Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 1, 2001, at 10:00 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on the report of the Panel to Review the V-22 Program.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to extend my most sincere congratulations to Cadet Chief Petty Officer Thea I. Peck. On April 28, 2001, she will be awarded the Willis E. Reed Cadet of the Year Award, which recognizes the Naval Sea Cadet who has excelled in all areas of Naval Sea Cadet Corps, NSCC, training. She was initially selected as Mid-Atlantic Cadet of the Year for 2000 out of six states including Pennsylvania, which then lead to her selection as the program-wide Cadet of the Year. This recognition is outstanding as it exemplifies Cadet CPO Peck's leadership, maturity, dedication, and patriotism. The NSCC was established in 1958 in part of the Department of the Navy to develop an appreciation for the United States' naval history, customs, traditions, and its significant role in national defense. Its purpose is also to develop patriotism, confidence, and pride in our nation's youth and help them to develop strong moral character and good citizenship. It also gives participants a real-life look at military opportunities. Cadet CPO Peck has been a member of the Naval Sea Cadet Corps Program for over five years. She has completed several training courses over her tenure in the program including time spent at the Foreign Exchange Program with the United Kingdom and Medical Staff Training at Bethesda Naval Hospital. In all of her training periods, Cadet CPO Peck earned the highest performance marks illustrating her dedication to the program and the United States Navy. In addition to excelling in the Naval Sea Cadet Corps, Cadet CPO Peck is an impeccable student. With a high school grade point average of 3.95, and as a student in all advanced classes, she has mastered time management and the ability to balance academics and outside activities. She has received a number of achievements for her work in various science fairs, and she is also an outstanding athlete, lettering in indoor track, swimming, lacrosse and soccer. Cadet CPO Peck is a superior, well-rounded young adult who has chosen to take advantage of all that life has to offer. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am grateful to Cadet CPO Peck for her dedication to the United States Navy through the Naval Sea Cadet Corps. With so many opportunities ahead after high school, I am confident that whichever avenue she chooses to pursue, she will bring great energy and leadership to it. I ask my Senate colleagues to join with me in congratulating this fine young leader as she is recognized as the 2001 NSCC Cadet of the Year and recipient of the Willis E. Reed Award.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to address the urgent need for increased levels of Department of Defense basic research funding in fiscal year 2002. I offer an amendment which will significantly increase funding for Department of Defense basic research carried out in American universities. This past September, then-Governor George W. Bush addressed an audience at The Citadel in South Carolina and raised the notion of skipping a generation of weapons systems and of making leap ahead advances in American military capabilities. Governor Bush recognized that 21st century threats facing the United States are qualitatively different than the threats that occupied our military and our industrial base during the cold war and in the decade that followed the downfall of the Soviet Union. Since that speech, many others have articulated a need to transform our Nation's military to better respond to these threat trends. They note that our current military is ill equipped to meet threats such as incidents of terrorism, information warfare, biological warfare, and urban conflict. The only way to meet these challenges is to redouble our energies on meeting these challenges. While procuring updated or evolutionary weapons systems might seem like the most expeditious way to meet these new threats, I believe that we need to work our way back and look first at the basic sciences and basic research efforts that will support the development of new weapons systems. Without critical investments in Department of Defense basic research we cannot hope to make key understandings that will drive leap ahead advances or spur on revolutionary weapons systems. Oftentimes, the funding that supports basic research for the Department of Defense has been referred to as ``seed corn'' funding. It is funding that, when properly invested, will return advances in our understanding of what we know about a property, an entity, a phenomenon, or relationship. Not all of these investments are successful in outcome, and for this reason basic research can be classified as high-risk in nature. However, these basic research investments inevitably add to our knowledge base and improve our understanding of the world. Regrettably, we have been taking funds from these crucial accounts and using them to pay for the near-term modernization or procurement needs of today's military. While this has proven to be a useful short- term fix, in the long-run, we have compromised those resources necessary to drive innovation and leap ahead advances, advances necessary to meet 21st century threats. Part of the problem lies in the nature of basic research. Unlike investments in applied research or advanced development research, the incubation period for basic research is perhaps as long as a decade. This requires the executive and legislative branches of government to maintain a long-term focus when making budgetary decisions. American universities offer the Department of Defense the laboratories and knowledge base necessary to successfully complete this transformation objective. The Department of Defense has historically played a major federal role in funding basic research and has been a significant sponsor of engineering research and technology development conducted in American universities. For over 50 years, Department of Defense investment in university research has been a dominant element of the nation's research and development infrastructure and an essential component of the United states capacity for technological innovation. According to recent figures, 54 percent of all Department of Defense- sponsored basic research is performed in American universities. Furthermore, in aeronautical, electrical and mechanical engineering, the Department of Defense's share of governmentwide investment exceeds 50 percent. In addition, with respect to the fields of mathematics and computer science, the Department of Defense accounts for nearly 50 percent of all federal investment. Moreover, Department of Defense basic research programs make a significant contribution to the national economy by educating new generations of scientists and engineers and by helping to maintain a university research infrastructure that is the envy of the world. The unpredictability of long-term research in combination with shortened product cycles and an intense competition has led many private sector companies to retrench their research programs to focus on near-term product development. Only the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies can invest in university research at the levels required to meet future challenges to American security, prosperity and health. Throughout the decades of the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and 1980's, the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies sustained their commitments to these investments in American universities. This investment can be measured by the number of systems relied upon by America today to project power and maintain our interests around the globe. For example, fundamental stimulated emission basic research at Columbia University in the 1950's led to military advances in lasers necessary for precision weapon guidance capabilities. Department of Defense basic research funds supported activities at the California Institute of Technology in the 1970's which studied metal semiconductor field effect transistor gallium-arsenide devices now used in ballistic missile ground-based radar. Department of Defense basic research funding supported scientific study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University on lightweight composite structural materials now utilized by the Marine Corps' AV-8B Harrier aircraft. As I mentioned earlier, the incubation period for basic research can be as long as a decade. Companies competing in today's market-driven, global economy, are now reducing their investments in long-term, high- risk research. It is up to the federal government to make the critical investment in this high-risk, long-term research if we are to make revolutionary or leap ahead scientific breakthroughs. Without increased investment in Department of Defense basic research, the number of graduate student opportunities to pursue Department of Defense research cannot increase. A decline in the pool of scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and skilled technicians will prevent the Department of Defense from achieving success in the pursuit of leap ahead technologies. In addition, our cadre of skilled scientists and engineers--cultivated by Department of Defense basic research funds-- are the individuals who will drive innovation in the areas of our economy which depend on advances in science and technology. In the end, there has to be a recognition by U.S. policy leaders that these critical funds are crucial to the U.S. military being able to meet future threats. A recent Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force identified several key capabilities that would be necessary to allow our military forces to meet future warfighting challenges. The capabilities identified by the DSB Task Force were: Response to engineered biological threats; real-time surveillance and targeting, especially hidden and moving targets; and real-day projection of dominant U.S./Coalition military forces. For advances to occur in these capabilities, we will first need to make wise investments in key enabling technologies. Department of Defense basic research can provide the stimulus to make this possible. Examples of key enabling technologies include: biotechnology; information technology; microsystems; and energy and materials. The DSB Task Force report observed that commercial sector investment in these technologies are short-term in nature, as opposed to long-term. In addition, the DSB Task Force recommended a focus on the interdisciplinary combinations of these technologies, as it is in these intersections that the truly revolutionary advances in military capabilities take place. For fiscal year 2001, President Clinton requested $1.22 billion in funding for Department of Defense basic research. Congress, for fiscal year 2001, appropriated $1.35 billion for Department of Defense basic research. With this in mind, my amendment is quite reasonable and, I believe, quite modest. For fiscal year 2002, I propose investing an additional $353.5 million in Department of Defense basic research funding spent in American universities. This amendment begins the process of transforming our military to meet 21st century threats. Given the importance of these funds in making leap ahead advances in our military capabilities and because our quality of life as Americans is tied to basic research, I believe this is an initiative Congress should support with great enthusiasm.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate our friend and colleague from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Senator Bunning, on the occasion of his number being retired by the Philadelphia Phillies. On April 6, Senator Bunning's number, 14, will become only the fifth number to be retired in the franchise's 119-year history. The Senator from Kentucky will join fellow Hall of Famers Robin Roberts, Richie Ashburn, Steve Carlton, and Mike Schmidt. The honor to be bestowed is fitting for the pitcher who led the majors in wins, innings and strikeouts from 1955 to 1971. This is one of many accolades in a distinguished career in professional athletics and public service. Senator Bunning was elected to the baseball Hall of Fame after a career in the Major Leagues which spanned seventeen seasons. At the time of his retirement from the big leagues in 1971, he ranked second only to the great Walter Johnson in career strikeouts with 2,855. The Senator is identified as an ``intimidating right-handed sidearmer'' on his Hall of Fame plaque. His brilliant career may have reached its pinnacle on June 21, 1964, Father's Day, when the father who has raised nine children threw a perfect game. With this feat Jim Bunning became the first pitcher in the twentieth century to throw a no-hitter both in the National and American leagues. I have been fortunate enough to witness many of the distinguished Senator's accomplishments in public service. I first met Jim Bunning in the House of Representatives in the 102nd Congress. My wife Karen also met Mary Bunning, Jim's amazing wife and mother of those nine children. She was Karen's big sister and continues to be a great friend to both of us. During the 103rd Congress I served with Jim on the Ways and Means Committee. In 1998, the people of Kentucky elected Jim Bunning to the U.S. Senate where I am proud to serve with him once again. It is with great pleasure that I commend my friend and colleague, Senator Bunning, for his remarkable career as a Hall of Fame pitcher. I ask my colleagues to join with me in congratulating him on this milestone relative to his performance as a member of the Philadelphia Phillies. Once again quoting from the right-hander's Hall of Fame plaque, he has ``maintained dedication and consistency'' throughout his career as a Major League pitcher, as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. His service is an example of excellence for young and old, including his thirty-five grandchildren. I congratulate him and I applaud him for his service.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Affordable Drinking Water Act of 2001.'' I am pleased to reintroduce this bill in the 107th Congress as I believe it sets out an innovative approach to meet the safe drinking water needs of rural Americans nationwide. The Affordable Drinking Water Act of 2001 provides a targeted alternative to water delivery in rural areas. Low to moderate income households who would prefer to have their own well, or are experiencing drinking water problems, could secure financing to install or refurbish an individually owned household well. In my home state of Pennsylvania, 2.5 million citizens currently choose to have their drinking water supplied by privately-owned individual water wells. The approach envisioned under this bill would establish a partnership between the federal government and non-profit entities to administer grants to eligible homeowners for the purposes of: bringing old household water wells up to current standards; replacing systems that have met their expected life; or providing homeowners without a drinking water source with a new individual household water well system. Another important component of this legislation will afford rural consumers with individually owned water wells the same payment flexibility as other utility customers. Centralized water systems currently are eligible to receive federal grants and loans with repayment spread out over 40 years. The Affordable Drinking Water Act of 2001 would provide loans to low to moderate income homeowners to upgrade or install a household drinking water well now, and then repay the cost through monthly installments. This ability to stretch out payments over the life of the loan gives rural well owners an affordable option that they otherwise do not have. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this legislation today, and believe that it is appropriately balanced to meet the safe-drinking water needs of rural households.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Affordable Drinking Water Act of 2001.'' I am pleased to reintroduce this bill in the 107th Congress as I believe it sets out an innovative approach to meet the safe drinking water needs of rural Americans nationwide. The Affordable Drinking Water Act of 2001 provides a targeted alternative to water delivery in rural areas. Low to moderate income households who would prefer to have their own well, or are experiencing drinking water problems, could secure financing to install or refurbish an individually owned household well. In my home state of Pennsylvania, 2.5 million citizens currently choose to have their drinking water supplied by privately-owned individual water wells. The approach envisioned under this bill would establish a partnership between the federal government and non-profit entities to administer grants to eligible homeowners for the purposes of: bringing old household water wells up to current standards; replacing systems that have met their expected life; or providing homeowners without a drinking water source with a new individual household water well system. Another important component of this legislation will afford rural consumers with individually owned water wells the same payment flexibility as other utility customers. Centralized water systems currently are eligible to receive federal grants and loans with repayment spread out over 40 years. The Affordable Drinking Water Act of 2001 would provide loans to low to moderate income homeowners to upgrade or install a household drinking water well now, and then repay the cost through monthly installments. This ability to stretch out payments over the life of the loan gives rural well owners an affordable option that they otherwise do not have. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this legislation today, and believe that it is appropriately balanced to meet the safe-drinking water needs of rural households.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, it is my privilege to rise today to recognize the accomplishments of a living legend. Transplant pioneer Thomas E. Starzl performed the world's first liver transplant in 1963 and the first successful series of kidney transplants between nonidentical twins between 1963 and 1964, and he has for four decades continued to make equally extraordinary advancements in the field of organ transplantation. This coming April 27, Dr. Starzl's former students and colleagues, representing the span of those 40 years, will pay tribute to Dr. Starzl as he enters emeritus status at the University of Pittsburgh. It will be a celebration much to Dr. Starzl's liking--an academic gathering in order to share important scientific information. Dr. Starzl is a pioneer. His work has had lasting influence and utility in the field of transplantation and on other fields of medicine as well. His legacy has and will continue to make an impact on us all. In 1980 he developed a combination of drugs that transformed transplantation of the liver and heart from an experimental procedure to a standard treatment for patients with end-stage organ failure. In 1989, his development of another drug markedly improved survival rates for all kinds of transplants and made possible for the first time successful transplantation of the small intestine. When Pittsburgh welcomed him 20 years ago, we had no idea the incredible contributions this man would make to medicine and mankind. Indeed, the city has enjoyed an enhanced reputation because he chose to make the University of Pittsburgh his academic home. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the first liver transplant he performed in Pittsburgh. Since then, surgeons at the University of Pittsburgh and the UPMC Health System have performed nearly 6,000 liver transplants and more than 11,300 transplants of all organs. These numbers set the world standard, by far. But Dr. Starzl's work goes far beyond Pittsburgh--he is truly a national treasure. He is one of history's greatest surgeons, someone who made saving a life routine. Even patients who have not been under his direct care have benefitted from his work. In fact, most of the world's transplant surgeons and physicians have been trained by Dr. Starzl or by those trained by him. By this standard alone his impact is immeasurable and permanent. He has forever changed and improved health care delivery as we know it. Dr. Starzl, please know that every American is indebted to you for your hard work, your refusal to take no for an answer, and most of all, for your genius and skill as a surgeon and a researcher. The world is a better place because you chose to make Pittsburgh your home.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, Senators Bob Torricelli of New Jersey and Bob Smith of New Hampshire, in introducing the bipartisan Fair Care for the Uninsured Act of 2001, legislation aimed at ensuring that all Americans, regardless of income, have a basic level of resources to purchase health insurance. I am pleased that House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas and Representative Bill Lipinski of Illinois have joined in introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. As we all know, the growing ranks of uninsured Americans, currently 43 million, remains a major national problem that must be addressed as Congress considers improvements to our healthcare delivery system. The uninsured are three times as likely not to receive needed medical care, at least twice as more likely to need hospitalization for avoidable conditions like pneumonia and diabetes, and four times more likely to rely on an emergency room or have no regular source of care as compared to Americans who are privately insured. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act represents a major step toward helping the uninsured obtain health insurance coverage through the creation of a new refundable tax credit for the purchase of private health insurance, a concept which enjoys bipartisan support. This legislation directly addresses one of the main barriers which now inhibits access to health insurance for millions of Americans: discrimination in the tax code. Most Americans obtain health insurance through their place of work, and for good reason: workers receive their employer's contribution toward health insurance completely free from federal taxation, including payroll taxes. This is effectively a $120 billion per year federal subsidy for employer-provided health insurance. By contrast, individuals who purchase their own health insurance get virtually no tax relief. They must buy insurance with after-tax dollars, forcing many to earn twice as much income before taxes in order to purchase the same insurance. This hidden health tax penalty effectively punishes people who try to buy their insurance outside the workplace. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act would remedy this situation by creating a parallel system for working families who do not have access to health insurance through the workplace. Specifically, this legislation creates a refundable tax credit of $1,000 per adult and up to $3,000 per family, indexed for inflation, for the purchase of private health insurance; would be available to individuals and families who don't have access to coverage through the workplace or a federal government program; enables individuals to use their credit to shop for a basic plan that best suits their needs which would be portable from job to job; and allows individuals to buy more generous coverage with after-tax dollars. And of course the states could supplement the credit. This legislation complements a bipartisan consensus which is emerging around this means for addressing the serious problem of uninsured Americans: Instead of creating new government entitlements to medical services, tax credits provide public financing to help uninsured Americans buy private health insurance. President Bush has proposed a similar tax credit for health insurance coverage, and Senators Jeffords and Breaux have introduced their own health insurance tax credit proposal here in the Senate. I applaud their efforts for advancing this important public policy initiative, and look forward to working with them to develop a clear mandate for helping America's uninsured. I would like to apprize our colleagues of a couple of improvements which we have added to last session's bill that I believe will help bring about an even more positive impact on America's uninsured population. First, in an effort to keep premiums affordable for older, sicker Americans, our Fair Care legislation calls for the creation of safety-net arrangements administered at the state level and funded by assessments on insurers. Often called high-risk pools, such arrangements currently exist in 28 states and would be expanded to all 50. In addition, our Fair Care legislation this session would further reduce premiums by permitting the creation of Individual Membership Associations, through which individuals can obtain basic coverage free of costly state benefit mandates. In reducing the amount of uncompensated care that is offset through cost shifting to private insurance plans, and in substantially increasing the insurance base, a health insurance tax credit will help relieve some of the spiraling costs of our health care delivery system. It would also encourage insurance companies to write policies geared to the size of the credit, thus offering more options and making it possible for low income families to obtain coverage without paying much more than the available credits. It is time that we reduced the tax bias against families who do not have access to coverage through their place of work or existing government programs, and to encourage the creation of an effective market for family-selected and family-owned plans, where Americans have more choice and control over their health care dollars. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act would create tax fairness where currently none exists by requiring that all Americans receive the same tax encouragement to purchase health insurance, regardless of employment. It is my hope that our colleagues will join Senators Torricelli, Smith and me in endorsing this bipartisan legislation to provide people who purchase health insurance on their own similar tax treatment as those who have access to insurance through their employer. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, Senators Bob Torricelli of New Jersey and Bob Smith of New Hampshire, in introducing the bipartisan Fair Care for the Uninsured Act of 2001, legislation aimed at ensuring that all Americans, regardless of income, have a basic level of resources to purchase health insurance. I am pleased that House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas and Representative Bill Lipinski of Illinois have joined in introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. As we all know, the growing ranks of uninsured Americans, currently 43 million, remains a major national problem that must be addressed as Congress considers improvements to our healthcare delivery system. The uninsured are three times as likely not to receive needed medical care, at least twice as more likely to need hospitalization for avoidable conditions like pneumonia and diabetes, and four times more likely to rely on an emergency room or have no regular source of care as compared to Americans who are privately insured. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act represents a major step toward helping the uninsured obtain health insurance coverage through the creation of a new refundable tax credit for the purchase of private health insurance, a concept which enjoys bipartisan support. This legislation directly addresses one of the main barriers which now inhibits access to health insurance for millions of Americans: discrimination in the tax code. Most Americans obtain health insurance through their place of work, and for good reason: workers receive their employer's contribution toward health insurance completely free from federal taxation, including payroll taxes. This is effectively a $120 billion per year federal subsidy for employer-provided health insurance. By contrast, individuals who purchase their own health insurance get virtually no tax relief. They must buy insurance with after-tax dollars, forcing many to earn twice as much income before taxes in order to purchase the same insurance. This hidden health tax penalty effectively punishes people who try to buy their insurance outside the workplace. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act would remedy this situation by creating a parallel system for working families who do not have access to health insurance through the workplace. Specifically, this legislation creates a refundable tax credit of $1,000 per adult and up to $3,000 per family, indexed for inflation, for the purchase of private health insurance; would be available to individuals and families who don't have access to coverage through the workplace or a federal government program; enables individuals to use their credit to shop for a basic plan that best suits their needs which would be portable from job to job; and allows individuals to buy more generous coverage with after-tax dollars. And of course the states could supplement the credit. This legislation complements a bipartisan consensus which is emerging around this means for addressing the serious problem of uninsured Americans: Instead of creating new government entitlements to medical services, tax credits provide public financing to help uninsured Americans buy private health insurance. President Bush has proposed a similar tax credit for health insurance coverage, and Senators Jeffords and Breaux have introduced their own health insurance tax credit proposal here in the Senate. I applaud their efforts for advancing this important public policy initiative, and look forward to working with them to develop a clear mandate for helping America's uninsured. I would like to apprize our colleagues of a couple of improvements which we have added to last session's bill that I believe will help bring about an even more positive impact on America's uninsured population. First, in an effort to keep premiums affordable for older, sicker Americans, our Fair Care legislation calls for the creation of safety-net arrangements administered at the state level and funded by assessments on insurers. Often called high-risk pools, such arrangements currently exist in 28 states and would be expanded to all 50. In addition, our Fair Care legislation this session would further reduce premiums by permitting the creation of Individual Membership Associations, through which individuals can obtain basic coverage free of costly state benefit mandates. In reducing the amount of uncompensated care that is offset through cost shifting to private insurance plans, and in substantially increasing the insurance base, a health insurance tax credit will help relieve some of the spiraling costs of our health care delivery system. It would also encourage insurance companies to write policies geared to the size of the credit, thus offering more options and making it possible for low income families to obtain coverage without paying much more than the available credits. It is time that we reduced the tax bias against families who do not have access to coverage through their place of work or existing government programs, and to encourage the creation of an effective market for family-selected and family-owned plans, where Americans have more choice and control over their health care dollars. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act would create tax fairness where currently none exists by requiring that all Americans receive the same tax encouragement to purchase health insurance, regardless of employment. It is my hope that our colleagues will join Senators Torricelli, Smith and me in endorsing this bipartisan legislation to provide people who purchase health insurance on their own similar tax treatment as those who have access to insurance through their employer. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to recognize an outstanding group of young people from Bucks County, PA. The Central Bucks East High School Choirs, under the direction of E. Scott Teschner and the String Orchestra, under the direction of Eileen Telly, traveled to Washington, DC and Virginia to be adjudicated in Music Festivals throughout the weekend of March 30, 2001. The 25-member String Orchestra performed at Lanier Middle School in Fairfax, VA on Saturday, March 31, and the choirs sang at W.T. Woodson High School, also in Fairfax. These choirs include a 165-voice Concert Choir, 16-voice Varsity Singers, 16-voice Men's Ensemble and 27-voice Women's Ensemble. Later that evening, these talented students celebrated at an awards banquet and dance, and on Sunday, April 1, 2001, they traveled to the West Terrace of the United States Capitol for a public performance. This group of students has been recognized for their outstanding choral abilities in Washington, Williamsburg, Orlando, Boston, and Montreal. In addition, they have been recognized since 1991 as the ``Outstanding Choral Program'' in every festival in which they have participated. Performances are judged according to National Standards of Excellence by college choral professors, and the Central Bucks East Choirs consistently earn ``Superior'' ratings. In addition, they are frequently honored with the ``Special Adjudicators Award for Distinguished Performance,'' presented only to the elite choirs in the nation. These singers have also received the ``Spirit of the Festival Award'' for the last 2 years, which is awarded to the organization that bests represents their community and school, and that is the most cooperative and enthusiastic during the festival. It is without a doubt that this group is an outstanding representation of young people in Pennsylvania and across the country. They have demonstrated tremendous talent both musically and through their leadership and maturity. I enthusiastically congratulate the Choirs and String Orchestra from Central Bucks High School-East, and I extend my best wishes for their future success.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am introducing with Senator Joe Lieberman ``the Savings Opportunity and Charitable Giving Act of 2001.'' Other bipartisan cosponsors include Senators Hutchinson, Durbin, Brownback, Landrieu, Lugar, and Bayh. Within a month of the White House's formation of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, we are moving the process forward in Congress by the bipartisan introduction of the key tax relief provisions of the President's Faith-Based Initiatives including Individual Development Accounts, IDAs, which President Bush endorsed in his campaign as part of the New Prosperity Initiative. Representatives J.C. Watts, Jr. and Tony Hall will be introducing a similar measure in the House of Representatives within the coming weeks. Beneficiary Choice expansion and other provisions will be pursued in a thoughtful manner but on a separate track from the tax provisions in the Senate. Success in today's new economy is defined less and less by how much you earn and more and more by how much you own, your asset base. This is great news for the millions of middle-class homeowners who are tapped into America's economic success, but it is bad news for those who are simply tapped out, those with no assets and little hope of accumulating the means for upward mobility and real financial security. This widening asset gap was underscored in a report issued earlier this year by the Federal Reserve. The Fed found that while the net worth of the typical family has risen substantially in recent years, it has actually dropped substantially for low-income families. For families with annual incomes of less than $10,000, the median net worth dipped from $4,800 in 1995 to $3,600 in 1998. For families with incomes between $10,000 and $25,000, the median net worth fell from $31,000 to $24,800 over the same period. The rate of home ownership among low-income families has dropped as well. For families making less than $10,000, it went from 36.1 percent to 34.5 percent from 1995 to 1998; for those making between $10,000 and $25,000, it fell from 54.9 percent to 51.7 percent. How do we reverse this troubling trend? IDAs are the unfinished business of the Community Renewal and New Markets Empowerment initiatives which became law in December of 2000 and will increase job opportunities and renew hope in what have been hopeless places. But to sustain this hope, we must provide opportunities for individuals and families to build tangible assets and acquire stable wealth. Our legislation is aimed at fixing our nation's growing gap in asset ownership, which keeps millions of low-income workers from achieving the American dream. Most public attention focuses on our growing income gap. Though the booming American economy has delivered significant income gains to the nation's upper-income earners, lower-income workers have been left on the sidelines. This suggests to some that closing this divide between the have-mosts and the have-leasts is simply a matter of raising wages. But the reality is that the income gap is a symptom of a larger, more complicated problem. How do we do this? We believe that the marketplace can provide such opportunity. Non-profit groups around the country have launched innovative private programs that are achieving great success in transforming the ``unbanked,'' people who have never had a bank account, into unabashed capitalists. Through IDAs, banks and credit unions offer special savings accounts to low-income Americans and match their deposits dollar-for-dollar. In return, participants take an economic literacy course and commit to using their savings to buy a home, upgrade their education or to start a business. Thousands of people are actively saving today through IDA programs in about 250 neighborhoods nationwide. In one demonstration project undertaken by the Corporation for Enterprise Development, CFED, a leading IDA promoter, 1,300 families have already saved $329,000, which has leveraged an additional $742,000. While the growth of IDAs has been encouraging, access to IDA programs is still limited and scattered across the nation. The IDA provision of this legislation will expand IDA access nationwide by providing a significant tax credit to financial institutions and community groups that offer IDA accounts. This credit would reimburse banks for the first $500 of matching funds they contribute, thus significantly lowering the cost of offering IDAs. Other state and private funds can also be used to provide an additional match to savings. It also benefits our economy, the long-term stability of which is threatened by our pitiful national savings rate. In fact, according to some estimates, every $1 invested in an IDA returns $5 to the national economy. IDAs are matched savings accounts for working Americans restricted to three uses: 1. buying a first home; 2. receiving post-secondary education or training; or 3. starting or expanding a small business. Individual and matching deposits are not co-mingled; all matching dollars are kept in a separate, parallel account. When the account holder has accumulated enough savings and matching funds to purchase the asset, typically over two to four years, and has completed a financial education course, payments from the IDA will be made directly to the asset provider. Financial institutions, or their contractual affiliates, would be reimbursed for all matching funds provided plus a limited amount of the program and administrative costs incurred, whether directly or through collaborations with other entities. Specifically, the IDA Tax Credit would be the aggregate amount of all dollar-for-dollar matches provided, up to $500 per person per year, plus a one-time $100 per account credit for financial education, recruiting, marketing, administration, withdrawals, etc., plus an annual $30 per account credit for the administrative cost of maintaining the account. To be eligible for the match, adjusted gross income may not exceed $20,000, single, $25,000, head of household, or $40,000, married. President Bush has expressed support for IDAs in his campaign and we are working with the Administration to coordinate efforts to the fullest extent possible. Supporting groups include the Credit Union National Association, the Financial Services Roundtable, the Corporation for Enterprise Development, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, the National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions, the National Council for La Raza, and others. Individual Development Accounts, combined with other community development and wealth creation opportunities, are a first step towards restoring faith in the longstanding American promise of equal opportunity. That faith has been shaken by stark divisions of income and wealth in our society. With the leadership of President Bush and Speaker Hastert, I am hopeful, along with our other cosponsors, that Congress will take this first step toward restoring the long-cherished American ideals of rewarding hard work, encouraging responsibility, and expanding savings opportunity this year. The Non-Itemizer Charitable Deduction provision will initially allow non-itemizers to deduct 50 percent of their charitable giving, after they exceed a cumulative total of $500 in annual donations, $1,000 for joint filers. The deduction will be phased into a 100 percent deduction over the course of 5 years in 10 percent increments. Under current law non-itemizers receive no additional tax benefit for their charitable contributions. More than 84 million Americans cannot deduct any of their charitable contributions because they do not itemize their tax returns. In contrast, there are 34 million Americans who itemize and receive this benefit. For example, in Pennsylvania, there are nearly 4 million taxpayers who do not itemize deductions while slightly more than 1.5 million taxpayers do itemize. While Americans are already giving generously to charities making a significant positive impact in our communities, this provision provides an incentive for additional giving and allows non-itemizers who typically have middle to lower middle incomes to also benefit from additional tax relief. In fact, non-itemizers earning less than $30,000 give the highest percentage of their household income to charity. It is estimated that restoring this tax relief provision to merely 50 percent which existed in the 1980's would encourage more than $3 billion of additional charitable giving a year. The phased in increase to 100 percent will result in even more additional giving. The floor is included because the standard personal deduction encompasses initial contributions. One important dimension of promoting charitable efforts helping to revitalize our communities, empower individuals and families, and enhance educational opportunities is encouraging charitable giving. This legislation is a great opportunity to lower the tax burden on the many Americans who have not received any tax relief for their charitable contributions since 1986. The IRA Charitable Rollover allows individuals to roll assets from an IRA into a charity or a deferred charitable gift plan without incurring any income tax consequences. The donation would be made to charity directly without ever withdrawing it as income and paying taxes on it. The rollover can be made as an outright gift, for a charitable remainder annuity trust, charitable remainder unitrust or pooled income fund, or for the issuance of a charitable annuity. The donor would not receive a charitable deduction. This incentive should assist charitable giving in education, social service, and religious charitable efforts. Food banks are finding it increasingly difficult to meet the demand for food assistance. In the past, food banks have benefitted from the inefficiencies of manufacturing, including the over-production of merchandise and the manufacturing of cosmetically-flawed products. However, technology has made businesses and manufacturers significantly more efficient. Although beneficial to the company's bottom-line, donations have lessened as a result. The fact is that the demand on our nation's church pantries, soup kitchens and shelter continues to rise, despite our economy. According to an August 2000 report on Hunger Security by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 31 million Americans, around 10 percent of our citizens, are living on the edge of hunger. Although this number has declined by 12 percent since 1995, everyone agrees that this figure remains too high. Unfortunately, many food banks cannot meet this increased demand for food. A December '99 study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that requests for emergency food assistance increased by an average of 18 percent in American cities over the previous year and 21 percent of emergency food requests could not be met. Statistics by the United States Department of Agriculture show that up to 96 billion pounds of food goes to waste each year in the United States. If a small percentage of this wasted food could be redirected to food banks, we could make important strides in our fight against hunger. In many ways, current law is a hindrance to food donations. The tax code provides corporations with a special deduction for donations to food banks, but it excludes farmers, ranchers and restaurant owners from donating food under the same tax incentive. For many of these businesses, it is actually more cost effective to throw away food than donate it to charity. The hunger relief community believes that these changes will markedly increase food donations- whether it is a farmer donating his crop, a restaurant owner contributing excess meals, or a food manufacturer producing specifically for charity. This bipartisan legislation was introduced separately by Senators Lugar and Leahy with 13 additional cosponsors including myself. It has been endorsed by a diverse set of organizations, including America's Second Harvest Food Banks, the Salvation Army, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union, the National Restaurant Association, and the Grocery Manufacturers of America. Under current law, when a corporation donates food to a food bank, it is eligible to receive a ``special rule'' tax deduction. Unfortunately, most companies have found that the ``special rule" deduction does not allow them to recoup their actual production costs. Moreover, current law limits the ``special rule'' deduction only to corporations, thus prohibiting farmers, ranchers, small businesses and restaurant owners from receiving the same tax benefits afforded to corporations. This provision would encourage additional food donations through three changes to our tax laws: This bill will extend the ``special rule'' tax deduction for food donations now afforded only to corporations to all business taxpayers, including farmers and restaurant owners. This legislation will increase the tax deduction for donated food from basis plus deg. markup to the fair market value of the product, not to exceed twice the product's basis. This bill will codify the Tax Court ruling in Lucky Stores, Inc. v. IRS, in which the Court found that taxpayers should base the determination of fair market value of donated product on recent sales. I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me in this important effort to increase savings opportunities for lower income working Americans, to encourage the charitable giving of all Americans, to provide additional resources for the charitable organizations which serve their communities, and to encourage additional donations of food to alleviate hunger. I would also encourage my other colleagues to consider supporting this important initiative.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I stand before you today to recognize Gary P. Plundo, D.O., M.P.M. from Greensburg, PA who will be installed as the 87th president of the Pennsylvania Osteopathic Medical Association, POMA during their 93rd Clinical Assembly in Philadelphia this May. Dr. Plundo has been an outstanding member of the medical profession through his many years of service to the people of Greensburg, PA. He has served in many capacities throughout his tenure to improve the health of the people of this community. Both professionally and as a volunteer, Dr. Plundo has used his expertise to help the lives of others. As he becomes the next president of POMA, I am confident that his leadership will take the organization to new heights. In recognition of his accomplishments and installation as president of POMA, I would like to submit the following proclamation in his honor: Whereas, Gary P. Plundo, D.O., M.P.M., will be installed on May 4, 2001, as president of the Pennsylvania Osteopathic Medical Association, the state organization that represents over 3,500 licensed osteopathic physicians, over 440 interns, residents and fellows, and 1,000 osteopathic medical students at the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine and 550 at the Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine; and Whereas, Dr. Plundo is a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh and the Des Moines University Osteopathic Medical Center College of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery; and Whereas, Dr. Plundo has been an officer and trustee of the Pennsylvania Osteopathic Medical Association, a delegate to the American Osteopathic Association and a community leader in the field of family medicine; and Whereas, he has distinguished himself as a dedicated physician who continues the osteopathic tradition of assuring exemplary family medicine; Now, therefore, I congratulate Gary P. Plundo, D.O., M.P.M., on his installation as the 87th President of the Pennsylvania Osteopathic Medical Association, and wish him the best for a successful and rewarding tenure.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am introducing with Senator Joe Lieberman ``the Savings Opportunity and Charitable Giving Act of 2001.'' Other bipartisan cosponsors include Senators Hutchinson, Durbin, Brownback, Landrieu, Lugar, and Bayh. Within a month of the White House's formation of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, we are moving the process forward in Congress by the bipartisan introduction of the key tax relief provisions of the President's Faith-Based Initiatives including Individual Development Accounts, IDAs, which President Bush endorsed in his campaign as part of the New Prosperity Initiative. Representatives J.C. Watts, Jr. and Tony Hall will be introducing a similar measure in the House of Representatives within the coming weeks. Beneficiary Choice expansion and other provisions will be pursued in a thoughtful manner but on a separate track from the tax provisions in the Senate. Success in today's new economy is defined less and less by how much you earn and more and more by how much you own, your asset base. This is great news for the millions of middle-class homeowners who are tapped into America's economic success, but it is bad news for those who are simply tapped out, those with no assets and little hope of accumulating the means for upward mobility and real financial security. This widening asset gap was underscored in a report issued earlier this year by the Federal Reserve. The Fed found that while the net worth of the typical family has risen substantially in recent years, it has actually dropped substantially for low-income families. For families with annual incomes of less than $10,000, the median net worth dipped from $4,800 in 1995 to $3,600 in 1998. For families with incomes between $10,000 and $25,000, the median net worth fell from $31,000 to $24,800 over the same period. The rate of home ownership among low-income families has dropped as well. For families making less than $10,000, it went from 36.1 percent to 34.5 percent from 1995 to 1998; for those making between $10,000 and $25,000, it fell from 54.9 percent to 51.7 percent. How do we reverse this troubling trend? IDAs are the unfinished business of the Community Renewal and New Markets Empowerment initiatives which became law in December of 2000 and will increase job opportunities and renew hope in what have been hopeless places. But to sustain this hope, we must provide opportunities for individuals and families to build tangible assets and acquire stable wealth. Our legislation is aimed at fixing our nation's growing gap in asset ownership, which keeps millions of low-income workers from achieving the American dream. Most public attention focuses on our growing income gap. Though the booming American economy has delivered significant income gains to the nation's upper-income earners, lower-income workers have been left on the sidelines. This suggests to some that closing this divide between the have-mosts and the have-leasts is simply a matter of raising wages. But the reality is that the income gap is a symptom of a larger, more complicated problem. How do we do this? We believe that the marketplace can provide such opportunity. Non-profit groups around the country have launched innovative private programs that are achieving great success in transforming the ``unbanked,'' people who have never had a bank account, into unabashed capitalists. Through IDAs, banks and credit unions offer special savings accounts to low-income Americans and match their deposits dollar-for-dollar. In return, participants take an economic literacy course and commit to using their savings to buy a home, upgrade their education or to start a business. Thousands of people are actively saving today through IDA programs in about 250 neighborhoods nationwide. In one demonstration project undertaken by the Corporation for Enterprise Development, CFED, a leading IDA promoter, 1,300 families have already saved $329,000, which has leveraged an additional $742,000. While the growth of IDAs has been encouraging, access to IDA programs is still limited and scattered across the nation. The IDA provision of this legislation will expand IDA access nationwide by providing a significant tax credit to financial institutions and community groups that offer IDA accounts. This credit would reimburse banks for the first $500 of matching funds they contribute, thus significantly lowering the cost of offering IDAs. Other state and private funds can also be used to provide an additional match to savings. It also benefits our economy, the long-term stability of which is threatened by our pitiful national savings rate. In fact, according to some estimates, every $1 invested in an IDA returns $5 to the national economy. IDAs are matched savings accounts for working Americans restricted to three uses: 1. buying a first home; 2. receiving post-secondary education or training; or 3. starting or expanding a small business. Individual and matching deposits are not co-mingled; all matching dollars are kept in a separate, parallel account. When the account holder has accumulated enough savings and matching funds to purchase the asset, typically over two to four years, and has completed a financial education course, payments from the IDA will be made directly to the asset provider. Financial institutions, or their contractual affiliates, would be reimbursed for all matching funds provided plus a limited amount of the program and administrative costs incurred, whether directly or through collaborations with other entities. Specifically, the IDA Tax Credit would be the aggregate amount of all dollar-for-dollar matches provided, up to $500 per person per year, plus a one-time $100 per account credit for financial education, recruiting, marketing, administration, withdrawals, etc., plus an annual $30 per account credit for the administrative cost of maintaining the account. To be eligible for the match, adjusted gross income may not exceed $20,000, single, $25,000, head of household, or $40,000, married. President Bush has expressed support for IDAs in his campaign and we are working with the Administration to coordinate efforts to the fullest extent possible. Supporting groups include the Credit Union National Association, the Financial Services Roundtable, the Corporation for Enterprise Development, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, the National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions, the National Council for La Raza, and others. Individual Development Accounts, combined with other community development and wealth creation opportunities, are a first step towards restoring faith in the longstanding American promise of equal opportunity. That faith has been shaken by stark divisions of income and wealth in our society. With the leadership of President Bush and Speaker Hastert, I am hopeful, along with our other cosponsors, that Congress will take this first step toward restoring the long-cherished American ideals of rewarding hard work, encouraging responsibility, and expanding savings opportunity this year. The Non-Itemizer Charitable Deduction provision will initially allow non-itemizers to deduct 50 percent of their charitable giving, after they exceed a cumulative total of $500 in annual donations, $1,000 for joint filers. The deduction will be phased into a 100 percent deduction over the course of 5 years in 10 percent increments. Under current law non-itemizers receive no additional tax benefit for their charitable contributions. More than 84 million Americans cannot deduct any of their charitable contributions because they do not itemize their tax returns. In contrast, there are 34 million Americans who itemize and receive this benefit. For example, in Pennsylvania, there are nearly 4 million taxpayers who do not itemize deductions while slightly more than 1.5 million taxpayers do itemize. While Americans are already giving generously to charities making a significant positive impact in our communities, this provision provides an incentive for additional giving and allows non-itemizers who typically have middle to lower middle incomes to also benefit from additional tax relief. In fact, non-itemizers earning less than $30,000 give the highest percentage of their household income to charity. It is estimated that restoring this tax relief provision to merely 50 percent which existed in the 1980's would encourage more than $3 billion of additional charitable giving a year. The phased in increase to 100 percent will result in even more additional giving. The floor is included because the standard personal deduction encompasses initial contributions. One important dimension of promoting charitable efforts helping to revitalize our communities, empower individuals and families, and enhance educational opportunities is encouraging charitable giving. This legislation is a great opportunity to lower the tax burden on the many Americans who have not received any tax relief for their charitable contributions since 1986. The IRA Charitable Rollover allows individuals to roll assets from an IRA into a charity or a deferred charitable gift plan without incurring any income tax consequences. The donation would be made to charity directly without ever withdrawing it as income and paying taxes on it. The rollover can be made as an outright gift, for a charitable remainder annuity trust, charitable remainder unitrust or pooled income fund, or for the issuance of a charitable annuity. The donor would not receive a charitable deduction. This incentive should assist charitable giving in education, social service, and religious charitable efforts. Food banks are finding it increasingly difficult to meet the demand for food assistance. In the past, food banks have benefitted from the inefficiencies of manufacturing, including the over-production of merchandise and the manufacturing of cosmetically-flawed products. However, technology has made businesses and manufacturers significantly more efficient. Although beneficial to the company's bottom-line, donations have lessened as a result. The fact is that the demand on our nation's church pantries, soup kitchens and shelter continues to rise, despite our economy. According to an August 2000 report on Hunger Security by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 31 million Americans, around 10 percent of our citizens, are living on the edge of hunger. Although this number has declined by 12 percent since 1995, everyone agrees that this figure remains too high. Unfortunately, many food banks cannot meet this increased demand for food. A December '99 study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that requests for emergency food assistance increased by an average of 18 percent in American cities over the previous year and 21 percent of emergency food requests could not be met. Statistics by the United States Department of Agriculture show that up to 96 billion pounds of food goes to waste each year in the United States. If a small percentage of this wasted food could be redirected to food banks, we could make important strides in our fight against hunger. In many ways, current law is a hindrance to food donations. The tax code provides corporations with a special deduction for donations to food banks, but it excludes farmers, ranchers and restaurant owners from donating food under the same tax incentive. For many of these businesses, it is actually more cost effective to throw away food than donate it to charity. The hunger relief community believes that these changes will markedly increase food donations- whether it is a farmer donating his crop, a restaurant owner contributing excess meals, or a food manufacturer producing specifically for charity. This bipartisan legislation was introduced separately by Senators Lugar and Leahy with 13 additional cosponsors including myself. It has been endorsed by a diverse set of organizations, including America's Second Harvest Food Banks, the Salvation Army, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union, the National Restaurant Association, and the Grocery Manufacturers of America. Under current law, when a corporation donates food to a food bank, it is eligible to receive a ``special rule'' tax deduction. Unfortunately, most companies have found that the ``special rule" deduction does not allow them to recoup their actual production costs. Moreover, current law limits the ``special rule'' deduction only to corporations, thus prohibiting farmers, ranchers, small businesses and restaurant owners from receiving the same tax benefits afforded to corporations. This provision would encourage additional food donations through three changes to our tax laws: This bill will extend the ``special rule'' tax deduction for food donations now afforded only to corporations to all business taxpayers, including farmers and restaurant owners. This legislation will increase the tax deduction for donated food from basis plus deg. markup to the fair market value of the product, not to exceed twice the product's basis. This bill will codify the Tax Court ruling in Lucky Stores, Inc. v. IRS, in which the Court found that taxpayers should base the determination of fair market value of donated product on recent sales. I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me in this important effort to increase savings opportunities for lower income working Americans, to encourage the charitable giving of all Americans, to provide additional resources for the charitable organizations which serve their communities, and to encourage additional donations of food to alleviate hunger. I would also encourage my other colleagues to consider supporting this important initiative.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I stand before you today to recognize the contributions made by the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia. On March 22, 2001 they will celebrate their 100 year anniversary, and I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for the leadership and guidance they continue to provide to the Philadelphia community. The mission of the Jewish Federation is to assure that the basic human needs of Jewish populations at risk are met, to maximize Jewish identification and participation in Jewish life. In addition, the hard work of the federation provides leadership and effective outreach efforts to those in the Jewish community. When the federation celebrates their 100th anniversary, they will sign the Centennial Celebration Charter, just as their ancestors did in 1901, which will reaffirm their commitment to the Jewish community. The Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia remains committed to the five counties in Southeastern Pennsylvania, by creating a caring, compassionate, involved Jewish community that encourages members to take an active role in their culture and religion. I commend the members of the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia as they reach this milestone anniversary. The people of Philadelphia are blessed to have such a caring and involved organization in their community.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce legislation that would help people who ``telework'' or work from home, to receive a tax credit. Teleworkers are people who work a few days a week on-line from home by using computers and other information technology tools. Nearly 20 million Americans telework today, and according to experts, 40 percent of the nation's jobs are compatible with telework. At one national telecommunications company, nearly 25 percent of its workforce works from home at least one day a week. The company found positive results in the way of fewer days of sick leave, better retention, and higher productivity. I am introducing the Telework Tax Incentive Act, along with Representative Frank Wolf in the House of Representatives, to provide a $500 tax credit for telework. The legislation provides an incentive to encourage more employers to consider telework for their employees. Telework should be a regular part of the 21st century workplace. The best part of telework is that it improves the quality of life for all. Telework also reduces traffic congestion and air pollution. It reduces gas consumption and our dependency on foreign oil. Telework is good for families--working parents have flexibility to meet everyday demands. Telework provides people with disabilities greater job opportunities. Telework helps fill our nation's labor market shortage. It can also be a good option for retirees choosing to work part-time. A task force on telework initiated by Governor James Gilmore of Virginia made a number of recommendations to increase and promote telework. One recommendation was to establish a tax credit toward the purchase and installation of electronic and computer equipment that allow an employee to telework. For example, the cost of a computer, fax machine, modem, phone, printer, software, copier, and other expenses necessary to enable telework could count toward a tax credit, provided the person worked at home a minimum number of days per year. My legislation would provide a $500 tax credit ``for expenses paid or incurred under a teleworking arrangement for furnishings and electronic information equipment which are used to enable an individual to telework.'' An employee must telework a minimum of 75 days per year to qualify for the tax credit. Both the employer and employee are eligible for the tax credit, but the tax credit goes to whomever absorbs the expense for setting up the at-home worksite. A number of groups have previously endorsed the Telework Tax Incentive Act including the International Telework Association and Council, ITAC, Covad Communications, National Town Builders Association, Litton Industries, Orbital Sciences Corporation, Consumer Electronic Association, Capnet, BTG Corporation, Electonic Industries Alliance, Telecommunications Industry Association, American Automobile Association Mid-Atlantic, Dimensions International Inc., Capunet, TManage, Science Applications International Corporation, AT&T, Northern Virginia Technology Council, Computer Associates Incorporated, and Dyn Corp. On October 9, 1999, legislation which I introduced in coordination with Representative Frank Wolf from Virginia was signed into law by the President as part of the annual Department of Transportation appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. S. 1521, the National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act, created a pilot program to study the feasibility of providing incentives for companies to allow their employees to telework in five major metropolitan areas including Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. Houston and Denver have been added as well. I am pleased that the Philadelphia Area Design Team has been progressing well with its responsibility of examining the application of these incentives to the greater Philadelphia metropolitan area. I am excited that this opportunity continues to help to get the word out about the benefits of telecommuting for many employees and employers. On July 14, 2000 the President signed legislation which included an additional $2 million to continue efforts in the 5 pilot cities, including Philadelphia, to market, implement, and evaluate strategies for awarding telecommuting, emissions reduction, and pollution credits established through the National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act. Telecommuting improves air quality by reducing pollutants, provides employees and families flexibility, reduces traffic congestion, and increases productivity and retention rates for businesses while reducing their overhead costs. It's a growing opportunity and option which we should all include in our effort to maintain and improve quality of life issues in Pennsylvania and around the nation. According to statistics available from 1996, the Greater Philadelphia area ranked number 10 in the country for annual person-hours of delay due to traffic congestion. Because of this reality, all options including telecommuting should be pursued to address this challenge. The 1999 Telework America National Telework Survey, conducted by Joan H. Pratt Associates, found that today's 19.6 million teleworkers typically work 9 days per month at home with an average of 3 hours per week during normal business hours. In this study, teleworkers or telecommuters are defined overall as employees or independent contractors who work at least one day per month at home. These research findings impact the bottom line for employers and employees. Teleworkers seek a blend of job-related and personal benefits to enable them to better handle their work and life responsibilities. For employers, savings just from less absenteeism and increased employee retention may total more than $10,000 per teleworker per year. Thus an organization with 100 employees, 20 of whom telework, could potentially realize a savings of $200,000 annually, or more, when productivity gains are added. Work is something you do, not someplace you go. There is nothing magical about strapping ourselves into a car and driving sometimes up to an hour and a half, arriving at a workplace and sitting before a computer, when we can access the same information from a computer in our homes. Wouldn't it be great if we could replace the evening rush hour commute with time spent with the family, or coaching little league or other important quality of life matters? I urge my colleagues to consider cosponsoring this legislation which promotes telework and helps encourage additional employee choices for the workplace.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce legislation that would help people who ``telework'' or work from home, to receive a tax credit. Teleworkers are people who work a few days a week on-line from home by using computers and other information technology tools. Nearly 20 million Americans telework today, and according to experts, 40 percent of the nation's jobs are compatible with telework. At one national telecommunications company, nearly 25 percent of its workforce works from home at least one day a week. The company found positive results in the way of fewer days of sick leave, better retention, and higher productivity. I am introducing the Telework Tax Incentive Act, along with Representative Frank Wolf in the House of Representatives, to provide a $500 tax credit for telework. The legislation provides an incentive to encourage more employers to consider telework for their employees. Telework should be a regular part of the 21st century workplace. The best part of telework is that it improves the quality of life for all. Telework also reduces traffic congestion and air pollution. It reduces gas consumption and our dependency on foreign oil. Telework is good for families--working parents have flexibility to meet everyday demands. Telework provides people with disabilities greater job opportunities. Telework helps fill our nation's labor market shortage. It can also be a good option for retirees choosing to work part-time. A task force on telework initiated by Governor James Gilmore of Virginia made a number of recommendations to increase and promote telework. One recommendation was to establish a tax credit toward the purchase and installation of electronic and computer equipment that allow an employee to telework. For example, the cost of a computer, fax machine, modem, phone, printer, software, copier, and other expenses necessary to enable telework could count toward a tax credit, provided the person worked at home a minimum number of days per year. My legislation would provide a $500 tax credit ``for expenses paid or incurred under a teleworking arrangement for furnishings and electronic information equipment which are used to enable an individual to telework.'' An employee must telework a minimum of 75 days per year to qualify for the tax credit. Both the employer and employee are eligible for the tax credit, but the tax credit goes to whomever absorbs the expense for setting up the at-home worksite. A number of groups have previously endorsed the Telework Tax Incentive Act including the International Telework Association and Council, ITAC, Covad Communications, National Town Builders Association, Litton Industries, Orbital Sciences Corporation, Consumer Electronic Association, Capnet, BTG Corporation, Electonic Industries Alliance, Telecommunications Industry Association, American Automobile Association Mid-Atlantic, Dimensions International Inc., Capunet, TManage, Science Applications International Corporation, AT&T, Northern Virginia Technology Council, Computer Associates Incorporated, and Dyn Corp. On October 9, 1999, legislation which I introduced in coordination with Representative Frank Wolf from Virginia was signed into law by the President as part of the annual Department of Transportation appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. S. 1521, the National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act, created a pilot program to study the feasibility of providing incentives for companies to allow their employees to telework in five major metropolitan areas including Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. Houston and Denver have been added as well. I am pleased that the Philadelphia Area Design Team has been progressing well with its responsibility of examining the application of these incentives to the greater Philadelphia metropolitan area. I am excited that this opportunity continues to help to get the word out about the benefits of telecommuting for many employees and employers. On July 14, 2000 the President signed legislation which included an additional $2 million to continue efforts in the 5 pilot cities, including Philadelphia, to market, implement, and evaluate strategies for awarding telecommuting, emissions reduction, and pollution credits established through the National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act. Telecommuting improves air quality by reducing pollutants, provides employees and families flexibility, reduces traffic congestion, and increases productivity and retention rates for businesses while reducing their overhead costs. It's a growing opportunity and option which we should all include in our effort to maintain and improve quality of life issues in Pennsylvania and around the nation. According to statistics available from 1996, the Greater Philadelphia area ranked number 10 in the country for annual person-hours of delay due to traffic congestion. Because of this reality, all options including telecommuting should be pursued to address this challenge. The 1999 Telework America National Telework Survey, conducted by Joan H. Pratt Associates, found that today's 19.6 million teleworkers typically work 9 days per month at home with an average of 3 hours per week during normal business hours. In this study, teleworkers or telecommuters are defined overall as employees or independent contractors who work at least one day per month at home. These research findings impact the bottom line for employers and employees. Teleworkers seek a blend of job-related and personal benefits to enable them to better handle their work and life responsibilities. For employers, savings just from less absenteeism and increased employee retention may total more than $10,000 per teleworker per year. Thus an organization with 100 employees, 20 of whom telework, could potentially realize a savings of $200,000 annually, or more, when productivity gains are added. Work is something you do, not someplace you go. There is nothing magical about strapping ourselves into a car and driving sometimes up to an hour and a half, arriving at a workplace and sitting before a computer, when we can access the same information from a computer in our homes. Wouldn't it be great if we could replace the evening rush hour commute with time spent with the family, or coaching little league or other important quality of life matters? I urge my colleagues to consider cosponsoring this legislation which promotes telework and helps encourage additional employee choices for the workplace.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to recognize a Pennsylvanian who has been a tremendous asset to our community. I was recently notified that Mr. George W. Miller of Mount Pleasant will be celebrating 50 years of active service in the Mount Pleasant Volunteer Fire Department. It is without question that this fine Pennsylvanian has gone above and beyond the call of duty to improve the safety of his community. Mr. Miller has displayed great courage over the years, as he has put himself in danger in order to protect the lives of his neighbors, friends, and community members. Our society will remain forever in debt to Mr. Miller and those like him who spend their own time in volunteer efforts. The Volunteer Fire Department of Mount Pleasant, PA has been blessed to have had Mr. Miller as part of its team for the last fifty years. I enthusiastically congratulate him on reaching this tremendous milestone, and I am sure that I don't stand alone in hoping that he will be a part of the fire department for many years to come.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Bankruptcy Reform Act with Senator Hollings to be recognized for up to 20 minutes. Two back-to-back votes will occur at 11 a.m. on the Feinstein amendment, No. 27, and the Kennedy amendment, No. 39. The Senate will recess for the weekly party conferences from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. Upon reconvening, there will be 30 minutes of debate on the Conrad and Sessions amendments, with stacked votes scheduled for 2:45 p.m. There are several amendments still pending and others expected to be offered during today's session. Therefore, additional votes could occur. Senators should be aware that all first-degree amendments on the list must be filed by 1 p.m. today. I thank my colleagues for their attention and yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator made a point that I think has to be emphasized because you hear a lot of comments that this is a ``tax break for the rich'' or this is ``benefiting the wealthy.'' But the Senator said something that is probably the most important point of this entire debate about fairness. That is, if you look at all the taxes being paid and who pays them before the tax cut, and look at all the taxes being paid and who pays them after the tax cut, what he said is vitally important for people to understand. Would the Senator repeat what happens to the tax burden? This tax burden was set back in 1993 when we in the Senate raised the top tax bracket and President Clinton signed the bill that shifted the tax burden to higher income individuals, creating another rate at the top and, at the same time, increasing the top income tax credit which goes to people who don't pay income tax. So we raised taxes on people in higher income brackets and took that money and gave it to people who don't pay income taxes. At that point, Democrats said the distribution of taxes between the wealthy and lower income was now fair. What the Senator is saying is we are going to now take this fair distribution and change it. How are we going to change it?

Mr. SANTORUM. So when the Democrats, in 1993, said, ``We have now fixed the Tax Code; we have now changed it so higher income individuals are going to pay more of their fair share''--I think that was the term--and that ``we have a fair Tax Code''--I heard that over and over again--what the Senator is suggesting is that we are going to make it even fairer by shifting the burden even more, and the argument on the other side is that isn't fair enough. Their argument is that we need to increase taxes even more on higher income individuals.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator for his clarification.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 32

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to dramatically increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. My legislation would more than double the federal commitment to IDEA funding within four years. The legislation, ``Growing Resources in Educational Achievement for Today and Tomorrow,'' GREATT IDEA, will take significant steps toward fulfilling the federal commitment to IDEA funding. The legislation will also free up additional funds for local school districts to be spent on their highest priorities, whether it be teacher training or salaries, reducing class sizes, school construction, library resources, technology, or music and arts education. The legislation is supported by the Pennsylvania School Boards Association and Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge. Every child is deserving of a high-quality education in an environment that encourages them to learn and grow to the best of their ability. Thanks to IDEA, many students are learning and achieving at levels previously thought impossible, graduating from high school, going to college and entering the workforce as productive citizens. We must encourage this progress and continue to give parents and teachers the resources they need to create opportunities for special children. By boldly increasing the IDEA funding level, we can keep more students in schools and help them achieve new measures of success. Prior to IDEA's implementation in 1975, approximately 1 million children with disabilities were shut out of schools and hundreds of thousands more were denied appropriate services. Since then, IDEA has helped change the lives of these children. Congress had originally committed to cover 40 percent of IDEA's costs when it passed the original IDEA bill in 1975, with the remaining balance to be met by local communities and states. Over the years, however, while the law itself continues to work and children are being educated, the intended cost-sharing partnership has not been realized. The federal commitment of 40 percent will be reached within eight years if the funding stream established in GREATT IDEA is sustained. This is my first priority in helping local school districts provide the best education possible for elementary and secondary education. I urge my colleagues to support this effort to double funding for IDEA within the next four years as we continue to work to fulfill this long neglected federal commitment and free up educational resources for local education. I am pleased with the funding progress we were able to make this past year. Yet, this legislation goes further by fully funding approximately 700,000 additional IDEA students at an average cost of $13,860 per student. We must accelerate the progress we have made by passing and funding this legislation.