Rick Santorum

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.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I stand before you today to recognize two outstanding students from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Ms. Lindsay Stewart of Windber and Mr. Alexander Gates of Palmyra have just been named State Honorees in The 2001 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program. This program honors one high school student and one middle-level student in each state for outstanding acts of volunteerism. They were selected from nearly 23,000 who were considered for this year's program. Ms. Stewart was nominated by Forest Hills High School where she is a senior, for her creation of the ``Humanitarian Club.'' This club is dedicated to providing information about chemical brain disorders, and promoting tolerance of understanding of individuals who suffer from them. Inspired by an aunt afflicted with schizophrenia, Lindsay wanted to educate others about mental illnesses. During the past three years of her program, more than 300 people have experienced and learned from Lindsay's Humanitarian Club programs. Mr. Gates is an eighth grader at Palmyra Area Middle School, where he led an effort to erect a monument commemorating Palmyra-area veterans who were killed in wartime military service. Alexander's design included a six-foot obelisk inspired by his grandfather, who is a World War II veteran. He raised $8,250 to build the monument by selling granite bricks that would be inscribed with contributors' names and placed around the base of the memorial. Alexander included an inscription on the obelisk that reads, ``This monument honors the spirit of self-sacrifice which is necessary for the survival of a community. It honors those members of the community who paid the ultimate price so we can live in a free and just country.'' I enthusiastically applaud Ms. Stewart and Mr. Gates for their initiative in seeking to make our communities better places to live, and for the positive impact they have had on the lives of others. It is at times like these, when I am given the opportunity to see the young people of our great nation make such a substantial difference, that I am so proud to be an American. Lindsay and Alexander have displayed great maturity, leadership, and most importantly, patriotism. With young people like them growing as leaders in our communities, we can be assured that the future of the United States is very bright.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I stand before you today to recognize a select number of outstanding students from Macungie, Pennsylvania. I was honored to hear of a tremendous service that these fine young boys and girls did at Shoemaker School in November of last year. Seventy-five fifth graders in the Community Service Club of Shoemaker School conducted a walk-a-thon to raise money for paralyzed veterans across the United States through the Paralyzed Veterans of America. The walk-a-thon occurred over several school days, where the children walked during breaks during the school day. Some children even sacrificed their lunches and walked in the rain and cold weather just to raise a few more dollars. These fine young Americans set a wonderful example to men, women, and children everywhere. With a little initiative and a lot of heart, the fifth graders at Shoemaker School were able to help paralyzed veterans throughout our great Nation. I commend each and everyone of these dedicated, selfless children, and it is an honor for me to recognize them today.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I stand before you today to honor the tenth anniversary of a terrible tragedy that faced the men and women who serve in the United States Armed Forces. I speak about an attack carried out by Saddam Hussein that took the lives of brave men and women from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who were proudly serving their country as members of our armed services. We are indebted to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country during that conflict, and they will remain in our hearts and memories forever. The 14th Quartermaster Detachment of Greensburg, PA, was mobilized and ordered to active duty on January 15, 1991 in support of the Persian Gulf crisis. On February 25, 1991, only days after the Desert Storm conflict began, the 14th Quartermaster Detachment suffered the greatest number of casualties of any allied unit during Operation Desert Storm. An Iraqi Scud missile destroyed the building where the unit was being housed, killing 28 soldiers and wounding 99. Of those casualties, 13 members of the 14th were killed and 43 were wounded. Desert Storm ended only hours after this tragedy. To recognize the supreme sacrifice that these men and women undertook for our great nation, Major General Rodney D. Ruddock, Commander, 99th Regional Support Command, will hold an anniversary ceremony on February 25, 2001 to honor the 14th Quartermaster Detachment of Greensburg, PA. During this solemn event, we will honor, not only the men and women who lost their lives 10 years ago, but all the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces and selflessly put their lives on the line every day in order to preserve our nation's freedom. We, as Americans, will remain eternally grateful for the sacrifices and true courage that our men and women in uniform display on our behalf in serving this great nation. It is at this time that I ask my Senate colleagues to join with me in honoring the members of the 14th Quartermaster Detachment.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I understand my colleague from Wyoming was talking today about the President's proposal on tax relief. I have been watching a little bit of the debate on the floor of the Senate. I have to say, this debate is somewhat disturbing. We have been discussing taking some of the money people have worked hard to earn and have sent here to Washington--and we have a surplus of money coming here now; we have a tax surplus for which people have worked hard, they have earned it, they have sent it to Washington, and we have enough money to pay for all the bills we have right now--and now we are talking about how can we take some of this money that people worked hard to earn and return it to them. In the discussion and debate we hear some saying that people who are paying less in taxes are going to get less money back in real dollars than people who pay a lot more in taxes are going to get back and that somehow is unfair. For example, if somebody who pays $200 in income taxes is going to get tax relief of $200--in other words, many people under the proposal being put forward are going to simply have all of their tax liability eliminated. If they are paying $200 in taxes and they are going to get $200 in tax relief while someone who pays $300,000 in taxes is going to get $30,000 in tax relief, somehow or another that is unfair; it is unfair that this one person who is a hard-working person is only going to get $200 under this proposal and some fat cat is going to get $30,000, and that is unfair. So we see pictures: Here is what the fat cat is going to get, here is what the poor working person is going to get, and that is not fair. Except for the fact, if you step back and say, wait a minute, how much is this person who is paying a lot of taxes--how much are they paying and what is their relief versus what someone who has a lower income is paying and what is their relief? If we were going to balance this according to fairness as described by some, then there should be equal tax relief, even though there is not equal payment of taxes. When a surplus is created because people have overpaid taxes and we want to relieve the tax burden on those who have overpaid, then I think fairness dictates we give tax relief to everybody who has contributed to the overpayment somewhat in proportion to what they have overpaid. That, to me, would be fair. What would be unfair is for someone who pays $200 in taxes to get $20,000 in tax relief as opposed to someone who pays $300,000 in taxes to get $300 in tax relief. Some would suggest that is fair. I suggest that is typical Washington wealth redistribution because we know who the more deserving are here in Washington. What we are putting forward is as fair as we could possibly do it. In fact, if you look at the numbers, the top income earners and the top taxpayers in this country are going to end up with an increased burden of taxes. If you look at all the people paying taxes and whose share of the tax burden is going to go up after this proposal if it is passed as the President suggested, the tax burden on the higher income people will actually go up relative to everybody else. Some would argue that is unfair. Some would argue that we are not giving enough tax relief to those who are higher income to keep the distribution of who pays taxes the same. But we are shifting the distribution to higher income. We are going to hear lots of arguments about fairness. I always use this example--I think it is the best example--between what we are trying to accomplish and what some on the other side would suggest is fair. I use the example of people who buy tickets to a baseball game. You pay and the game gets rained out. It is the last game of the year, so they have to refund your money. There are people who paid different prices for different seats in the baseball stadium. Some paid for the seats right down in front, maybe $25 a ticket. Then you paid for some up here in the loge boxes, maybe $15 a ticket. And then there are some folks up here in the outfield and they paid $5 a ticket. The game got rained out. So what do the owners of the baseball team have to do? They have to refund your money. You have overpaid. But you didn't get what you were promised. You overpaid. Get your money back. What I would suggest as fair is, people who pay the $25 get $25 back, people who pay the $15 get $15 back, and people who pay $5 get $5 back. The guy outside who just happened to be driving by and didn't buy a ticket does not get any. To some on the other side of the aisle, here is what they believe is fair. The guy who paid $25 gets $5; because he obviously can afford $25, he doesn't need all of the money returned. It is the guy up there who paid $5 who probably needs more money, and not only are we going to give him $5 but we are going to give him $15 back. The guy in the middle who paid $15, we will give him $15. We feel so bad about the guy outside who didn't get a chance to pay and come in that we are going to give him some money, too. Is that fair? No. I do not know of an owner of a baseball team who could get away with something like that. It is patently unfair to do it that way. I think most Americans would agree that is fundamentally unfair. That is what we were talking about. For people who have paid a tremendous amount of money for which they have worked hard, we are suggesting they get back somewhat in proportion to what they paid as well as everybody else. In fact, we are not suggesting that. We are suggesting they not get back quite as much proportionately, but we do in fact shift it. If you are going to take the example of the baseball stadium, instead of giving $25 back, they get $20 back. The guy paying $15 maybe gets $17 back, and the guy up here, instead of getting $5 back, may get $8 or $10 back. There are those who would suggest that is unfair. I would suggest that is more than fair. For the folks who are paying the $25 for the ticket, some would suggest it is unfair to them. It is more disturbing if we look at the underlying motive behind this discussion. It really is a discussion that I think is not really worthy of us in Congress; that is, this idea of class warfare; that somehow or another, if you have worked hard and you have been successful starting a business or creating a company, if you have tremendous capital talent as a great singer or a great athlete--whatever the case may be--and you have been successful financially, somehow or another that is bad and you should be punished and should be paying exorbitantly more than people who have not been as successful. Obviously, there is a small group of people who are very wealthy in this country. It is very small--about 4 percent. It is a lot more popular to go out and argue for the folks who are in the middle class, the large majority of Americans. We say: We are for you, and we are going to give you more money in this tax relief. Under the Bush proposal, they get proportionately more money. But somehow they argue they are undeserving: They pay the vast majority of taxes, but they need to pay more, and they don't deserve relief because they have money. I don't think that is necessarily an enobling argument. I think the argument President Bush puts forth that no one in America should pay more than one dollar out of every three to the Federal Government in taxes is a statement with which most Americans would agree. Right now, higher income individuals pay about 40 percent of every dollar they earn in Federal taxes, not to mention other taxes they have to pay. When we have a surplus and the surplus has been generated by the fact that a lot of people have overpaid their taxes, my feeling is, what is unfair if you give every taxpayer tax relief? To the extent we can, yes, we should help others. There are going to be proposals you are going to see considered to give people relief who didn't get in the stadium and pay for the ticket. They will get some relief, if you will. Even though they did not pay, they are going to get some money out of this. Why? Because we want to create more opportunity for people so someday they get inside the stadium. We would like everybody to pay taxes in the sense that everybody would be economically successful, and enough that they would be in a tax bracket that would require it. We are about providing opportunities. We are also about fairness. I think that dictates that we provide tax relief across the board to those who pay. The other thing we should think about when we put a tax bill together is: What are we trying to accomplish? What is the goal? Obviously, as I stated before, we have too much money. I would like to get it out of Washington before we spend it. There are those of us who come to the floor year after year to say if we don't give tax relief, and if we don't get this money out of Washington, rest assuredly it will be spent. Just at the end of last year, we added to the 10-year budget of the United States $600 billion in new spending. I did not hear a word from those who now say we don't need tax relief and who have suggested we were spending the surplus that we didn't have. We hear a lot of people say we can't do tax relief because we don't know that the surplus is going to be there and therefore we shouldn't commit ourselves to this relief. They did not make that complaint when we were talking about spending the $600 billion surplus that we didn't have last year. I argue that if the money stays in Washington and we don't provide tax relief, the money will be spent, as sure as anything I can promise. It will be spent if it sits on the table. We just can't help ourselves. I think it is important to get that money back out. Why would we want to do that other than just do it so we don't spend it? We have heard lots of reports about what the economy looks like now and in the future. We have had an unprecedented string of years of economic growth. But I think it is important, as several other economists said--and Alan Greenspan--that in the future to avoid an economic slowdown we have lower rates of taxation and more money in the economy for investment and job creation. By the way, who is creating the jobs? We have heard many times some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talking about not having to provide tax relief for higher income individuals. But who creates the jobs? The employer. They seem to like employees but hate employers. I do not know of too many employees who find jobs if there are not employers. Providing tax relief to people who will take that income and go out, as some have suggested, and buy a Lexus--if you are earning $2 million or $3 million a year, you already have a Lexus, if you want one. But they will go out and take that money and invest it to create jobs, and create opportunities so we can take some of those people outside the stadium who didn't have the chance to buy the ticket and give them a job so they can become taxpayers. It is important not just to get the money out of Washington, but it is also vitally important to help our economy and create economic opportunities for people who need economic opportunities down the road. There are some other things we need to do, again in the name of fairness. There is a lot of discussion about fairness. The President's proposal is that we have marriage penalty relief. It is unconscionable that on Valentine's Day there are people in America who will get married and, by virtue of the fact that they get married, have to pay more in income taxes. At a time when we want to encourage marriage through the Tax Code, we penalize it. That is unconscionable and unfair. Under the President's proposal, we go a long way to eliminating that marriage penalty. Mr. President, death should not be a taxable event, but it is. What we are suggesting is that over a 10-year period of time we phase out estate taxes on people who die. I think most Americans would agree that if someone has a piece of property and they die and pass it on to the next generation, when that next generation sells the property, they should be taxed on the capital gains. But if in fact the person dies, it should not be a taxable event on the next generation. The greatest impact of that is on the family farm, the small business man or business woman when they want to pass that business on to the next generation after they die. They have to sell the farm or the business so they can pay the taxes that are due. Whom does that hurt? Obviously, it hurts the businessperson. But how about the people who work for that business, where that business has to go out of business simply to pay taxes or where the business has to be sold simply to pay taxes. So, again, it is the old story. Most Americans realize this. When you stand up here and say: ``We are going to go after and get the rich, we are going to make sure they pay even more and more and more taxes,'' ultimately who gets hurt is the people at the bottom and the middle because they do not get the quality jobs or they do not get the kind of strong economy that makes for a better quality of life. So I think what we are talking about here is tax relief for every taxpayer. Some suggest that is not fair. I would suggest that is the only fair way to do it; when you have a tax surplus, you give it back in proportion to how much the people paid. That, to me, would be fair. If you think your job is to not be fair but to redistribute wealth-- that is the object here, to redistribute the wealth based upon who we believe, in Washington, are more deserving. Let's be clear about it; that is what we are doing. We are saying some people are more deserving than others, and we are going to choose to take some people who worked hard, earned this money, sent it to Washington--we are going to take their money and give it to other people because we believe that is fair. We do a lot of that already. But now we are suggesting, because there is an overpayment, here is an opportunity to do more of that. I argue that is not what we should take advantage of. We should take the opportunity to create an across-the-board, fair tax reduction for every working American, every taxpayer. So that is what the debate is going to be about. I hope we will look at the underlying policy of why we are trying to do this, not just here is how much X gets and here is how much Y gets but look at the underlying policy: Are we trying to pass tax relief that is going to accomplish economic growth? If so, how do we best do that? Let's have a discussion about that. Are we trying to eliminate provisions in the Tax Code that are unfair, such as the marriage penalty and the death tax? I argue that the alternative minimum tax has become unfair on a lot of middle class, working Americans who now have to pay that tax. If we look at it and we take it a step at a time, we will deal with the fairness issue. Let's take care of that issue, and then let's try to do something across the board that does something for economic growth; we must have as part of our agenda not just fairness but growth because the ultimate equalizer, if you will, the ultimate creator of opportunity, is economic growth. I believe that unless we do something to create a tax system that enables more economic growth in the future, then a lot of folks to whom we are going to shift a little money--as some suggest, that you take from higher income and give it to lower income--they are going to find themselves either in lower paying jobs down the road or with no jobs. That is not a good result for anybody. So again, let's keep our eye on the ball. Yes, get the money out of Washington; yes, provide some tax fairness; but also, let's make sure we do a tax reduction that is going to result in a growing economy over the long term. That, to me, dictates, as Alan Greenspan said yesterday, a rate reduction. The best way to assure economic growth is an across- the-board rate reduction. So if what we care about is avoiding a deep recession or a recession altogether in the next 3 or 4 or 5 years, the best way to accomplish that is a rate reduction for all taxpayers. One other point. Some have mentioned what we are talking about here is Federal income taxes: You have a lot of taxpayers who have to pay FICA taxes and Medicare taxes, and they are not getting any tax relief. I would make two comments on that. No. 1, FICA taxes or Social Security taxes, when they are paid, obviously, fund a program, the Social Security program, or the Medicare program in the case of Medicare taxes. But they also make you eligible for a benefit. The benefit is so structured today where lower income individuals get a much higher percentage benefit than higher income individuals. So the program is already structured, No. 1, that you pay the tax to assure a benefit down the road. So it is not like income taxes, where you just sort of pay the tax and it goes to the general welfare. But this actually earns you, if you will, a particular benefit. It is the same with Medicare. So you are getting something directly for you for the dollars you are contributing. Secondly, we are paying too much in Social Security taxes now. We have a surplus. Some of us have argued--and I will continue to argue-- instead of bidding up what I consider to be a phony surplus, with just basically IOUs in the Social Security trust fund, which are future obligations for taxpayers, and nothing more than that, I would suggest we take this surplus and allow younger workers to invest that money, to create real opportunities for them so they can have real money, real assets that can pay real benefits 20, 30, 40 years from now, instead of creating IOUs which are simply a claim on their children's taxes 30 years from now or 40 years from now. And that would not be a real economic asset; it would simply be a real economic obligation of future generations. I argue that the better way to accomplish that, instead of overtaxing current workers, which we do with Social Security and Medicare--I am going to focus on Social Security right now--instead of overtaxing Social Security payers, people who pay Social Security taxes today, let's give them the opportunity of setting that money aside, investing it over the long term, accumulating assets, and then using that real asset--a real economic asset--to come back 30 years from now to help pay for those benefits. That would be instead of, in a sense, putting that IOU away. I will use this as an example. I think it is a good example. I went to a group of high school students the other day, and I asked: How many of you out here work? About half the hands went up. I asked: Where do you work? One kid said: Burger King. I said: Right now you work at Burger King, and you have to pay Social Security taxes. And 12.4 percent is what the Social Security tax is. You pay 12.4 percent, but all that money does not go to pay benefits. That is what it traditionally has done. All the money would go right out to pay benefits. But in this case, you are paying more than you need to. You only need to pay a little over 10 percent to pay for current beneficiaries. Money comes in, goes out to beneficiaries, but we have a surplus, a little over 2 percent. So you pay more than you need to now. So we are taking more money out of your paycheck than we need. What do we do with that surplus money in Social Security? Social Security has cash. Can Social Security hold cash? It would be a smart thing for them to do. No. They have to invest that money. Where do you think they invest the money? Treasury bonds. What are Treasury bonds? Debt of the Federal Government. So Social Security gives money to the general fund, and the general fund puts a note back into Social Security. It is an IOU. It is a Treasury bond that pays interest. Now let's talk about that 18-year-old 30 years from now. Thirty years from now, that 18-year-old is still paying taxes. He is 48 years old. Then, instead of having a surplus in Social Security, we have a deficit. So then what we will have to do is raise Federal taxes because we will have to start repaying those bonds. We have to put the money back into Social Security. So what are we going to have to do? Thirty years from now, we are going to go to that person who paid too much in taxes in the first place to create the IOU, and now we are going to have to increase their taxes so they can pay back the IOU they created by paying too much taxes in the first place. So they get to pay twice for this benefit. That is not fair. So I think we do need to create personal retirement accounts. That is one way we can solve the problem of Social Security taxes. The Senator from Colorado is here, and I am happy to yield the floor to him.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an exemplary young man from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Matthew Huenerfauth of Springfield, has been selected from among 200 applicants as a George J. Mitchell Scholar for 2001, and will have the opportunity to study in either Ireland or Northern Ireland in the fall. The recipients are those who have demonstrated intellectual distinction, leadership potential, and commitment to community service. Matthew will graduate from the University of Delaware in May, 2001 with an Honors B.S. and an M.S. degree in Computer Science. During his tenure at Delaware, he has proven to be a tremendous asset to the college community outside the classroom as well. Using his computer knowledge to help others, Matthew developed a tutoring system for deaf students learning English. He spent the summer of 2000 as a Program Manager Intern at Microsoft in Redmond, Washington, and has completed extensive research in the field of artificial intelligence. Matthew was also president of a virtual literary magazine at Delaware, was a founding member of an a capella ensemble, and participated in the school's competitive computer programming team. While in Ireland, Matthew will study for an MSci degree in Computer Science at University College Dublin. I ask my colleagues to join with me in recognizing Matthew Huenerfauth as he heads across the globe to represent the United States in Ireland. I am confident that he will make us proud.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to assist our nation's dairy farmers. I represent a state where agriculture is the number one industry--dairy being the leading sector, and ranks fourth in national dairy production. Agriculture has, and continues to be, the backbone of our rural communities and our social character. While heated debates and regional politics have eclipsed opportunities to pass meaningful dairy legislation, I feel strongly that we must forge consensus in order to assist our nation's dairy families. I am pleased to have joining me in this effort my colleague from Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl. While I am grateful for the opportunity to work with Senator Kohl on an issue of great importance to both of our home states, it unfortunately signals that our nation's dairy industry continues to grapple with difficult economic times. Senator Kohl and I worked together over the past year to forge a consensus plan that addresses the concerns of dairy farmers nationwide. For far too long, regional politics have plagued efforts to achieve a fair and equitable national dairy policy. As a result, milk pricing has become increasingly complex and overly prescriptive. Given that dairy farmers have been receiving the lowest price for their milk in more than twenty years, I feel strongly that Congress needs to step to the plate and offer a fair and responsible solution. The National Dairy Farmers Fairness Act has two major goals: (1) Create a dairy policy that is equitable for farmers in all regions of the country; and (2) provide more certainty for farmers in the prices they receive for their milk. To accomplish these goals, this legislation creates a safety net for farmers by providing supplemental assistance when milk prices are low. Specifically, a sliding scale payment is made based upon the previous year's price for the national average of Class III milk. In short, the payment rate to farmers is highest when the prices they received were the lowest. In order to be eligible, a farmer must have produced milk for commercial sale in the previous year, and would be compensated on the first 26,000 hundredweight of production. All dairy producers would be eligible to participate under this scenario. Without a doubt, our dairy pricing policy is flawed. Many solutions-- modest to sweeping--have been proposed, discussed, and debated on the Senate floor yet final agreement among interested parties has eluded us for years. Considering that we will begin laying the groundwork for reauthorization of the Farm Bill over the next year, the time for consensus is now. I am committed to preserving the viability of Pennsylvania's dairy farmers. This legislative proposal represents the strong concern and interest of mine to find a middle ground in the often heated debate on dairy policy. I am pleased to join with Senator Kohl in this effort, and I believe it sends a strong signal that compromise can be achieved even on the most contentious of issues. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to assist our nation's dairy farmers. I represent a state where agriculture is the number one industry--dairy being the leading sector, and ranks fourth in national dairy production. Agriculture has, and continues to be, the backbone of our rural communities and our social character. While heated debates and regional politics have eclipsed opportunities to pass meaningful dairy legislation, I feel strongly that we must forge consensus in order to assist our nation's dairy families. I am pleased to have joining me in this effort my colleague from Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl. While I am grateful for the opportunity to work with Senator Kohl on an issue of great importance to both of our home states, it unfortunately signals that our nation's dairy industry continues to grapple with difficult economic times. Senator Kohl and I worked together over the past year to forge a consensus plan that addresses the concerns of dairy farmers nationwide. For far too long, regional politics have plagued efforts to achieve a fair and equitable national dairy policy. As a result, milk pricing has become increasingly complex and overly prescriptive. Given that dairy farmers have been receiving the lowest price for their milk in more than twenty years, I feel strongly that Congress needs to step to the plate and offer a fair and responsible solution. The National Dairy Farmers Fairness Act has two major goals: (1) Create a dairy policy that is equitable for farmers in all regions of the country; and (2) provide more certainty for farmers in the prices they receive for their milk. To accomplish these goals, this legislation creates a safety net for farmers by providing supplemental assistance when milk prices are low. Specifically, a sliding scale payment is made based upon the previous year's price for the national average of Class III milk. In short, the payment rate to farmers is highest when the prices they received were the lowest. In order to be eligible, a farmer must have produced milk for commercial sale in the previous year, and would be compensated on the first 26,000 hundredweight of production. All dairy producers would be eligible to participate under this scenario. Without a doubt, our dairy pricing policy is flawed. Many solutions-- modest to sweeping--have been proposed, discussed, and debated on the Senate floor yet final agreement among interested parties has eluded us for years. Considering that we will begin laying the groundwork for reauthorization of the Farm Bill over the next year, the time for consensus is now. I am committed to preserving the viability of Pennsylvania's dairy farmers. This legislative proposal represents the strong concern and interest of mine to find a middle ground in the often heated debate on dairy policy. I am pleased to join with Senator Kohl in this effort, and I believe it sends a strong signal that compromise can be achieved even on the most contentious of issues. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of Gov. Tommy Thompson to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, and also to speak to a vital public health issue on which I know many of my colleagues are looking forward to working with him: namely, the implementation and enforcement of policies to improve our nation's organ procurement and allocation system. I hold Governor Thompson in very high regard for his expertise in health care policy and for his long and distinguished record on innovations in health care delivery in the state of Wisconsin, and I am optimistic that in his new role as guardian of public health laws and regulations for the country we can work together toward ensuring that national interests triumph over parochial ones. As my colleagues well know, over the past several years Congress has been unable to reach consensus on reauthorizing the National Organ Transplant Act, NOTA, though I look forward to working with Governor Thompson this Congress to reauthorize this important public law, and especially to develop a clear mandate and strategies for increasing organ donation. But in the absence of NOTA reauthorization, the country has benefitted immensely from the credible scholarship of the Institute of Medicine's 1999 study which underscored not only the need for reforming organ procurement and allocation, but also the proper role that the federal government should play in overseeing and enforcing such reforms. I cannot fathom that the American public would countenance that a life-and-death issue such as organ allocation would be based on principles of geographic happenstance, instead of medical necessity. But it is just this outdated paradigm that has largely contributed to the fact that about 4,000 Americans die each year--at least 11 per day--while awaiting organ transplants. Of those, it is estimated that 1,000 Americans--more than 3 each day--might have been saved if the system operated more fairly. In light of harrowing statistics such as these, following the release of the IOM study and in the absence of NOTA reauthorization, the Department of Health and Human Services last year put forth a Final Rule which enjoyed bipartisan support here in Congress and which engendered the primary recommendation of the IOM study: to establish goals for the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, OPTN, to make changes that would assure equity with regard to patient access to organs. On March 16, 2000 the Final Rule governing the OPTN took effect, establishing that the medical and allocation policies of the OPTN remain the responsibility of transplant professionals, in cooperation with transplant centers, patients and donor families represented on the OPTN board. The Final Rule also rightly provides--as NOTA intended and the IOM study recommended--for the public accountability that is necessary for a national program on which so many lives depend. Toward the goal of public accountability, the Final Rule requires the Nation's OPTN contractor to submit to the Secretary new policies governing liver allocation to needy patients, in order to achieve the following performance goals: utilize standardized, objective criteria to determine medical urgency; give highest priority to the most medically urgent candidates, based upon such new criteria; and distribute organs over as broad a geographic area as is feasible. I am pleased that the current contractor has submitted a proposal to the Department that meets many of the criteria stipulated in the Final Rule and the recently renewed OPTN contract. The contractor's proposal would create a more precise scale for determining how sick waiting patients are, thereby allowing the network to direct more livers to the sickest patients. However, the proposal would do nothing to break down the geographic barriers that dictate organ distribution, which was one of the pivotal tenets of both the Final Rule and the new OPTN contract. Mr. President, I share the belief of many of my colleagues that Governor Thompson is eminently qualified to meet the many and varied policy challenges that will be incumbent on the next Health and Human Services Secretary, ranging from sustaining and expanding the successes to date of welfare reform, to assessing options on how best to put Medicare on sound financial and actuarial footing for the long-term. I have confidence that Governor Thompson will approach the duties of his office with probity and rectitude. I am hopeful that the Governor will work with Congress to reauthorize NOTA and to support and ensure compliance with the regulations put forth last year relating to the operation of the organ procurement and transplantation network in the United States.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Seeing no one else on the floor, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM. So we really do have a real choice here. And the choice is between preparing for what we know is to come, preparing for the demographic cliff we are going to fall off, which is the baby boom generation, where we are going to go right now from 3\1/2\ workers for every retiree to 2 workers for every retiree, we can prepare for that, allowing for a voluntary contribution for existing workers, allowing them to put money aside to be able to invest that money and grow that money and use it to help pay their benefits, or we can sit back and wait. The Senator from New Hampshire and I probably aren't going to be around then. We are not going to be around 20 years from now. We can very casually say: Hey, we tried. Let someone else worry about it. We are not going to be here. We will not be blamed for it. Someone else is going to have to raise those taxes and someone else is going to have to make those benefit cuts. I think it would be unconscionable in a time of record prosperity and in a time when I think most people would argue there is no great pressing issue facing the American public, that we can't look forward and say we know there is a problem out there, and it is a major problem. It is not a little problem; it is a big problem. We can't just look forward a few years. We can prevent a big problem right now by just a little courage and a little consensus. So I am hopeful. I think, with the leadership out of the White House, and with people of good faith, we can look forward, and we can do something we have not done in Social Security ever before. I underscore this. We have a tremendous challenge before us. We have always fixed Social Security when the disaster was on the doorstep--the checks were not going to be written, there wasn't enough money in the fund. It was only then that we mustered the ``courage''--I put that in quotations-- we mustered the ``courage'' to act. That is not leadership. In fact, it has resulted in a system that, as I mentioned before, is not the best system for retirement for our seniors. Had we done it, looking forward, back in the 1960s and 1970s--particularly in the 1970s--had we looked forward and seen the baby boom generation projected out which we, of course, knew of then, and had said, we know this problem is going to be ahead of us, so why don't we begin new investment now--instead of raising taxes, let's create the opportunity for investment--we would not be in the situation we are in today. We were at the point where the checks were not going to get paid so we blinked. We did the old, safe thing. We just increased taxes or reduced benefits. I am hopeful we will have more courage than that this time around, and we will be better public stewards. That is what it is really about. It is about stewardship for future generations. Finally, turning to tax relief, aside from education I don't know of any issue on which President Bush is more focused than the issue of tax relief. This conference, as with all these issues, is going to support the President in reducing taxes. I remember my good friend, Paul Coverdell, used to give a talk--and I heard it many times--where he would discuss taxes and how paying taxes to Washington really equated to freedom. The more taxes you paid, the less free you were. Someone who would pay 40 percent of their taxes to Government was less free than someone who only paid 10 percent. There are a lot of economic reasons why we should reduce taxes. There are a lot of reasons from the point of view of not providing more money to Washington, letting the Government grow. It really is a fundamental issue of personal freedom. When we can say to a family of four making $35,000 a year that we are going to reduce your taxes by $1,500, which is basically eliminating your tax liability, that certainly, for a family of four at $35,000 a year, creates more economic freedom and more opportunity for them to provide for themselves, not to look to Washington but to be able to do more for themselves. It provides opportunity and freedom. For a family of four making $50,000, it provides a $2,000 tax cut. That is a 50 percent reduction in their taxes. It is not a tax break for the wealthy. It is a tax break predominantly focused on average working Americans who need that tax relief. We do provide across-the-board tax relief, but even with the reduction the President has suggested, the top rate of taxation will still be higher than it was 8 years ago. So it won't even go back to the level it was under former President Bush. It is, in fact, a modest reduction in taxes, but it is important--in the top rate particularly-- because it provides, at a time when the economy seems to be slowing down somewhat, the opportunity for more available capital and investment to keep the economy chugging along. There are good economic reasons for doing this. There are good policy reasons for doing this. The fundamental issue is freedom. When we get down to it, people who have more of their own resources are simply more free to provide for themselves and are less dependent upon Washington to do things for them. That is our agenda. It directly impacts every American--whether it is the bill you pay at the utility or the school you send your children to, your parents, your grandparents, providing them with a stable Social Security system as well as quality Medicare coverage that is appropriate for the medicine being practiced at the time--it changes as medicine changes; it changes as your needs change--finally, tax relief that affects all of us who are taxpayers and says that Washington, in a time of surplus, can do with less. We don't need to grow the size of Government. We need to grow the opportunity of the American people. This is our agenda. We are very excited about it. I am hopeful there will be bipartisan support for each of these because I know there are many of these items on our list that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle care as deeply about. We need to find that common ground and we need to share our conviction that America can do better and that its best days are ahead. We can do that in a bipartisan way, with strong leadership from the White House. As we start the season, everybody without any wins and losses, let us set our sights high and, in so doing, provide a great vision and great opportunity for America and its citizens. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the leader for his opening remarks and for setting the stage for what we all hope to be a very productive session of Congress. It is like the first day of a football season or baseball season. Everybody is even right now. Nobody has lost a game yet. Everybody has high expectations and high hopes for a good season. I believe we have a good team here. We have a good team here in the U.S. Senate. We have a good team in the House, a good team in the White House. I am very optimistic that we can work together and really produce for the American public, because that is really what it is all about. It is about delivering and meeting the concerns that the American public have with how we here in Washington, D.C. interact with them. There are certain issues that are very important to average Americans--I always use the term kitchen table. What are people talking about at their kitchen table, and what is relevant in their daily lives and how do we react to that and intersect with that here in Washington, D.C. I think it is vitally important for us to approach what we do here in part based on that. Obviously, there are great issues of national security and foreign diplomacy that may not be kitchen-table conversations on a daily basis to which we obviously have to pay attention. Making sure Government runs efficiently and effectively may not be on the front burner of the American people but certainly is the responsibility of Congress. But when it comes to the agenda of changing to improve our system to reflect the concerns of the American public, I think that is what we really want to focus on today. Senator Lott did a good job of running through those items that he believes and I believe are on the minds of millions of Americans, where they see problems and they see ways in which the Federal Government can, by some level of involvement, make a positive difference in making their lives better and America better. I want to walk through those. We, as a Republican Conference, a few weeks ago met across the street in the Library of Congress. We had a discussion about what we thought were the issues of importance to the people of America where Congress could make a difference, where Congress could improve the quality of life in America and improve the prospects for future generations of Americans to live free and to have opportunities. The six we came up with are these: Improving our national defense. Obviously, a big concern with this new administration and I think with the entire Congress on both sides of the aisle is the low level of morale in many areas of our military and the fact that we have not faced up to the challenges we have in national security. I will go through those. First, morale. Let's make no mistake about it; we have the best fighting force ever seen on the face of the Earth. We have outstanding young men and women who are serving this country and serving it well, but we have not provided leadership in two ways: No. 1, providing basic care for them as people, whether it is the military health care system which has an inordinate amount of problems or whether it is simply pay, salary. We gave a pay increase, but it is still lagging far behind the private sector. We ask our people to serve and put their lives on the line, and yet the compensation is such that most of our people in the military live hand to mouth, paycheck to paycheck. We need to do something to improve quality of life in housing. We need to improve quality of life in another area, and that is deployment. Our front-line troops in particular are stretched out, even several members of a family and friends who are in the Reserves and Guard and are being asked to do much more and many more deployments. That is stretching them at home and at their work, all because of our inability to focus our resources in America appropriately. I am hopeful with this new President that we will reduce the number of deployments, and not just because we should not be involved in a lot of the areas in which we have been involved, but certainly because of the strain it takes on our military in morale and readiness. That is another area in which I am looking forward to doing some work. The final area in defense I want to talk about today is we have not prepared our military for the next generation, the new threats that are out there, whether it is missile defense and the threat of terroristic missile attacks on this country and our allies or cyberwarfare. There are 20 countries around the world developing offensive capability to attack not just our military installations and our military computers, but our commercial computer systems through cyberwarfare. We have to do a better job of responding to that and chemical and biological weaponry and other types of terroristic attacks--homeland defense. We have to do a better job in this new millennium to respond to the threats of the new millennium. Frankly, we just have not put forth the resources we need and have not given it thought. I am hoping to work on that on a bipartisan basis in the Congress. We all recognize--many on the other side of the aisle have worked in these areas--we need to work in these areas and move this country forward. I am doing these items in alphabetical order. Education: I do not know of anything President Bush has focused on more than providing a quality education for every child. We heard over and over that no child should be left behind. I am excited to see he already has a growing volume of information, suggestions, and ideas for the Congress to improve the quality of education by insisting on accountability through testing and setting goals, but ensuring and, in a sense, restoring local control where, yes, there are goals and, yes, there is testing, but there has to be local control and flexibility for the schools to be able to accomplish that. We have to do something to improve education overall. One way to do that is by improving safety in our schools. I know President Bush is very sincere about that, as we all are. One way is to ensure that people who are going to a school where they do not feel safe is to give them a choice to go to another school that is safe. There are schools in this country--I have been to a few. I remember going to a school in Philadelphia and asking a group of kids, of whom a very small percentage are going on to college, what is the No. 1 concern they have at school. Was it not enough computers? Quality of teachers? Classroom size? Their No. 1 concern was getting to school alive every day. That was the consensus in the room. If one's first concern is getting to school alive every day, how well can one learn when they get there? We have to do something to provide the opportunity, for people who want to learn, to go to school where they feel safe. Obviously, we need to improve safety in every school, but we need to give choices to people who do not feel safe in their school. One of the things President Bush did when he was Governor of Texas was close the gap between those schools that were ``advantaged'' and those schools that were in poor neighborhoods, focusing on getting more resources into our disadvantaged schools to help kids. Yes, parental choice and giving parents the choice to send their kids to another school is one aspect, but obviously bringing up the standards in those poorer schools is another way to do that. That has to be a big focus of our education agenda. Third is energy. Senator Lott spoke very eloquently to the fact we simply have not had a national energy strategy. We have been able to get away with it. OPEC and the rest of the world were allowing oil to flow very freely, and we had relatively cheap oil for some time in this country. The result of that is we have seen our dependence on foreign oil go up to 56 percent. One of the objectives of this Congress and this administration should be to get back to the level of dependency on foreign oil that we had 8 years ago, which was 50 percent. We are talking about a 10-percent reduction in our dependency on foreign oil. It is vitally important we do that, and we can do that through a variety of ways. Developing alternative sources of energy is one. It is vitally important we use renewables but also use the fossil fuels we have in our country. I come from coal country. I can tell you, the poorest counties in my State are counties in which coal used to be king. We need to do something--and we can--to use our coal resources--and we have literally hundreds and hundreds of years of coal reserves in our country to use our coal resources to create power and to do it in a clean way. We can do it in a clean way if we are willing to invest in it. We have to invest in using our domestic capability, but do it in a way that is clean, and we can do it by investing in technology to burn coal cleanly. It can be done. We have to have a comprehensive strategy; we have to come together as a nation and say what our agenda is going to be for energy and do it in a bipartisan way, and we need leadership from the White House. We did not have that leadership. We did not have any real effort made. I am excited our former colleague, Secretary Spence Abraham, will be leading that charge, and I am very excited about the opportunities we will have in the area of energy strategy. Third is Medicare. Medicare is probably one of the most popular programs in the United States. It is popular because it provides much needed health care to those who are the most vulnerable to illness, and they are our seniors. But the problem with Medicare is that it simply doesn't do the job of providing enough benefits, enough services in an efficient way to a population that is ever increasing in need and in size. So it is vitally important for the Congress to do something to improve the quality of Medicare and to improve the expanse of Medicare. In other words, we need to expand it. I think everybody in this Chamber would agree, we have to have a prescription drug component for Medicare. I think everyone would also agree that the only reason we don't have a prescription drug component of Medicare--I am talking about an outpatient prescription drug benefit--is because Medicare is a Government-run health care system. For many years, while every private plan in America had a prescription drug program to it, Medicare didn't for probably 10 to 15 years. The reason it didn't is because the Government had to change it. We were running big deficits at the time and we simply didn't have the money. We didn't have the money to add a benefit onto an existing system as other programs did, to change their insurance policies--to change theirs from less utilized care to more utilized care, to respond to what the public wanted and the changes in Medicare. We are stuck with a one-size-fits-all Government program that would not do that. So now millions of people in America don't have prescription drug coverage as seniors. We need to change the Medicare system so it can change as medicine changes, not as Congress changes because Congress doesn't move as quickly as medicine does. So we need to do something to make sure Medicare is responsive to the changes in medicine, and to the changes people who are on Medicare want, with the kind of medicine they want to have provided to them. So it is vitally important for us to change Medicare to be patient friendly, to respond to the needs of the American public. That includes a prescription drug program, but it also includes choices for people. It includes changing the system to allow it to evolve as the needs and wants of seniors in this country change and as medicine changes. So that is what we are going to be focusing on with the Medicare Program. It is vital for us to do so right now because we have too many people who are not getting the kind of services they need under Medicare. We need to give them those choices. We need to give them the chance to get quality health care the way they want it delivered, on a timely basis. Next is Social Security. I can't think of any Member of either the House or the Senate who has done more work on Social Security than the Presiding Officer, the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg. But he and I, and several of us here, have been working to try to communicate to the American public: If you think there are problems in Medicare-- and there are, as shown in the reasons as I laid them out before--the same problems really exist in Social Security. I know there are probably people listening whose sole income comes from their Social Security check. They are living hand to mouth. They are probably not even surviving simply with their Social Security. They are probably having to get supportive services like Meals on Wheels or other food support from charitable organizations. They are probably getting help from relatives or friends because the Social Security check alone isn't enough anymore. The fact is, the Social Security system is not enough. It is not going to be adequate for future generations. We have to do a better job to improve it because as much as we encourage people to save and invest, there will always be those who either don't or can't--and in most cases can't--so we have to make sure that basic level of security is there, and we have to improve that system. No. 1, we have to improve the system. No. 2, we have to make sure it is not a system that is going to have to be dramatically cut in the future because of demographic changes, such as the mass retirement of the baby boom generation. If we do not improve Social Security now, and in the appropriate manner, we will have tremendous tax increases as a result of this demographic shift that I mentioned. I love the people who say, well, just leave Social Security alone and it will be fine. If we do nothing, we will either have to cut benefits by 30 percent, or increase taxes by 50 percent within 20 years for this system to survive. Let me repeat that. We will either have to cut benefits by 30 percent or increase taxes by 50 percent, or some combination thereof, if we keep the system the old way, which is a completely Government-operated system, where all the money comes in and just goes straight back out in the form of benefits. The only way we can change the system and improve it is to add a third component. Instead of cutting benefits or raising taxes, we can add investment. Every other retirement system in America is funded through investment. It is good enough for those who have the choice as to how they want to create a retirement system, and I don't know of anybody out there who would trade their retirement system at work, whether it is a 401(k) or whether it is a defined benefit plan, whether they would take that contribution they make, that is invested--that money they give is invested--that they would trade that for the current Social Security system. Instead of investing their money, we just take it, we just use it, and then we promise, 20 years from now, when they retire, we will pay them. How many people would trade the ability to see that investment--see it grow, manage that investment or have someone help them manage that investment, and then get that return when they retire--how many would trade that for a promise of the company, 20 years from now, to pay them a benefit? I don't know of one person who would do that. But that is what Social Security is. Instead of taking the money we now put in as 12.4 percent of every dollar most people earn, instead of taking some of that money and putting it in an investment and managing it and seeing it grow, to use that to provide for retirement, we say: Just trust us. It will be there. The problem is, it won't be there. It won't be there in the sense that we are going to have to make dramatic changes to either the benefit structure or the tax structure. If we make big changes to the tax structure--that is, increasing taxes to 18 percent or 19 percent instead of the now 12.4 percent----

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I stand here today to recognize an institution that has remained a staple in Carmichaels and the Southwestern Corner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the past one hundred years. Community Bank, N.A. has persevered through recessions, depressions, World Wars, other failed financial institutions, bank foreclosures, market chaos, and mergers and acquisitions without ever having to close its doors. Community Bank, N.A. remains a consistent financial force to its community by providing sound, uninterrupted service to its customers for one hundred years. I would like to warmly congratulate this financial institution for its solid judgement and thoughtful service to the people of Southwestern Pennsylvania. Community Bank is not only a reliable bank, but is a friendly neighbor and has truly contributed to the history and hometown atmosphere of Carmichaels and other communities in which the bank serves. When The First National Bank of Carmichaels opened its doors for business on July 1, 1901, Frank Mitchener was elected president of the Board of Directors, and J. Ewing Baily was its first vice president. Stephen A. Burtner served as treasurer and the remainder of the original board was comprised of Samuel Bunting, Isaac B. Patterson, George W. Strawn, N.H. Biddle and Oscar Hartley. Mr. Dowlin drove a buckboard to the Farmer's and Drovers Bank in Waynesburg to get the cash for opening day. Forty-one original stockholders combined to give the bank a capital stock of $25,000. Richard L. Baily, kin of one of the original founders, and former bank president and Chairman of the Board for over 70 years, is known in Southwestern Pennsylvania for his selfless service to the communities in which the bank serves. Baily tells the story of a lady who once came to the bank to borrow money to buy shoes so her children could go to school. Her husband was unemployed and they lived in a rented house, but she had heard the bank loaned money for worthwhile causes. ``I didn't think I needed to review her assets, and I'm sure she would not [have understood] the term, collateral,'' Baily said. He loaned her the money, and the woman, like most other townsfolk, has remained loyal to the hometown bank that has been loyal to them, in good economic times and bad. The tradition of local loyalty and service continued through Charles R. Baily (son of Richard) whom also formerly served as a director and chairman of the bank's board. ``Community bank is a local landmark that provides financial direction and services to our community friends and neighbors. Hometown commitment has been our bank's pledge for the past 100 years, and that's what it will continue to be,'' says Community Bank Chairman/CEO Ralph J. Sommers, Jr. Known as Community Bank, N.A. since September 1987 (a change in name only to better reflect its larger community growth), the locally-owned and operated financial institution has had a consistent growth in assets, staff, geographic market area, and the numbers of civic and community organizations to which it has contributed. Today, Community Bank, N.A. has some $220 million in assets, is publicly traded as CMYC, boasts 10 branches in Greene and Washington Counties, employs about 100 people in satisfying jobs, and contributes thousands of dollars and many people-hours to scores of local civic, charitable, and philanthropic organizations. The bank's growth is largely attributed to sound management practices, investments in technology, and community commitment at every level. Local deposits remain in the communities the bank serves in an effort to better improve the economic vibrancy of local businesses and the quality of life of residents. Unquestionably, the bank's most valuable assets--its customers, employees, and shareholders-- collectively play an integral role in the prosperity of the bank and the communities it serves. The pioneering spirit of that first group of founders in Carmichaels continues in those who have followed, with unparalleled customer service and a community commitment of an incalculable life expectancy. From this amount of information, you can see what a huge role that Community Bank has played in the establishment of the economy and history in Greene and Washington Counties. They are not just a financial institution, but a reliable and friendly staple to the people of the area. I enthusiastically ask my colleagues to join me in commending Community Bank as they celebrate their Centennial.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Affordable Drinking Water Act of 2000.'' This bill sets out an innovative approach to meet the safe drinking water needs of rural Americans nationwide. The Affordable Drinking Water Act of 2000 provides a targeted alternative to water delivery in rural areas. Through a partnership established between the federal government and non-profit entities, 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 government assistance envisioned under this bill would also allow homeowners of modest means in Pennsylvania, and the rest of the country, to bring old household water wells up to current standards; replace systems that have met their expected life; or provide 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 2000 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 convenient monthly charges. 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, I rise today to introduce the ``Affordable Drinking Water Act of 2000.'' This bill sets out an innovative approach to meet the safe drinking water needs of rural Americans nationwide. The Affordable Drinking Water Act of 2000 provides a targeted alternative to water delivery in rural areas. Through a partnership established between the federal government and non-profit entities, 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 government assistance envisioned under this bill would also allow homeowners of modest means in Pennsylvania, and the rest of the country, to bring old household water wells up to current standards; replace systems that have met their expected life; or provide 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 2000 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 convenient monthly charges. 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, I wish to enter into a colloquy with Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine and Senator John Warner of Virginia, two of my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, to clarify a provision concerning a U.S. Navy Benefits Center as referenced in Senate Report 106-292 which accompanies S. 2549. As my colleagues are aware, the Department of the Navy's Human Resources Service Centers, HRSCs, located in eight geographical locations worldwide, serve as the regional Human Resources Management, HRM, processing centers for activities and Human Resources Offices in its service area. The HRSCs also provide various centralized HRM programs and services. S. 2549, the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act, authorizes $3.0 million for a contractor-supported national employee benefits call center located in Cutler, Maine. According to Senate Report 106-292, this center is to provide a full range of benefit and entitlement information and assistance to civilian employees of the Department of the Navy. The report notes that the call center would replace eight separate Human Resources Service Centers now in operation throughout the country. Based on conversations with the Department of the Navy, it is my understanding that these HRSCs are not to be replaced by the new center to be established in Cutler, Maine. Instead, the new Navy Benefits Center will complement the services performed by the eight HRSCs.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. In conclusion, Madam President, I thank Senator Brownback for his great work and perseverance in bringing this crime- fighting package to the Senate to pass it and turn it into law quickly. Aimee's law was debated and considered here in the Senate during this session of Congress. It passed 81-17. It has passed the House with over 400 votes. It is a provision that has very broad support. It is one of the No. 1 legislative provisions that the victims rights organizations in America would like to see done. This is a piece of legislation that targets three types of offenders--murderers, rapists, and sex offenders, child molesters in particular. What this does is focus on those three because, obviously, they are three of the most heinous crimes on the books, but they are also crimes that have the highest incidence of repeat offenders, particularly the sexual crimes. Aimee's law is given that name for Aimee Willard. She was a college student outside of Philadelphia who was raped and murdered by Arthur Bomar. Arthur Bomar was released from a Nevada prison after serving only a small fraction of his sentence for a similar crime. He was released, and within a few months he found his way to Philadelphia, where Aimee was out one evening. She was attacked, raped, and murdered. It was a case that sent shockwaves through southeastern Pennsylvania and the whole Delaware Valley. Aimee's mother, Gail, has been on a crusade since then to do something to make sure convicted rapists and murderers and other sex offenders serve their full sentences. If you look at the sentences that are meted out for these crimes, it is somewhat chilling to realize that if you look at the sentences that are served for murder, for example, the average sentence for murder is 8 years. The average sentence for rape is 5\1/2\ years. This is the actual time they serve, and the actual time served for a sex or child molestation offense is 4 years. We believe that you have a high incidence of recidivism in these crimes, and people need to serve longer sentences so they are not a threat to our communities. In fact, more than 14,000 murders, rapes, and sexual assaults on children are committed each year by felons who had been released after serving a sentence on one of those very same crimes. So 14,000 of these crimes are committed by people who have committed these crimes in the past, who were let go to commit a crime again. What we believe and what we have suggested is, frankly, very modest. It is modest in the sense that it is, I argue, even for those 81 Senators who voted for this legislation the last time around--and some expressed concern that this was going to be too tough on the States-- not as tough as it was before. We have changed it in ways that have made it a little less onerous on States to have to keep up with these provisions. We tightened the definitions more. We created flexibility for the States for them to choose which funds they would use. This is basically what this proposal does. It says if you release someone from prison who has not served 85 percent of their sentence, or has served a sentence below the national average for the crimes that we enumerate, and that person goes out and commits a crime in another State, then the State in which the person has committed the second crime--the released felon commits a second crime--then it has a right to go to the original State who let this person out early and seek compensation for all the costs associated with the prosecution, conviction, and incarceration of that criminal. That hardly seems like the overbearing Federal Government dictating to States how to run their criminal justice system. These are Federal funds. States can choose which Federal funds they can allocate for this purpose. But what it says is we need to get tougher in having tougher sentences and making sure that those sentences, when given, are served. I don't believe that is too much to ask for this Congress, and I very strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure, and recognize that if this measure is not supported this bill will be dead and will have to start over again in the House of Representatives.

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act conference report, H.R. 3244, which in addition to seeking to end the trafficking of women and children into the international sex trade, slavery and force labor also includes major provisions reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, providing justice for victims of terrorism, and Aimee's law. One of the most disturbing human rights violations of our time is trafficking of human beings, particularly that of women and children, for purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor. Every year, the trafficking of human beings for the sex trade affects hundreds of thousands of women throughout the world. Women and children whose lives have been disrupted by economic collapse, civil wars, or fundamental changes in political geography have fallen prey to traffickers. According to the Department of State, approximately 1-2 million women and girls are trafficked annually around the world. I commend Senator Sam Brownback and Senator Paul Wellstone for their bipartisan leadership on the International Trafficking of Women and Children Victim Protection Act. The bill specifically defines ``trafficking'' as the use of deception, coercion, debt bondage, the threat of force, or the abuse of authority to recruit, transport, purchase, sell, or harbor a person for the purpose of placing or holding such person, whether for pay or not, in involuntary servitude or slavery-like conditions. Using this definition, the legislation establishes within the Department of State an Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking. The Task Force would assist the Secretary of State in reporting to Congress the efforts of the United States government to fight trafficking and assist victims of this human rights abuse. In addition, the bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for a non-immigrant classification for trafficking victims in order to better assist the victims of this crime. Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Joe Biden introduced S. 2787, the Violence Against Women Act. This bipartisan bill would reauthorize federal programs which have recently expired for another five years to prevent violence against women. It seeks to strengthen law enforcement to reduce these acts of violence, provide services to victims, strengthen education and training to combat violence against women and limit the effects of violence on children. I am an original cosponsor of this important legislation which has been endorsed by the National Association of Attorneys General, the National Governor's Association, and the American Medical Society. On September 26, the House of Representatives passed its version of the Violence Against Women Act, H.R. 1248, by a vote of 415 to 3. I am pleased that this important legislation is included in the Sex Trafficking conference report which passed the House of Representatives on October 6 by a 371-1 vote margin. The reauthorization legislation also creates new initiatives including transitional housing for victims of violence, a pilot program aimed at protecting children during visits with parents accused of domestic violence, and protections for elderly, disabled, and immigrant women. The bill also would provide grants to reduce violent crimes against women on campus and extend the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. It authorizes over $3 billion over five years for the grant programs. As a Member of the House of Representatives in the 103rd Congress, I supported H.R. 1133, the original Violence Against Women Act, offered by Representative Pat Schroeder of Colorado. Since FY1995, VAWA has been a major source of funding for programs to reduce rape, stalking, and domestic violence. I am also very pleased that my own legislation to strengthen incentives for violent criminals, including rapists and child molesters, to remain in prison and hold states accountable is included in the conference report. Aimee's law was prompted by the tragic death of a college senior Aimee Willard who was from Brookhaven, Pennsylvania near Philadelphia. Arthur Bomar, a convicted murderer was early paroled from a Nevada prison. Even after he had assaulted a woman in prison, Nevada released him early. Bomar traveled to Pennsylvania where he found Aimee. He kidnapped, brutally raped, and murdered Aimee. He was prosecuted a second time for murder for this heinous crime in Delaware County, PA. Aimee's mother, Gail Willard, has become a tireless advocate for victims' rights and serves as an inspiration to me and countless others. This important legislation would use federal crime fighting funds to create an incentive for states to adopt stricter sentencing and truth- in-sentencing laws by holding states financially accountable for the tragic consequences of an early release which results in a violent crime being perpetrated on the citizens of another state. Specifically, Aimee's law will redirect enough federal crime fighting dollars from a state that has released early a murderer, rapist, or child molester to pay the prosecutorial and incarceration costs incurred by a state which has had to reconvict this released felon for a similar heinous crime. More than 14,000 murders, rapes, and sexual assaults on children are committed each year by felons who have been released after serving a sentence for one of those very same crimes. Convicted murderers, rapists, and child molesters who are released from prisons and cross state lines are responsible for sexual assaults on more than 1,200 people annually, including 935 children. Recidivism rates for sexual predators are the highest of any category of violent crime. Despite this, the average time served for rape is only five and one half years, and the average time served for sexual assault is under four years. Also troubling is the fact that thirteen percent of convicted rapists receive no jail time at all. We have more than 130,000 convicted sex offenders right now living in our communities because of the leniency of these systems. The average time served for homicide is just eight years. Under Aimee's law, federal crime fighting funds are used to create an incentive for states to adopt stricter sentencing and truth-in-sentencing laws. This legislation is endorsed by Gail Willard, Aimee's mother, Marc Klass, Fred Goldman, and numerous organizations such the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Rifle Association, and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. 39 victims' rights organizations also support Aimee's law including Justice For All, the National Association of Crime Victims' Rights, the Women's Coalition, and Kids Safe. These groups consider Aimee's law one of their highest priority bills. It sends a message that if a state has very lenient sentencing it impacts other states and crime victims in those states as well. I first offered Aimee's law as an amendment to the juvenile justice bill on May 19, 1999, which passed the Senate by a 81-17 vote margin. Congressman Matt Salmon also offered the legislation as an amendment in the House of Representatives on June 16, 1999, which passed by a 412-15 vote. Due to a lack of progress on the conference report it became necessary to move the legislation separately. On May 11, I joined Aimee's mother Gail at a hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Crime, to urge the House to approve legislation separately to keep sexual predators behind bars. The House of Representatives subsequently passed the legislation again by a unanimous voice vote. Aimee's law is an appropriate way to protect the citizens of one state from inappropriate early releases of another state. One of the forty plus national organizations supporting Aimee's law, the National Fraternal Order of Police, said the following. One of the most frustrating aspects of law enforcement is seeing the guilty go free and, once free, commit another heinous crime. Lives can be saved and tragedies averted if we have the will to keep these predators locked up. Aimee's Law addresses this issue smartly, with Federalizing crimes and without infringing on the State and local responsibilities of local law enforcement by providing accountability and responsibility to States who release their murders, rapists, and child molesters to prey again on the innocent. We have made several modest changes to address implementation concerns by the states in the effort to achieve the best protection possible for our citizens. These include (1) Definitions: utilizing the definitions for murder and rape of part I of the Uniform Crime Reports of the FBI and for dangerous sexual offenses utilizing the definitions of chapter 109A of title 18- to provide for uniform comparisons across the states; (2) Sentencing Comparisons: Eliminating the additional 10 percent requirement and utilizing a national average for sentencing only as a benchmark; (3) Study: Also building into the process a study evaluating the implementation and effect of Aimee's Law in 2006; (4) Source of Funds: Provides states the flexibility to choose the source of federal law enforcement assistance funds (except for crime victim assistance funds); (5) Implementation: Delays the implementation of Aimee's Law to January 1, 2002 to allow states the opportunity to make any modifications that they would choose to do; and (6) Indeterminate Sentencing States: Safe harbor for states with sentencing ranges allows for the use of the lower number in the calculation (e.g. if sentencing guideline is 10-15 years, 10 years will be utilized.) We are sending a clear message with Aimee's law. We want tougher sentences and we want truth in sentencing. A child molester who receives four years in prison, when you consider the recidivism rate, is an abomination. Murders, rapists, and child molesters do not deserve early release; our citizens deserve to be protected. In this legislation we are protecting one state's citizens from the complacency of another state, and appropriate role for the federal government. I want to thank my colleagues for their support and urge the passage of this legislation. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Gail Willard be printed in the Record, along with the list of endorsements.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 85th anniversary of Harcum College. The Harcum Post Graduate School was opened by Edith Hatcher, a talented concert pianist, and her husband Octavius Marvin Harcum. Together they chose a venture that would combine her ``talents as an educator and artist and his business vision and ability.'' Harcum College opened its doors on October 1, 1915 in Melville Hall, with three students and five pianos. In its early years, Harcum was a preparatory school, giving students the skills needed to attend college. Mr. Harcum was the first President, but when he died tragically in a car accident in 1920, Edith assumed the Presidency. She remained in that position for more than 30 years. The college continued to grow, yet it was a proprietary institution and faced financial difficulties. In 1952 it could no longer be run as a profitable enterprise; Edith declared bankruptcy. The Junto Adult School was a non-profit educational corporation founded by Benjamin Franklin. It purchased the assets of Harcum and decided to use it as a two-year college for women. Philip Klein assumed leadership, and in 1955, Pennsylvania granted Harcum permission to be the first junior college in the Commonwealth's history to confer the Associate of Arts and Science degrees. Throughout the years, tremendous expansion of facilities has occurred yet Harcum remains committed to its original philosophies. Harcum College embraces a value system based on four principles: a respect for and appreciation of diversity; the ability to make sound ethical and moral choices; the need to take responsibility for self and others; and a commitment to lifelong learning. All members of the Harcum community are committed to the success of one another. Harcum College has always placed learning first and is committed to providing individualized educational experiences for a diverse community of learners. Harcum educated students in the arts and occupational skills, and in Mrs. Harcum's words, the college respected each student as an ``individual with personal needs, interests, aptitudes, and aspirations.'' I commend Harcum College for its accomplishments and commitment to education. Harcum has faced many challenges over the years, and I congratulate the institution as it remains an outstanding educational facility.