, which at least going back to the 1970s would be much higher than it has ever been as a percentage of wages. So I think what we are suggesting is something that comports with the current economy, certainly the way the economy has worked over the last 20-plus years, as opposed to something that harkens back to long ago days where this was not just a minimum, it actually had, as Senator Sununu suggested, a dramatic impact on the economy and a potentially very inflationary impact if one looks at where the wages were of this percentage of payroll and we have hyperinflation. You remember the 20- percent mortgages and all the other things that were going on during the time. That set the wages at a very high level. So look at how we are providing a responsible floor for workers without having, as Senator Sununu suggested, an impact on the economy, which could be inflationary and damaging to all workers, as well as, particularly, lower wage workers, looking at high rates of inflation, as well as making sure we do not disadvantage businesses by pricing them out of the ability to have workers, and also pricing laborers out of the marketplace. When you have extraordinarily high rates, as Senator Sununu suggested, $20-an-hour, $30-an-hour minimum wage, you are going to be pricing a lot of people out of the workforce. I think what we are suggesting is a responsible approach. It keeps up with the tradition over the past few years of a responsible floor for a minimum wage. I am very comfortable that our proposal keeps the balance between the ability of lower skill employees to enter the workforce at a wage in which they are compensated for the skills they bring to the job, and at the same time not forcing employers--because, again, see, we are pretty far down on the number of people working at this level-- not forcing employers to forego employment with people in that slightly increased amount we are suggesting. So it is not going to hurt employment, it is not going to hurt their businesses dramatically, and to the extent it does, as Senator Kennedy, at least, described the provisions--I don't know that he accurately described the provisions-- we do have provisions in the legislation that deal with the smaller businesses. It is a general rule in the Federal Government that we have lots of requirements--family and medical leave is one example, but there are others, labor laws--that exempt small businesses. We either do it by the number of employees or, in the case of the Fair Labor Standards Act, by the amount of revenue that employer happens to take in. In this case, we do raise the cap from $500,000 of revenue for your business as being exempt from this provision to $1.2 million. That provision was set, by the way, back in 1990. If you would have indexed that for inflation, it would be $1.5 million today. So we are not even keeping up with inflation. We are actually well below inflation in the proposal that is being put forward, but we are capturing more small businesses that are not affected. This just affects the States that sort of tie their minimum wage laws to the Federal laws. If you have a State that has no minimum wage--I think there are six or seven of those--they would stay at the $500,000 level. We left that provision in place, in a sense to protect workers because the States have not spoken on this. But for States that are tied to the Federal level, we raised it. Obviously, if the States want to go back, they are certainly welcome to do so. But it does provide an exemption for smaller businesses--those that are mom-and-pop stores, those who are just starting to build their business--from the Fair Labor Standards Act. It is important to understand. There are other things I will go through, but before I move off into the other areas of the bill I want to talk about how important it is not to dramatically increase the minimum wage the way Senator Kennedy has suggested. What we have seen about overtime is that this is where we are today with the real value, if you add in a combination of the minimum wage and the earned-income tax credit. Why do we say the earned-income tax credit? You heard the Senator from Massachusetts talk about trying to support a family, trying to make a living. I am sure he is not going to go out and try to argue for the teenage son of a wealthy businessman, that we have to make sure they earn a minimum wage because that wealthy businessman's son needs the money. He may need it in his own right, but that is not the purpose of the minimum wage. That is not what it is for. The argument for the minimum wage is we have to make sure those out there in society whom the Senator from Massachusetts talked about--the young lady in Johnstown, PA, making sure she had coverage. By the way, the provision we authored that Senator Kennedy said applied to her with the tip credit doesn't apply to the State of Pennsylvania. It is written specifically to exclude States that have spoken on the tip credit. It is only those that have not that this covered. So the young woman in Johnstown, PA, is not covered by the provision. So the example given by the Senator is inaccurate. But, again, going back to the central point, which is what are we trying to accomplish with the minimum wage, what we are trying to accomplish is helping those people trying to support a family or themselves out there working at low-wage jobs, welfare-to-work--that is the example that is used. I am someone, in my office, who takes that responsibility of making sure those who are on welfare have opportunities for employment and, in fact, in my office we have hired, over the course of my time in the Senate, eight people off of welfare- to-work. I take that responsibility as an employer, and also going out and talking to employers about the importance of giving people who are transitioned off of welfare, trying to make a living for themselves and their families, the opportunity to do so. One of the ways we have done that is through the earned-income tax credit. What the earned-income tax credit does is target those who are trying to sustain a family. It helps them by building, on top of the minimum wage, some Federal support. But it is targeted support. That earned-income tax credit doesn't go to the teenager who is claimed on his father's income taxes who is a wealthy businessman. It goes to the mom who has two kids, who needs some help from the Federal Government to be able to support those children. This is much more targeted relief, if you will, than the blunt instrument of a minimum wage increase. Having said that, in this chart you see a decline--go all the way back to 1939. You see the earned-income tax credit comes in and you see the difference it makes up here recently. We are suggesting to bring it back up by $1.10. If you add $1.10 to $7.22, you are at $8.32, which would be higher than it has ever been with the combination of earned- income tax credit and minimum wage. So, again, to suggest somehow or another, as the Senator from Massachusetts suggested, that his increase that would bring it off the chart, if you will, is a responsible increase--it is a blunt instrument that would benefit teenage kids of millionaires much more than it would benefit these moms here. Why? Because as you get into the higher income area, the earned-income tax credit goes away, it starts to phase out. So this blunt instrument of the minimum wage helps folks who are not the point of what a minimum wage is all about. When people come out here and say they need the minimum wage, they don't talk about the son of the wealthy businessman as the point. They talk about this mom. Increasing the minimum wage, yes, helps everyone--if you want to say ``helps.'' Obviously, it will hurt many because they will not be able to keep their job at this high rate of pay, for the maybe low skills that the employee may bring to the business. But here is what we do. What we do is balance it. We raise it slightly to bring the level up to at least this level, which is where it was several years ago when we last raised the minimum wage, without affecting employers and the ability for low-skill workers to get the jobs they need and to hold on to them and not to disproportionately benefit a lot of workers out there making minimum wage who are not the point of the minimum wage, and that is folks who are doing so sort of as a side line and are not in need of Government interference in the market to make sure that they have plenty to eat and a place to sleep. It is a much more surgical attempt. I think what we are attempting makes a lot more sense, to help those in need more directly, more surgically, than the blunt instrument the Senator from Massachusetts has suggested. I encourage our colleagues, when they look at our amendment, I encourage Republican and Democrat colleagues to look at what we want to accomplish. Let me talk about another provision the Senator from Massachusetts seemed to focus on quite a bit, which is the issue of flextime. The Senator from Massachusetts talked about how flextime in this legislation is going to force workers into working more than 40 hours a week and deny them all of these--I will not repeat it. Read the transcript. Read the Senator's arguments about how devastating this would be to people, to have flextime imposed upon them. No. 1, this provision as written does not impose anything. What it says is that the employer and the employee have to enter into a written agreement, where both have to sign, to agree that the employee will work more hours in 1 week--no more than 10 in addition to the 40 hours, in exchange for commensurate hours off the following week. Again, it is mutual agreement. It has to be in writing. Of course, the employee can decide to withdraw himself or herself from that agreement. I happen to believe that flextime is a good thing. We have several employees in my office who job share, who use flextime. Federal employees have been able to use flextime for a long time. It is something that is very popular in the Federal workforce. What we are trying to do is make it available to others outside. Why? I can tell you an example in my own office. The people who job share and have flexible hours are moms who are in the workplace. Obviously, we have seen a dramatic change in the workplace in the United States since the minimum wage laws and the 40-hour workweek was put in place. This entry into the workforce of nontraditional workers, if you will, has given rise to a lot of workers seeking to have their hours reflected with their obligations at home. What we are trying to do is have the laws of the Federal Government reflect the changing dynamics in the workplace without forcing anybody into a situation where they are not getting fairly compensated. But as I talked to I don't know how many parents who are friends and neighbors and constituents, they suggested to me the most important thing they would like to get out of the workplace is more flexibility and more time to be able to do the things that their other job--most people think their more important job, and that is being a husband or a wife or a father or a mother--requires them to do at home. The most amazing thing is the Senator from Massachusetts opposes this. I know many who are supporters of the Kennedy amendment and oppose this, also. We just went on to the AFL-CIO Web site and just pulled off some things. This is their Web site. You can read the small print, the exact Web page: Alternative work schedules encompass work hours that do not often necessarily fall inside the perimeters of the traditional and often rigid 8-hour workday or 40 hour work week. Such schedules allow working people to earn a paycheck while having the flexibility to take care of children, older relatives and other needs. The AFL-CIO says they want that, and we are providing that. And all of a sudden, maybe because we are providing it, maybe because it is in a Republican alternative, maybe this is not a good idea. Again, this is right off the AFL-CIO Web site: Changes in the workforce and in the kinds of hours people work are making alternative work schedules increasingly important for working families trying to balance job and family responsibilities. Suggested family friendly provisions: Compressed work week. Common examples of things asked are schedules that allow workers to work eight 9-hour days and one 8-hour day for an extra day off every 2 weeks. Under the provisions we have in this law, that is exactly what we have, allowing a mother or father who wants to stay at home instead of working 10 8-hour days a week, work 9 10-hour days. Work extra hours the days that you work for the day off. Again, that is not allowed under the current law. We would have provided that flexibility. Again, it would be upon a mutual agreement of both the employee and the employer. Look, there are some suggestions as to how we can make this more explicit, although from everything I read it is very explicit in the legislation as to how that would work. I am certainly happy to sit down and talk with the Senator from Massachusetts and see what we can work out in the future. What we do in these provisions--yes, we do provide some tax benefits for smaller businesses. We allow for small business expensing. We allow for restaurants to be depreciated. Again, who is going to be affected by this predominantly? It is going to be the restaurant industry that pays employees at this level, and the travel and tourism industry. Those are the folks who will be most affected. Those are the ones paid at the lower end of the wage scale. So, yes, we do provide some support for them because it is going to cost some of these businesses a substantial amount of money. We want to provide some relief from a Government mandate, mandating additional cost. So we want to provide additional relief in doing so. What I think we are trying to do is find an acceptable compromise to be able to pass in the Senate. I candidly don't believe--and I told the Senator from Massachusetts when I spoke to him last week--this is the appropriate place for his amendment. I understand there are a lot of dynamics at play here. But the Senator from Massachusetts feels compelled to offer it on the bankruptcy bill. I don't think there is any secret, after listening to the debate over the past week, that we very much would like to keep this bill on the Senate floor the way it came out of committee and the way it has been forged over a period of three Congresses. This compromise has almost passed this year, and time and time again for the last three Congresses. Now we have an opportunity to actually get this thing signed--passed by the House in the form it is right now on the floor of the Senate, and then to the President. I was hoping the Senator from Massachusetts would not offer his amendment and would allow this amendment to the minimum wage laws to be offered at a different time. I think we are marking up the welfare reform bill this week. It is an extension of the 1997 act. It is an appropriate place, in my opinion. We are talking about welfare-to-work, and we are talking about helping low-income individuals transition into the workplace and providing them with a quality of life that is family sustaining. I was hoping the Senator from Massachusetts would wait until that time, and maybe we could sit down and work out some sort of compromise that the President would sign. During the campaign, he talked about his willingness to sign a minimum wage proposal similar to what I put forward. I don't think he would support what the Senator from Massachusetts proposed. If you want to actually do something to bring this level up, and do it in a sort of targeted way that actually helps the people you are really wanting to help focus on--that is, those who are trying to provide for themselves and their families, not working summer jobs or part-time jobs or going to school; that is really what we are focusing on--we can do that in a way that I would argue does not have a poison pill attached to it. I take great exception to what the Senator from Massachusetts said. These are not poison pills. These are responsible, proworker, pro- small-business provisions that greatly help the people in this new and dynamic workplace of America. It is a very different one than when the 40-hour week was established. The Senator wants to offer his amendment and lock in a vote. But I hope, candidly, that we don't agree to either amendment at this time, although I would certainly vote for my amendment and vote against the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts. But I am hopeful that we can get the requisite number of votes down the road on a welfare bill, actually pass this legislation, and get it over to the House. House leadership has not expressed a willingness to bring this up. Again, as we work on this, we have an opportunity to get it to conference and hopefully be able to do something which provides much more targeted relief to workers who are in need, as opposed to Senator Kennedy's approach which is very blunt, forceful, and destructive, I would argue, and brings a measure of damage to a lot of lower skilled, lower income workers. And it would be very damaging to business at the same time in that the economy is recovering very nicely right now. This is a modest approach. It has half the increase the Senator from Massachusetts is suggesting. It focuses on those who are most in need. At the same time, it doesn't hurt the small business community. In fact, it provides a much needed incentive for them to be able to continue to hire employees and grow, which is obviously the ticket to middle-class America. There are other provisions in the bill that I certainly want to talk about a little later. But we have other speakers. I don't want to use up all the time. With that, let me yield the floor.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I point out to the Senator page 20 of my amendment discusses the tip credit. It specifically refers to only States that are covered by this provision as States that do not have a tip credit. I believe it is seven States that are the only States covered by this provision. So I don't know where you get ``millions'' of workers.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I only have about 1 minute and I am happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts for a brief question.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I understand I only have a couple of minutes, so I will be very brief. I want to speak on the issue of minimum wage. I know the Senator from Massachusetts has offered this amendment on the minimum wage to this package. I will be opposing the Kennedy amendment and will be offering an alternate to this amendment. But let me explain first why I oppose the Kennedy amendment. First, it doesn't belong on this bill. Even the amendment I will offer as an alternative does not belong on the bill. I have spoken to Senator Kennedy and others about what I believe is the appropriate place for this discussion. That is the welfare reform bill. It will be a bill that will come here and have a lot of amendments and it focuses on how we help those who are transitioning from welfare to work, how we help them and give them the support they need to be able to have work that pays well enough for them to get out of poverty. I think this discussion fits best, and I would argue has the better chance of actually ending up in a final bill and being sent to the President, on the welfare bill as opposed to here, which I think everyone recognizes is a bill that has been worked on for years and years and years. We have a bill that has bipartisan support, with the hope of trying to get this to the President at a propitious time. So I would make the argument, No. 1, first and foremost I would oppose the Kennedy amendment on that ground. Second, I suggest----

Mr. SANTORUM. I respect the Senator from Massachusetts. I think there is a little different environment. I think there is a broad group who will deal with the reauthorization of welfare and deal with that and get a bill passed and sent to Congress this year, and you will certainly have my support trying to get that done in a fashion that I believe reinstates work requirements, which have fallen off because of the drop in the welfare rolls across America. The second reason I oppose the Kennedy amendment is because the increase is too dramatic at this point. We are talking about an over $2 increase, over a 40-percent increase in the minimum wage. While I do support a modest proposal, something about half that amount, I think that is the wise thing to do in this economy, which is not to put a jolt of that nature into what is already a concern about inflation. To be able to put that kind of minimum wage increase in I think would fuel inflationary fears. It would have strong negative repercussions in our economy, broadly. While I do understand the need now that it has been almost 8 years without a minimum wage increase, I think what I will be offering is a modest one that comports with and will fit within this economy. We do some things to address the issue of small businesses, which the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts does not do. We don't want to disproportionally affect those poor communities, or hurt the small business neighborhood store or cleaners or whatever the case may be that is trying to make ends meet by putting this kind of increased cost on them as high as the Kennedy amendment would be, or even as high as what I would suggest, without some sort of relief to compensate very small businesses. I think that would be unwise and it would hurt the community. We want to help by providing more resources. Increasing the minimum wage does not help those small businesses in that community. I think it would have a bad, overall negative effect on the very poor communities of our society. I see my time is up. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 31

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I rise today to introduce with Senator Rockefeller the bipartisan Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act of 2005. Passage of this Act would serve greatly to help reduce the tremendous annual economic and human losses that fire in the United States inflicts on the national economy and quality of life. In the United States, fire departments responded to approximately 1.7 million fires in 2002. Annually, over 500,000 of these are structural fires causing approximately 3,400 deaths, around 100 of which are firefighters. Fire also caused some 18.5 million civilian injuries and $10.3 billion in direct property loss. The indirect cost of fire in the United States annually exceeds $80 billion. These losses are staggering. All of this translates to the fact that fire departments respond to a fire every 18 seconds. Every 60 seconds a fire breaks out in a structure, and in a residential structure every 80 seconds. There are literally thousands of high-rise buildings built under older codes that lack adequate fire protection. Billions of dollars were spent to make these and other buildings handicapped accessible, but people with disabilities now occupying these buildings are not adequately protected from fire. At recent code hearings, representatives of the health care industry testified that there are approximately 4,200 nursing homes that need to be retrofitted with fire sprinklers. They further testified that the billion dollar cost of protecting these buildings with fire sprinklers would have to be raised through corresponding increases in Medicare and Medicaid. In addition to the alarming number of nursing homes lacking fire sprinkler protection, there are literally thousands of assisted living facilities housing older Americans and people with disabilities that lack fire sprinkler protection. The solution resides in automatic sprinkler systems that are usually triggered within 4 minutes of ignition when the temperature rises above 120 degrees. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has no record of a fire killing more than two people in a public assembly, educational, institutional, or residential building that has fully operational sprinklers. Furthermore, sprinklers are responsible for dramatically reducing property loss, from as low as 42 percent to as high as 70 percent depending on the structure. Building owners do not argue with fire authorities over the logic of protecting their building with fire sprinklers. The issue is cost. This bill would drastically reduce the staggering annual economic toll of fire in America and thereby dramatically improve the quality of live for everyone involved. This legislation provides a tax incentive for businesses to install sprinklers through the use of a 5-year depreciation period, opposed to the current 27.5 or 39-year period for installations in residential rental and non-residential real property respectively. While only a start, the bill will help eliminate the massive losses seen in nursing homes, nightclubs, office buildings, apartment buildings, manufacturing facilities, and other for-profit entities. This bill enjoys support from a variety of organizations. They include: the American Insurance Association, the American Fire Sprinkler Association, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Campus Firewatch, Congressional Fire Services Institute, Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, International Association of Arson Investigators, International Association of Fire Chiefs, International Fire Service Training Association, National Fire Protection Association, National Fire Sprinkler Association, National Volunteer Fire Council, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, and the Mechanical Contractors Asociation of America. The Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act of 2005 provides long-needed safety incentives for building owners that will help fire departments across the country save lives. I ask my colleagues for their support of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I rise today to introduce with Senator Rockefeller the bipartisan Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act of 2005. Passage of this Act would serve greatly to help reduce the tremendous annual economic and human losses that fire in the United States inflicts on the national economy and quality of life. In the United States, fire departments responded to approximately 1.7 million fires in 2002. Annually, over 500,000 of these are structural fires causing approximately 3,400 deaths, around 100 of which are firefighters. Fire also caused some 18.5 million civilian injuries and $10.3 billion in direct property loss. The indirect cost of fire in the United States annually exceeds $80 billion. These losses are staggering. All of this translates to the fact that fire departments respond to a fire every 18 seconds. Every 60 seconds a fire breaks out in a structure, and in a residential structure every 80 seconds. There are literally thousands of high-rise buildings built under older codes that lack adequate fire protection. Billions of dollars were spent to make these and other buildings handicapped accessible, but people with disabilities now occupying these buildings are not adequately protected from fire. At recent code hearings, representatives of the health care industry testified that there are approximately 4,200 nursing homes that need to be retrofitted with fire sprinklers. They further testified that the billion dollar cost of protecting these buildings with fire sprinklers would have to be raised through corresponding increases in Medicare and Medicaid. In addition to the alarming number of nursing homes lacking fire sprinkler protection, there are literally thousands of assisted living facilities housing older Americans and people with disabilities that lack fire sprinkler protection. The solution resides in automatic sprinkler systems that are usually triggered within 4 minutes of ignition when the temperature rises above 120 degrees. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has no record of a fire killing more than two people in a public assembly, educational, institutional, or residential building that has fully operational sprinklers. Furthermore, sprinklers are responsible for dramatically reducing property loss, from as low as 42 percent to as high as 70 percent depending on the structure. Building owners do not argue with fire authorities over the logic of protecting their building with fire sprinklers. The issue is cost. This bill would drastically reduce the staggering annual economic toll of fire in America and thereby dramatically improve the quality of live for everyone involved. This legislation provides a tax incentive for businesses to install sprinklers through the use of a 5-year depreciation period, opposed to the current 27.5 or 39-year period for installations in residential rental and non-residential real property respectively. While only a start, the bill will help eliminate the massive losses seen in nursing homes, nightclubs, office buildings, apartment buildings, manufacturing facilities, and other for-profit entities. This bill enjoys support from a variety of organizations. They include: the American Insurance Association, the American Fire Sprinkler Association, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Campus Firewatch, Congressional Fire Services Institute, Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, International Association of Arson Investigators, International Association of Fire Chiefs, International Fire Service Training Association, National Fire Protection Association, National Fire Sprinkler Association, National Volunteer Fire Council, the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, and the Mechanical Contractors Asociation of America. The Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act of 2005 provides long-needed safety incentives for building owners that will help fire departments across the country save lives. I ask my colleagues for their support of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Kyl of Arizona, Senator Allen of Virginia, Senator Bunning of Kentucky, Senator Chambliss of Georgia, and Senator Dole of North Carolina, legislation that would permanently extend the current treatment of investments made to motorsports entertainment complexes, ensuring that this important economic engine for our economy continues to roar. The Motorsports Fairness and Permanency Act of 2005 will help ensure that job-creating investments in motorsports facilities continue to be made under the same economic assumptions and tax treatment used for the last several decades--decades that have witnessed the most explosive growth in motorsports' long history. Motorsports is the fastest growing sport in the United States, drawing fans to tracks and speedways around the country. In fact, there are over 900 motorsports facilities throughout the U.S., with tracks in every State. These facilities contribute to the economy by attracting motorsports enthusiasts and tourists, hiring permanent and temporary employees, and making capital investments. Facilities of every type-- from local tracks that run weekly racing series to ``superspeedways'' that host nationally-televised events--must continually upgrade and reinvest in order to remain competitive. Motorsports play a significant role in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where racing is an integral part of Pennsylvania's economy with 60 racing facilities in every corner of the State. In fact, Pennsylvania is tied with California for the second-most motorsports facilities of any State. Our facilities and tracks span across the Commonwealth and include the nationally known Pocono Raceway in Long Pond, Lake Erie Speedway, and Maple Grove Raceway, located just outside of Reading. These and other raceways in Pennsylvania hold NASCAR, National Hot Rod Association, Import Drag Racing Circuit, and other racing events, drawing hundreds of thousands of fans each year contributing vital economic support to their local communities. It is clear that motorsports racing plays an important role in Pennsylvania, just as it does across this country. When making these capital investments, owners of motorsports facilities have long relied on and in good faith applied a 7-year depreciation life for these assets, but a few years ago the IRS began to raise some questions about the use of the 7-year classification. Last year, in H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Congress clarified that the appropriate depreciation period for motorsports assets was indeed 7 years. Due to revenue constraints in that particular bill, the provision on motorsports asset classification will lapse in 2008, meaning that Congress needs to act to permanently extend the provision. These capital expenditures, such as major improvements to existing tracks or building new tracks, require several years of planning followed by construction. Without a permanent provision that provides clarity and certainty, significant capital investments in motorsports facilities--and the jobs and economic gains those investments bring-- could be negatively impacted. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in support of permanently extending the current treatment of investments in motorsports entertainment facilities.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Kyl of Arizona, Senator Allen of Virginia, Senator Bunning of Kentucky, Senator Chambliss of Georgia, and Senator Dole of North Carolina, legislation that would permanently extend the current treatment of investments made to motorsports entertainment complexes, ensuring that this important economic engine for our economy continues to roar. The Motorsports Fairness and Permanency Act of 2005 will help ensure that job-creating investments in motorsports facilities continue to be made under the same economic assumptions and tax treatment used for the last several decades--decades that have witnessed the most explosive growth in motorsports' long history. Motorsports is the fastest growing sport in the United States, drawing fans to tracks and speedways around the country. In fact, there are over 900 motorsports facilities throughout the U.S., with tracks in every State. These facilities contribute to the economy by attracting motorsports enthusiasts and tourists, hiring permanent and temporary employees, and making capital investments. Facilities of every type-- from local tracks that run weekly racing series to ``superspeedways'' that host nationally-televised events--must continually upgrade and reinvest in order to remain competitive. Motorsports play a significant role in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where racing is an integral part of Pennsylvania's economy with 60 racing facilities in every corner of the State. In fact, Pennsylvania is tied with California for the second-most motorsports facilities of any State. Our facilities and tracks span across the Commonwealth and include the nationally known Pocono Raceway in Long Pond, Lake Erie Speedway, and Maple Grove Raceway, located just outside of Reading. These and other raceways in Pennsylvania hold NASCAR, National Hot Rod Association, Import Drag Racing Circuit, and other racing events, drawing hundreds of thousands of fans each year contributing vital economic support to their local communities. It is clear that motorsports racing plays an important role in Pennsylvania, just as it does across this country. When making these capital investments, owners of motorsports facilities have long relied on and in good faith applied a 7-year depreciation life for these assets, but a few years ago the IRS began to raise some questions about the use of the 7-year classification. Last year, in H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Congress clarified that the appropriate depreciation period for motorsports assets was indeed 7 years. Due to revenue constraints in that particular bill, the provision on motorsports asset classification will lapse in 2008, meaning that Congress needs to act to permanently extend the provision. These capital expenditures, such as major improvements to existing tracks or building new tracks, require several years of planning followed by construction. Without a permanent provision that provides clarity and certainty, significant capital investments in motorsports facilities--and the jobs and economic gains those investments bring-- could be negatively impacted. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in support of permanently extending the current treatment of investments in motorsports entertainment facilities.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, first I thank and congratulate the Senator from Wyoming for his comments and also for his steadfast duty in coming here to make the case on a variety of different issues. This issue, in particular, Social Security, is a passion of mine, something I have worked on since I came to the Senate back in 1995. To me, this, as the Senator from Wyoming just said, is about a social compact from one generation to the next. What we are in danger of doing is breaking that compact. We are in danger of telling the next generation of Americans who are entering the workforce that if we do nothing now, they, as a generation, will not get a positive return on their money. In other words, they will not get out of the system money they put in. To me, that is breaking this compact. Every generation of seniors that has retired--in fact, those who are at or near retirement now--will, in fact, be able to get some measure of return on their money. Some earlier generations got very high rates of return. This generation's retirees will get a relatively low rate of return, but they will have invested money or paid into the program for people in the system while they were working and at least be able to get their money out of the system they paid in when they retire. If we do nothing, which some have suggested we should do, which I think is irresponsible, but if we do nothing and simply wait for this generation that is in their twenties and thirties right now to retire, then they will be hit with one of two things. Either in the next few years--10 to 15 years--they will be hit with payroll taxes which will take their rate of return, if you will, from a bare positive to a negative or they will be hit with benefit cuts which, again, will take their rate of return--to get out of the system what they put in--and turn that into a negative. That, in my mind, is breaking the compact. That is saying we have now turned Social Security into somewhat of just simply a tax from one generation and transferring it to another in an ever-increasing severity of tax. I think we can do better than that. That is what the President has suggested. He has come forward on an issue that he did not have to. This problem is not going to hit America until probably the midteens when we begin to go negative into the Social Security system. In other words, we will not have the amount of money coming in to pay for benefits. Borrowing will have to start to occur from the Government side to pay off these bonds that are in the Social Security trust fund in order to pay benefits. We will do something at that point in time because the deficit impact will be huge on the United States of America. Social Security, instead of running $100 billion surpluses, will be running $200 billion deficits. Compound that with the growth of Medicare and other things we are seeing, and we will be in a huge deficit situation, which will cause either income taxes to go up, spending on the Government side to go down--which I think is highly unlikely--benefit cuts in Medicare and Social Security, or tax increases for Medicare and Social Security. Any one of those situations puts a burden on future generations either through benefit reductions or tax increases, which I think is breaking the compact that we have had since 1936 with our seniors. I am hopeful we can find some bipartisan cooperation to look at the problem that is confronting us and say: We have an opportunity to give people hope, to give younger people hope that we can have a better system for them than currently is promised. What is promised for people in their twenties right now is basically 70 cents on the dollar of the benefits that are promised under the system. We can only pay for 70 cents on the dollar. That is what this current system provides. So when you hear, ``We will keep these promises,'' I understand what keeping the promises means. It means higher taxes for future workers or lower benefits for future retirees. That is what happens if we wait. So the idea that says there is no problem, understand what that means. That means future generations--whether it is 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 15 years from now--will be hit with higher taxes and lower benefits or some combination of them or maybe one exclusive of the other. But the bottom line is, it is going to impact adversely that generation of workers and that generation of seniors. We can avoid this problem right now if we allow younger workers the opportunity to put some money away, invest in the American economy, the strength of the American economy, with broad-based index funds that invest in the growth and future of the American economy, which I think we all have high hopes for and believe will be strong going into the future. We believe that is the most responsible way of avoiding this breaking of the compact with future generations, of saying to future generations they will not do as well as other generations of Americans have done under the current system. So with that, Mr. President, I thank the other side for their indulgence and for the 5 minutes, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, since I do not see anybody on the other side, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague from Indiana, Senator Bayh, important legislation to encourage the cleanup of contaminated sites commonly known as ``brownfields.'' I urge all my colleagues to join Senator Bayh and me as supporters of this legislation and ask that they actively work with us towards its enactment. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, defines brownfields as ``abandoned, idled, or under used industrial commercial sites where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination that can add cost, time, or uncertainness to redevelopment projects.'' Brownfields are not unique to my State of Pennsylvania, nor are they to Senator Bayh's State of Indiana. In every State in the Nation, there are areas blighted by run down, abandoned properties and unsightly vacant lots. They are the shut down manufacturing facilities, deserted warehouses and gas stations that are all too familiar to us. On these properties once stood vibrant and productive enterprises, but changing times and events have drained their vitality and they are now in desperate need of revitalization and redevelopment. Compounding the problem is that over the years, the activities on these sites have left the soil and water tables contaminated with environmental pollutants. The negative social and economic effects that these sites cause on their surrounding communities are significant. There are serious financial impacts not only to the market values of the brownfield properties themselves, but also to property values in the surrounding neighborhoods. As middle class citizens are working to gain assets and potentially be able to borrow against, or even sell their homes in the future, property values become a very serious issue. A reduction of property values in brownfield neighborhoods hits hardest the families who can least afford it. Brownfields have other serious repercussions, extending far beyond the pocketbook. The unsightliness of brownfields can lead to the characterization of entire neighborhoods as run-down and undesirable. The once vibrant spirit of these centrally located and thriving urban areas can be dampened as these eyesores drag down residents' morale and sense of connection with their community. The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Government Accountability Office estimate that there are over 400,000 brownfield sites across the country. According to a recent U.S. Conference of Mayors survey of 187 cities throughout the nation, redevelopment of their existing brownfields would bring additional tax revenues of up to $2 billion annually and could create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Many brownfields are located in prime business locations near critical infrastructure, including transportation, and close to an already productive workforce. Putting these sites back into use will generate good paying jobs and affordable housing in areas where they are most needed. Rehabilitating and reusing these sites also serves to help prevent urban sprawl. We should encourage the cleanup and use of these brownfield sites rather than abandon them and instead always look to develop at new locations. A powerful example from my State of a successful brownfield revitalization effort and how it can have substantial and positive effects on a community is the city of Chester. In the midst of a major revitalization, Chester is redeveloping its blighted and vacant waterfront district, including the former PECO power station. The city is striving to turn a former industrial site into a business center. Chester will be able to create new office space, and by working with a private developer Chester has received an initial commitment to move 2,000 jobs into the area. This initiative will help bring more business and infrastructure back to the community, adding to the area's prosperity and making Chester an even safer and more pleasant place to live. Unfortunately, a big reason that so many brownfield properties are languishing in a state of decay and disrepair is the substantial clean up costs associated with them and the unfavorable tax treatment of those costs. As part of the Community Renewal and Revitalization Act of 2000, Congress enacted section 198 of the Internal Revenue Code, which allowed cleanup costs to be expensed in the year they were incurred. Prior to that, these costs had to be capitalized to the land, postponing any recovery of these costs for tax purposes until the property was sold. This expedited writeoff of clean up expenses helps a redeveloper manage the cost of rehabilitating existing properties which typically is much more expensive than developing new sites. Brownfield cleanup costs can be an imposing obstacle to redevelopment. While the price tag varies with each site, it is not unreasonable for the cleanup of a major site to cost between $500,000 and $1 million. We in the Senate, and our colleagues in the House, were wise to enact section 198 and renew it for 2 years through the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. That was a start, but more needs to be done in this area. The bill my colleague and I are introducing today has three provisions. First, it makes section 198 a permanent provision in the Tax Code. Second, it broadens the definition of ``hazardous substances'' in section 198 to include petroleum. Finally, it repeals the provision in the law requiring the recapture of the section 198 deduction when the property is sold. The tax policy of allowing the expensing of clean up costs should be a permanent fixture in the Tax Code. Brownfields are a long-term problem and this solution will allow us to complete this important task. Furthermore, a shortcoming of the law passed in 2000 was the absence of petroleum as a contaminant that allowed a site to qualify as a brownfield under section 198. A large percentage of brownfields across the country are contaminated with petroleum. Extending the law to cover petroleum contamination makes much more sense and the law much more effective. Finally, the provision in section 198 that requires a taxpayer who uses the clean up deduction to pay income tax on that amount when he or she sells the property is illogical. This sends a message to developers, that if they undertake the worthy endeavor of remediation of brownfield sites they will be subjected to substantial tax penalties for doing so. This policy is counterproductive to the efforts we are trying to encourage and it should be repealed. The benefits of brownfields cleanup are obvious. Remediation of these sites revitalizes our neighborhoods and communities, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague from Indiana, Senator Bayh, important legislation to encourage the cleanup of contaminated sites commonly known as ``brownfields.'' I urge all my colleagues to join Senator Bayh and me as supporters of this legislation and ask that they actively work with us towards its enactment. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, defines brownfields as ``abandoned, idled, or under used industrial commercial sites where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination that can add cost, time, or uncertainness to redevelopment projects.'' Brownfields are not unique to my State of Pennsylvania, nor are they to Senator Bayh's State of Indiana. In every State in the Nation, there are areas blighted by run down, abandoned properties and unsightly vacant lots. They are the shut down manufacturing facilities, deserted warehouses and gas stations that are all too familiar to us. On these properties once stood vibrant and productive enterprises, but changing times and events have drained their vitality and they are now in desperate need of revitalization and redevelopment. Compounding the problem is that over the years, the activities on these sites have left the soil and water tables contaminated with environmental pollutants. The negative social and economic effects that these sites cause on their surrounding communities are significant. There are serious financial impacts not only to the market values of the brownfield properties themselves, but also to property values in the surrounding neighborhoods. As middle class citizens are working to gain assets and potentially be able to borrow against, or even sell their homes in the future, property values become a very serious issue. A reduction of property values in brownfield neighborhoods hits hardest the families who can least afford it. Brownfields have other serious repercussions, extending far beyond the pocketbook. The unsightliness of brownfields can lead to the characterization of entire neighborhoods as run-down and undesirable. The once vibrant spirit of these centrally located and thriving urban areas can be dampened as these eyesores drag down residents' morale and sense of connection with their community. The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Government Accountability Office estimate that there are over 400,000 brownfield sites across the country. According to a recent U.S. Conference of Mayors survey of 187 cities throughout the nation, redevelopment of their existing brownfields would bring additional tax revenues of up to $2 billion annually and could create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Many brownfields are located in prime business locations near critical infrastructure, including transportation, and close to an already productive workforce. Putting these sites back into use will generate good paying jobs and affordable housing in areas where they are most needed. Rehabilitating and reusing these sites also serves to help prevent urban sprawl. We should encourage the cleanup and use of these brownfield sites rather than abandon them and instead always look to develop at new locations. A powerful example from my State of a successful brownfield revitalization effort and how it can have substantial and positive effects on a community is the city of Chester. In the midst of a major revitalization, Chester is redeveloping its blighted and vacant waterfront district, including the former PECO power station. The city is striving to turn a former industrial site into a business center. Chester will be able to create new office space, and by working with a private developer Chester has received an initial commitment to move 2,000 jobs into the area. This initiative will help bring more business and infrastructure back to the community, adding to the area's prosperity and making Chester an even safer and more pleasant place to live. Unfortunately, a big reason that so many brownfield properties are languishing in a state of decay and disrepair is the substantial clean up costs associated with them and the unfavorable tax treatment of those costs. As part of the Community Renewal and Revitalization Act of 2000, Congress enacted section 198 of the Internal Revenue Code, which allowed cleanup costs to be expensed in the year they were incurred. Prior to that, these costs had to be capitalized to the land, postponing any recovery of these costs for tax purposes until the property was sold. This expedited writeoff of clean up expenses helps a redeveloper manage the cost of rehabilitating existing properties which typically is much more expensive than developing new sites. Brownfield cleanup costs can be an imposing obstacle to redevelopment. While the price tag varies with each site, it is not unreasonable for the cleanup of a major site to cost between $500,000 and $1 million. We in the Senate, and our colleagues in the House, were wise to enact section 198 and renew it for 2 years through the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. That was a start, but more needs to be done in this area. The bill my colleague and I are introducing today has three provisions. First, it makes section 198 a permanent provision in the Tax Code. Second, it broadens the definition of ``hazardous substances'' in section 198 to include petroleum. Finally, it repeals the provision in the law requiring the recapture of the section 198 deduction when the property is sold. The tax policy of allowing the expensing of clean up costs should be a permanent fixture in the Tax Code. Brownfields are a long-term problem and this solution will allow us to complete this important task. Furthermore, a shortcoming of the law passed in 2000 was the absence of petroleum as a contaminant that allowed a site to qualify as a brownfield under section 198. A large percentage of brownfields across the country are contaminated with petroleum. Extending the law to cover petroleum contamination makes much more sense and the law much more effective. Finally, the provision in section 198 that requires a taxpayer who uses the clean up deduction to pay income tax on that amount when he or she sells the property is illogical. This sends a message to developers, that if they undertake the worthy endeavor of remediation of brownfield sites they will be subjected to substantial tax penalties for doing so. This policy is counterproductive to the efforts we are trying to encourage and it should be repealed. The benefits of brownfields cleanup are obvious. Remediation of these sites revitalizes our neighborhoods and communities, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, football is a staple in our communities--bringing families and friends together and helping to build connections and affiliations. Fantasy football has taken the game one step further and individuals can now draft their own team and compete weekly for the championship. Fans live and die with their team--they sport their colors, sing their chants, and collect team memorabilia. Personally, I have a Pittsburgh Steelers' ``Terrible Towel'' behind my desk. Most significantly, football gives us a chance to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. To that end, I was proud to be a Pennsylvanian this football season and to join with others to cheer on the Pittsburgh Steelers and Philadelphia Eagles. Both teams had an outstanding season and did not let their fans down. The Pittsburgh Steelers, my hometown team, had an incredible season. This was a historic year for the Black and Gold having secured the most wins in Steelers history, the most wins by a rookie quarterback, and the largest home attendance for a Steelers season. They also made an appearance in the AFC championship game. The Eagles had quite an impressive year as well, capturing the NFC Championship and playing in the Super Bowl. A day before the big game, Eagles head coach Andy Reid shared his feelings on being a part of the Super Bowl: ``This is what it is all about. You want your football team to have an opportunity to play in the Super Bowl. You're here and you're ready to go. I think every head coach has that goal. We're lucky enough for it to be a reality.'' The Super Bowl is the pinnacle of every football season, and it is impressive that the Eagles made it that far. As I watched the game, it was remarkable to hear the chants of thousands of Eagles fans in Jacksonville shouting, ``Fly Eagles Fly'' and witness the amount of support for the Philadelphia team. The Eagles had an outstanding Super Bowl game, and despite the outcome of the game, should be proud of their efforts. I join the thousands of Eagles fans and Pennsylvanians in saying that I was proud to have the Eagles representing Pennsylvania in the Super Bowl for the first time since 1981. What a tremendous season it was to have both Pennsylvania teams make it to their respective conference championships. The spirit and enthusiasm of the fans and the determination of the players on the field this season was an incredible sight to behold. I look forward to next season, when both teams have another chance to represent their respective Pennsylvania cities and win big for their fans.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to vote on final passage of S. 5. I was traveling with President Bush in Pennsylvania. I wish to express my support of the Senate passage of S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I am pleased that the Senate passed a bill that will help prevent the serious problem of class action abuse. The Class Action Fairness Act is a modest bipartisan bill that addresses some of the most serious abuses by allowing more large interstate class actions to be heard in Federal court, and by implementing a ``Consumer Class Action Bill of Rights'' to protect consumers. S. 5 will expand Federal jurisdiction over large, interstate class actions. Since the founding of this country, Federal diversity jurisdiction has existed over cases between citizens of different States involving large amounts of money. However, because of the way that some have interpreted the law, class action cases involving parties from many states and millions of dollars largely have been excluded from this rule and are confined to State court. The Class Action Fairness Act closes this loophole by creating Federal jurisdiction over large multi-State class actions. I ask that the Record reflect that, had I been here, I would have voted in favor of S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act. In passing this legislation in the Senate, we have taken a constructive step in addressing the abuses in the civil justice system while maintaining the rights of consumers.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Mikulski, a bill that would designate Poland as a program country under the Visa Waiver Program under section 217 of the Immigration Nationality Act. As we celebrate an historic period with the first Iraqi elections in over fifty years, it is important to appreciate the sacrifices our allies have made to make such an event possible. America must continue to solidify the bond with its allies by assisting their governments and citizens when possible. This legislation brings us closer to a country that has been by our side through a time of war and continues to be a partner in the global freedom. Since the founding of the United States, Poland has proven its steadfast dedication to the causes of freedom and friendship with the United States. This has been exemplified by the brave actions of Polish patriots such as Casimir Pulaski and Tadeusz Kosciuszco during the American Revolution. Polish history provides pioneering examples of democracy and religious tolerance, and this is reflected in their constitution that states, ``Freedom of faith and religion shall be ensured to everyone.'' Poland's revolt from the Soviet Union's communist stranglehold is a more recent example of their dedication to freedom. They are a prime example of Ronald Reagan's vision to end the Cold War. Last year, when I met Lech Walesa, the tenacious leader of Poland's Solidarity movement and former President of Poland, I was reminded of the profound struggle the country endured to bring democracy to their people. And their commitment to preserving freedom and global security continues today. On March 12, 1999, Poland became a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This was followed by admission into the European Union on May 1, 2004. Poland was a staunch ally to the United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom and has committed 2,300 troops to help with the ongoing peace efforts in Iraq. In addition to Poland's efforts as a global ally, its people have contributed greatly within our borders. Nearly nine million people of Polish ancestry live in the United States. Polish immigrants have played an integral role in the success of industry and agriculture in Pennsylvania and throughout the United States. Currently, the United States administers the Visa Waiver Program to citizens of twenty-seven countries. The program allows citizens from Visa Waiver Program countries to visit the United States as tourists, and Poland has earned the right to participate. I believe Poland deserves to be the twenty-eighth country to participate in the program. The 100,000 Polish citizens who visit the United States annually must currently pay a $100 fee to apply for a visa. Many of these applicants are visiting family, often for wedding celebrations or funerals. In an expression of good faith, in 1991 the Polish government unilaterally repealed the visa requirement for U.S. citizens traveling to Poland for less than 90 days. I am aware of past concerns about Polish visa refusal rates, but a closer look shows that refusal rates can be an inaccurate measure because they are based on decisions made by a very short interview process rather than the actual behavior of non-immigrants. Often, refusal rates do not reflect the propensity of nationals from that country to overstay their visas. More importantly, Poland's refusal rate does not reflect a high propensity for terrorism. The State Department has given no indication that the potential for terrorism in Poland significantly exceeds that of the 27 countries currently participating in the Visa Waiver Program. Please be assured that I am sensitive to arguments that have concerns about our national security at the core. However, our past history with Polish citizens visiting the United States does not favor this argument. For all Polish citizens and Polish Americans, I ask through this legislation that Poland be deemed a designated program country for the purposes of the Visa Waiver Program. I ask my colleagues for their support.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Mikulski, a bill that would designate Poland as a program country under the Visa Waiver Program under section 217 of the Immigration Nationality Act. As we celebrate an historic period with the first Iraqi elections in over fifty years, it is important to appreciate the sacrifices our allies have made to make such an event possible. America must continue to solidify the bond with its allies by assisting their governments and citizens when possible. This legislation brings us closer to a country that has been by our side through a time of war and continues to be a partner in the global freedom. Since the founding of the United States, Poland has proven its steadfast dedication to the causes of freedom and friendship with the United States. This has been exemplified by the brave actions of Polish patriots such as Casimir Pulaski and Tadeusz Kosciuszco during the American Revolution. Polish history provides pioneering examples of democracy and religious tolerance, and this is reflected in their constitution that states, ``Freedom of faith and religion shall be ensured to everyone.'' Poland's revolt from the Soviet Union's communist stranglehold is a more recent example of their dedication to freedom. They are a prime example of Ronald Reagan's vision to end the Cold War. Last year, when I met Lech Walesa, the tenacious leader of Poland's Solidarity movement and former President of Poland, I was reminded of the profound struggle the country endured to bring democracy to their people. And their commitment to preserving freedom and global security continues today. On March 12, 1999, Poland became a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This was followed by admission into the European Union on May 1, 2004. Poland was a staunch ally to the United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom and has committed 2,300 troops to help with the ongoing peace efforts in Iraq. In addition to Poland's efforts as a global ally, its people have contributed greatly within our borders. Nearly nine million people of Polish ancestry live in the United States. Polish immigrants have played an integral role in the success of industry and agriculture in Pennsylvania and throughout the United States. Currently, the United States administers the Visa Waiver Program to citizens of twenty-seven countries. The program allows citizens from Visa Waiver Program countries to visit the United States as tourists, and Poland has earned the right to participate. I believe Poland deserves to be the twenty-eighth country to participate in the program. The 100,000 Polish citizens who visit the United States annually must currently pay a $100 fee to apply for a visa. Many of these applicants are visiting family, often for wedding celebrations or funerals. In an expression of good faith, in 1991 the Polish government unilaterally repealed the visa requirement for U.S. citizens traveling to Poland for less than 90 days. I am aware of past concerns about Polish visa refusal rates, but a closer look shows that refusal rates can be an inaccurate measure because they are based on decisions made by a very short interview process rather than the actual behavior of non-immigrants. Often, refusal rates do not reflect the propensity of nationals from that country to overstay their visas. More importantly, Poland's refusal rate does not reflect a high propensity for terrorism. The State Department has given no indication that the potential for terrorism in Poland significantly exceeds that of the 27 countries currently participating in the Visa Waiver Program. Please be assured that I am sensitive to arguments that have concerns about our national security at the core. However, our past history with Polish citizens visiting the United States does not favor this argument. For all Polish citizens and Polish Americans, I ask through this legislation that Poland be deemed a designated program country for the purposes of the Visa Waiver Program. I ask my colleagues for their support.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to introduce, along with my colleague, Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, the Small Business Tax Equalization and Compliance Act of 2005, which would amend the tax code to expand the tip credit to certain employers and to promote tax compliance. This bill addresses an unfair aspect of our current tax code that adversely affects tens of thousands of small businesses across the country. Under current law, certain small business owners are required to pay Social Security and Medicare (FICA) taxes on tips their employees earn, despite having no control over or share of the tip earnings. This legislation will allow these small business owners to claim a tax credit against their income taxes for their share of the FICA tax paid on their employees' tips. The Small Business Tax Equalization and Compliance Act would place cosmetology service owners on equal footing with other similarly tip-intensive businesses such as the restaurant and food delivery industries that already benefit from a similar tax credit. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, and am hopeful my colleagues will join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to introduce, along with my colleague, Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, the Small Business Tax Equalization and Compliance Act of 2005, which would amend the tax code to expand the tip credit to certain employers and to promote tax compliance. This bill addresses an unfair aspect of our current tax code that adversely affects tens of thousands of small businesses across the country. Under current law, certain small business owners are required to pay Social Security and Medicare (FICA) taxes on tips their employees earn, despite having no control over or share of the tip earnings. This legislation will allow these small business owners to claim a tax credit against their income taxes for their share of the FICA tax paid on their employees' tips. The Small Business Tax Equalization and Compliance Act would place cosmetology service owners on equal footing with other similarly tip-intensive businesses such as the restaurant and food delivery industries that already benefit from a similar tax credit. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, and am hopeful my colleagues will join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President I rise today to introduce a bill to extend the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC program, the MILC Extension Act. In the 106th Congress, I called for a programmatic solution to market instability, when I introduced S. 2706, the National Dairy Farmers Fairness Act of 2000. S. 2706 was designed to eliminate the need for Congress to provide supplemental market loss payments to dairy producers by setting up a counter cyclical payment based on the market price of class III milk. Elements of S. 2706 were later borrowed to construct the MILC program, which was included in the 2002 Farm Bill. My bill would extend MILC for 2 years at current support levels. All commodity support programs, except MILC, were authorized for the full length of the current Farm Bill. As constructed, the MILC program provides a safety net for all dairy producers by providing a payment whenever the minimum monthly market price for Class I milk price in Boston falls below $16.94 per hundredweight, cwt. MILC represents a broad regional compromise and while it is not perfect, I recognize its importance as a safety net for dairy producers. As such I am working to extend the program until 2007 when Congress will consider the next Farm Bill. Budget constraints and compliance with our trade agreements requires us to reexamine the role of the federal government in agriculture. During this session of Congress I will engage in a focused effort to decrease direct payments and countercyclical programs. These discussions and reforms will be forthcoming, but allowing an important program that acts as a safety net for small farmers to expire would be too drastic of a first step. Others have suggested that we grow this program. I will be steadfast in my opposition to growing this program. Growing the size of this program sends a potentially dangerous signal to our producers. At a time when the experts are predicting that the market may soften over coming months, Congress should not send a signal to producers to increase production. Dairy producers should look to the market, not to Washington, DC, for guidance as they manage their businesses. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee who represents the fourth largest dairy producing state in the nation, I am committed to preserving the viability of Pennsylvania's dairy farmers. This legislative proposal represents a commonsense approach in the often- heated debate of dairy policy. I look forward to working with my colleagues, the President and the Secretary of Agriculture to extend this important program.