Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, as I discussed very briefly today, I rise in support of what the Senator from Arizona is trying to accomplish. I think he was the first to bring this issue to the floor of the Senate. He is to be congratulated for that. He has a piece of legislation that has been out there for a couple of years and has fostered a lot of good thought and a lot of discussion as to what the best Federal policy should be in dealing with the problem of inappropriate use of the Internet at schools and libraries. His legislation actually led me to look further into it as constituents contacted me with respect to it. So let me say, from the outset, I congratulate the Senator from Arizona for his work and for his effort in this area. I have a little different approach I want to talk about today that I believe improves upon the base bill that Senator McCain came up with a couple of years ago. I have been working with a group of people, from the left to the right, if you will--from the Catholic Conference to the National Education Association, from the American Libraries Association to Dr. Laura Schlessinger. So I think our effort here covers the ideological spectrum pretty well and is a consensus that is built around one thing--that while Internet filtering software is a good idea, generally speaking, it is an imperfect tool to meet the real complicated needs of teachers, administrators, and librarians who have to deal with the Internet on a daily basis in their schools. I think the Catholic Conference put it best in their letter, actually to Senator McCain, which says that his legislation ``fails to include one of the most effective tools utilized by the vast majority of Catholic schools throughout our Nation, the Ethical Internet Use Policy''--in other words, a comprehensive policy at the school level to deal with not only access to sites that may be inappropriate on the Internet, which is what filtering gets to, but a variety of different things that are very important. For example, electronic mail. Unfortunately, we hear so many stories about people being contacted through electronic mail, chatrooms, that are if not as dangerous in some cases even more dangerous than the sites that may be accessed on the World Wide Web, where you have predators who are out there trying to grab the mind of a young person. Again, the attempt to do filtering software is helpful. But we have to have a policy developed at the community level that deals with things that go beyond these dangerous Internet sites, such as the electronic mail and chatrooms, and other kinds of direct electronic communication. Under this legislation, we require that a policy be developed at the local level with respect to unauthorized use of minors, such as hacking, another area which is of grave concern not just for the minors themselves but for the user community at large, and a policy with respect to the dissemination of personal information of the minor. These minors log on. They have personal information in there. There needs to be a policy to take care of that. What our legislation simply does is--it would actually amend the McCain amendment, although not formally here in the Senate--say that you must have a local policy that includes, No. 1, at least, public hearing and notice requirements, a public hearing where the community gets together and, at the community level, we come up with an Internet policy that has to meet these certain criteria. In other words, we don't say how they do it, but that, in fact, they have policies that address these broader concerns than just eliminating one particular Internet site or Internet sites. So it is, in fact, a requirement to develop a local policy. If they choose not to do that, then the McCain language becomes operative. You must buy filtering software. We don't require filtering software. Even the Senator from Arizona has admitted there are 90-some titles out there--some are good; some are not. His legislation doesn't direct you to have buy a good one; you just have to buy one. It is certainly not the most comprehensive way of dealing with it. In fact, it may be a way that creates a false sense of security that you are dealing with problems, and it may actually reduce the amount of oversight that should be present in schools and at public libraries. Again, I compliment the Senator, but we need to take one step further. Given the problems we have seen develop through chatrooms, through e-mail, through hackers, and through dissemination of information about minors, to do it at the local level is the best way to accomplish this with the fallback hammer, if you will, of the McCain underlying requirement to buy filtering software. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I respectfully disagree. My amendment is supported by groups on the left and the right and the middle: the NEA, the American Library Association, and the Catholic Conference. Senator McCain started the ball rolling. I give him credit for requiring Internet software. The fact is, that is not comprehensive enough and not locally generated. My amendment says we have to have public notice and a public meeting by the community, involving the library or the school, to develop a comprehensive Internet policy. Blocking software does not deal with chatrooms, e-mails, hacking, and dissemination of minor information over the Internet. It is good as far as it goes, but we need a comprehensive policy that is locally developed with community standards. If they choose not to do that, then they have to buy the software. We require a policy that deals with all of these four things I just mentioned and have public meetings and public notice to get the community involved. One of the big problems with use of the Internet is that parents and community leaders do not know what is going on with this little black box in the library or school. This requires public comment, it requires public notification, and public input in a process that desperately needs to be a public one and community standards need to be set. It is supported by a wide variety of organizations. Those of my colleagues who voted for the McCain amendment can also vote for this amendment and walk out with a clear conscience and see a much more comprehensive policy put in place.

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask the Senator from Arizona if he wants to divide the remaining time in half. I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided, and that I control the time in support of my amendment and Senator McCain control the other time.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, are we now on the time for the McCain and Santorum amendments to be debated?

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in response to the critique of the Senator from Arizona who says ours is really status quo and this is a large loophole, it is not status quo. No. 1, it is not required under law today; we require a public notice and a public hearing and a policy to be formulated at the local level that addresses inappropriate matter on the Internet, the World Wide Web, electronic mail, chatrooms, and other forms of direct electronic communication, such as hacking and other unlawful activities by monitors, and any other kind of dissemination of personal identification information regarding minors. That is not current law. The review body is the same review body in his legislation, the FCC. He requires a filtering software to be purchased, and you have to certify that with the FCC. We say that you have to implement a policy, have public hearings and meetings, and you have to submit that policy to the FCC for them to review to ensure that you have covered the areas that we require. That is not status quo. He may not agree that decision should be made at the local level, and I accept that. I think we have an honest philosophical disagreement on whether we should have a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate that you have to buy filtering software. By the way, that filtering software may cover chatrooms; it may not. That is called monitoring software. There is no requirement for monitoring software to be covered for this, just filtering software. Some filtering software is better than others; some is comprehensive, some is not, and some is older. There is no requirement as to what software and how good it is that needs to be purchased under the McCain legislation. What we say is that we believe this is best implemented at the local level. If you read from the Catholic Conference--and the Senator from Arizona suggested that all the profamily groups were supporting his legislation. I think the Catholic Conference can stand up as a profamily group, and they don't support the McCain legislation; they support ours. I think one of you who are Dr. Laura Schlessinger listeners know that she has been outspoken on the issue of Internet pornography and has been leading a campaign on that issue. She has been working with us and she supports the idea of having local communities have public hearings and notices so parents know they can have input so that we can raise the visibility of the issue at the local level in dealing with a variety of issues, not just a simple filtering software mandated by Washington, DC. So it is a one-size-fits-all, and I believe incomplete, solution. Do you trust the local schools and do you trust the local communities to come up with a standard that meets the needs of that community? That is much more comprehensive by definition--it has to be--than the filtering software alternative being offered by Senator McCain. I just suggest, and historically I have supported--particularly in the area of education--local communities making those decisions for themselves, as opposed to a Federal mandate from Washington, DC. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in response to the Senator, we do not remove the requirement. We say that we would like to see the local community participate and develop a comprehensive policy. If they fail to do so, then they have to buy the filtering system. I have visited 160 schools since I have been in office. Over the last year and a half, in particular, I have talked to a lot of school librarians and administrators about the Internet and Internet pornography. All of the ones I have talked to, when I discussed the legislation and the ideas-- in fact, some of this has come from the schools themselves throughout Pennsylvania. The ones who glow about their policy are the ones who have comprehensive policies. Yes, they have filtering software, but that is just a piece of a bigger puzzle. If you just rely on that piece, I think what you can do is create a false sense of security that you have solved the problem, particularly in community libraries. I argue that in requiring public hearings and notice and input, that will put a chilling effect on some of the librarians who Senator McCain referred to, who maybe are not as concerned about pornography as they should be, or not as concerned about chatrooms as they should be, or not as concerned about e-mails as they should be. But a public consciousness and the public input that will result from a community standard being applied to those people who work at these facilities is the answer to that--not a filtering software which is imprecise and, in cases of chatrooms, hacking, e- mail, and a variety of other things, ineffective. It is not comprehensive. And so I agree. There is nobody who would like to see more protection from that than me. I have five little kids under the age of 10. So I understand the need and the concern. I come here as a father who is very concerned about the ability of children to be able to access sites they should not get to or communicate with people with whom they have no business communicating. But it is up to the community to take an interest in their children, to design a policy that is comprehensive, and this requires a comprehensive policy. By the way, if the librarians and those who run the libraries or the schools say they don't want to deal with this, then you have the McCain mandate. You will have the mandate that you have to buy the filtering software. So they can't avoid doing something. Again, the body that will oversee this is going to be the FCC, the same body the Senator from Arizona puts in place to oversee his requirement. So I believe what we have done is tried to build upon a positive step. Again, I congratulate the Senator from Arizona. He has been a leader in this problem. He has blazed the trail. I believe what we have offered is a constructive addition to his policy. I will step back on this point. The Senator from Arizona said the Catholic Conference doesn't oppose his bill. As I read it again, they did not oppose it, but they listed two pages of concerns about his policy. Then they wrote to us recently and talked about how they liked what we did. But I understand they are not in the business of opposing and supporting. Let me just say their intentions are clear.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank both my colleagues, my colleague from Pennsylvania and my colleague from Minnesota, for allowing me just a few minutes, at least 5 minutes, to explain the subject matter of this amendment. I heard the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, talking about Internet protection. Let me say I commend his work as chairman of the Commerce Committee in pursuing this area because it is an important area, to provide needed protections for children in libraries and schools, to have a program in place to deal with the issues of pornography and violence and the other things that have opened up on the Internet. I have nothing but words of praise for the Senator from Arizona and for the work he has initiated. In fact, the amendment I have just introduced uses his language pretty much as the base of the amendment. But in looking at this issue, now, for the past several years--and I have young children; I am very concerned about their access to the Internet--talking to people from both libraries and schools, and others who are interested in the subject area, I believe the McCain amendment, while I think it goes so far, can in fact and should go further. In this respect, as the Senator himself mentioned, there are maybe 100 filtering software packages out there. Some are good, some are not so good; some are state of the art, some are not. His amendment does not require anyone to buy state-of-the-art filtering software. It just says you have to buy filtering software or blocking software. In fact, even the state of the art does not include some of the things about which I am very concerned. One of the real concerns I have is chat rooms. When you talk about pedophiles and people who prey on people via the Internet, they do it principally through these chat rooms. I am not aware of very much software that blocks chat rooms. So you have a lot of things in addition to sites that maybe are pornographic or violent, or other problems you find on the Internet, that may be blocked with some of these software packages. But it doesn't get to the scope of the dangers on the Internet. What I have suggested in my amendment is that, in the alternative, we require local communities, schools--anyone who participates in the e- rate, the same premise on which Senator McCain's amendment is based-- that they develop a policy that there be local hearings and public notice, and there be a community effort put together for the community to get involved and make the decision on a community basis on how they are going to deal in a comprehensive way with this. In fact, we list several things in the amendment that must be covered by this local policy. The policy is then reviewed by the FCC simply to determine whether the school district, for example, has met the criteria and actually has a policy in place to deal with the areas specified in the legislation. If the community decides they do not want to go through public notice, they don't want to have hearings, they don't want to go through this process of developing a local plan, then Senator McCain's amendment falls into line; they must buy filtering software. So we keep his amendment as sort of the hammer to encourage localities to do that. I think what Senator McCain said was absolutely right. Most of these communities are already buying software. I have been through hundreds of schools and have talked about this issue. Most of them understand the dangers out there and, in fact, have developed or are in the process of developing a program to deal with this problem. What we want to do is provide some guidance to them, some encouragement to them, and in the case of Senator McCain's underlying amendment, which again is part of our amendment that I have just filed, it is a hammer that says: If you don't provide a comprehensive local approach, then you have to buy the software. To me, it is a philosophical argument. It says: Should we have Washington come down and hammer you and say here is what you have to do, or should we have a program that says: Here is the problem. Local parents and teachers and community, you go out and bring the community together and do the hard work of democracy, which is to work together to come up with a solution to the problem. I am hopeful we can do that. I just say briefly, my amendment, the bill I have introduced which is S. 1545, which is the text of this amendment, has been endorsed by the American Association of School Administrators, American Association of Education Service Agencies, International Society for Technology in Education, National Rural Education Association, the American Library Association, the National Education Association, the Consortium for School Networking, and the Catholic Conference. They all support my amendment. That is about as wide a cross-section as you can get. And I would add someone very local. On this issue, Dr. Laura Schlesinger also supports our approach as the alternative to the McCain amendment.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I welcome Rev. Gus Roman from Canaan Baptist Church in Philadelphia. Reverend Roman is a giant among pastors in Philadelphia. He has held many leadership positions within the clergy, within the city of Philadelphia, and has been the right arm of Rev. Leon Sullivan, who may be a giant among giants within Philadelphia and around the world. In particular, I refer to his work reaching into Africa, working on AIDS projects with the terrible scourge that is crossing Africa today. Reverend Roman is on the front line urging not only his church but other churches to respond to the need in America, as well as the wonderful things we have been able to accomplish--Reverend Roman and myself and others--in the community in Philadelphia. He has been a great leader, someone who has been a real tour de force not only in evangelizing the word of God but in putting God's will into action in the community. It is an honor to have him here today. We certainly welcome him wholeheartedly to the Senate.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter.

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. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize James Stalder as he retires as Managing Partner from the Pittsburgh office of Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLP. He initially joined the firm in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania before transferring to the National Headquarters in New York, where he served as Director of Tax Research and Technical Services for the Ohio Valley Area. In 1988, he was appointed Managing partner of the Price Waterhouse office. Since July 1998, Mr. Stalder has been Managing Partner of the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP office. Upon retiring, Mr. Stalder will commence a deanship at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh. He will assume the position of Dean of the A.J. Palumbo Undergraduate School of Business and the John F. Donahue Graduate School of Business. Judging by Mr. Stalder's proven leadership, it is clear that he will be a great asset to Duquesne. Mr. Stalder has served as President of the Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants and as a member of the Council of the American Institute of Public Accountants. He is also a Life Trustee of Carnegie-Mellon University where he has been a member of the faculty of the Graduate School of Industrial Administration since 1981. A graduate of The Pennsylvania State University, he also serves as a member of the University's Smeal College of Business Administration Board of Trustees. Moreover, Mr. Stalder was instrumental in the creation of the Pennsylvania Tax Blueprint Project, which is developing micro simulation economic impact models to enable the Governor and legislators in Pennsylvania to measure and intelligently debate alternative tax reform proposals. In addition, Mr. Stalder has served as Chairman of the Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce and in many other leadership roles in similar organizations. I commend Mr. Stalder for his demonstrated service to leadership in these organizations. Mr. Stalder has received numerous awards for outstanding service to his community. Among these is the Distinguished Public Service Award, the top award presented to an individual by the Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants, which ``honors CPAs who have truly made a difference through active participation in public service. Mr. Stalder will be an excellent addition to the administration at Duquesne. Throughout his professional life, he has worked with some of the leading multi-national corporations in the world. He will be able to offer his extensive expertise in tax accounting and related fields, as well as the skills of negotiating and deal making. James Stalder is a role model not only to the residents of Pittsburgh but to the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I wish him the best as he takes on new challenges.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise with great pride to introduce the Affordable Housing for Seniors and Families Act. I am very pleased to say that Senator Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator Sarbanes are original cosponsors of this bill. Even as our national economy flourishes, many Americans are struggling to find safe, decent, sanitary, affordable housing. HUD estimates that 5.4 million families are either paying over half of their incomes for rent or living in substandard housing. Of these households, 1.4 million, or 26%, are elderly or disabled. The scarcity of affordable housing is particularly troubling for seniors and the disabled who may require special structural accommodations in their homes. As Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, and as a member of the Aging Committee, I feel a heightened sense of urgency in helping these special populations find housing. Thus, I am pleased to offer a bill which: reauthorizes federal funding for elderly and disabled housing programs; expands supportive housing opportunities for these special populations; codifies options to enhance the financial viability of the projects; assists sponsors in offering a ``continuum of care'' that allows people to live independently and with dignity; offers incentives to preserve the stock of affordable housing that is at risk of loss due to prepayment, Section 8 opt-out, or deterioration; and modernizes current laws allowing the FHA to insure mortgages on hospitals, assisted living facilities, and nursing homes. Together, I believe these measures will help to fill the critical housing needs of elderly and disabled families. On September 27, 1999, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the Preserving Affordable Housing for Senior Citizens in the 21st Century Act (H.R. 202) by a vote of 405-5. Several aspects of H.R. 202, which protected residents in the event that their landlords did not renew their project based Section 8 contracts, were included in the FY 2000 VA-HUD appropriations bill. The legislation I offer today is modeled on the House-passed bill, without the preservation provisions that have already been enacted. I would like to take a few moments to highlight the major provisions of this bill. The Section 202 elderly housing program and the Section 811 disabled housing program each provide crucial affordable housing for very low- income individuals, whose incomes are 50 percent or below of the area median income. By law, sponsors, or owners, of Section 202 or Section 811 housing must be non-profit organizations. Many sponsors are faith- based. The Affordable Housing for Seniors and Families Act will increase the stock of Section 202 and 811 housing in several ways. First, it reauthorizes funding for Section 202 and 811 housing programs in the amount of $700 million and $225 million, respectively, in FY 01. Such sums as are necessary are authorized for FY 02 through FY 04. Second, it creates an optional matching grant program that will enable sponsors to leverage additional money for construction. Third, it allows Section 202 housing sponsors to buy new properties. This legislation also codifies options giving owners financial flexibility to use sources of income besides the Section 202 and Section 811 funds. For instance, by requiring HUD to approve prepayment of the 202 mortgages, this bill allows sponsors to build equity in their projects, which can be used to leverage funding for capital improvements or services for tenants. It gives sponsors maximum flexibility to use all sources of financing, including federal money, for construction, amenities, and relevant design features. In order to raise additional outside revenue and offer a convenience to tenants, owners are permitted to rent space to commercial facilities. In the cases of both Section 202 and 811 housing, owners may use their project reserves to retrofit or modernize obsolete or unmarketable units. Finally, this bill allows project sponsors to form limited partnerships with for-profit entities. Through such a partnership, sponsors can also compete for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, and build larger developments. The importance of providing a ``continuum of care'' for seniors and disabled persons to continue living independently is addressed in the Affordable Housing for Seniors and Families Act. For example, this bill helps seniors stay in their apartments as they become older and more frail by authorizing competitive grants for conversion of elderly housing and public housing projects designated for occupancy by elderly persons to assisted living facilities. Responding to obstacles the handicapped face in finding special-needs housing, it allows private non-profits to administer tenant-based rental assistance for the disabled. It also ensures that funding will continue to be invested in building housing for the disabled by limiting funding for tenant-based assistance under the Section 811 program to 25% of the program's appropriation. Funding for service coordinators, who link residents with supportive or medical services in the community, is authorized through FY 04. Moreover, service coordinators are permitted to assist low-income elderly or disabled families in the vicinity of their projects. Seniors who live in their own houses will be assisted by a provision in Title V which allows them to maximize the equity in their homes by streamlining the process of refinancing an existing federal- insured reverse mortgage. Title IV of this legislation focuses on preserving the existing stock of federally assisted properties as affordable housing for low and very low-income families. Each year, 100,000 low-cost apartments across the country are demolished, abandoned, or converted to market rate use. For every 100 extremely low-income households, having 30% or less of area median income, only 36 units were both affordable and available. Even in rural areas, the potential loss of assisted, affordable housing is very real due to prepayment of mortgages, opt-out of assisted housing programs upon contract expirations, frustration with government bureaucracy, or simply a recognition that the building would be more profitable as market-rate housing. Title IV responds with a matching grant program to assist state and local governments who are devoting their own money to affordable housing preservation. Likewise, it authorizes a competitive grant program to assist nonprofits in buying federally assisted property. Current law allowing the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to insure mortgages on hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities has become outdated. Title V modernizes the law and removes barriers to using FHA insurance for such facilities. Likewise, it recognizes the integrated nature of healthcare by allowing the FHA to provide mortgage insurance for ``integrated service facilities,'' such as ambulatory care centers, which treat sick, injured, disabled, elderly, or infirm persons. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important bipartisan legislation. In closing, I would like to express my gratitude to Senator Kerry for working closely with me on this important legislation. I also would like to thank Senator Sarbanes for his cosponsorship. 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 with great pride to introduce the Affordable Housing for Seniors and Families Act. I am very pleased to say that Senator Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator Sarbanes are original cosponsors of this bill. Even as our national economy flourishes, many Americans are struggling to find safe, decent, sanitary, affordable housing. HUD estimates that 5.4 million families are either paying over half of their incomes for rent or living in substandard housing. Of these households, 1.4 million, or 26%, are elderly or disabled. The scarcity of affordable housing is particularly troubling for seniors and the disabled who may require special structural accommodations in their homes. As Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, and as a member of the Aging Committee, I feel a heightened sense of urgency in helping these special populations find housing. Thus, I am pleased to offer a bill which: reauthorizes federal funding for elderly and disabled housing programs; expands supportive housing opportunities for these special populations; codifies options to enhance the financial viability of the projects; assists sponsors in offering a ``continuum of care'' that allows people to live independently and with dignity; offers incentives to preserve the stock of affordable housing that is at risk of loss due to prepayment, Section 8 opt-out, or deterioration; and modernizes current laws allowing the FHA to insure mortgages on hospitals, assisted living facilities, and nursing homes. Together, I believe these measures will help to fill the critical housing needs of elderly and disabled families. On September 27, 1999, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the Preserving Affordable Housing for Senior Citizens in the 21st Century Act (H.R. 202) by a vote of 405-5. Several aspects of H.R. 202, which protected residents in the event that their landlords did not renew their project based Section 8 contracts, were included in the FY 2000 VA-HUD appropriations bill. The legislation I offer today is modeled on the House-passed bill, without the preservation provisions that have already been enacted. I would like to take a few moments to highlight the major provisions of this bill. The Section 202 elderly housing program and the Section 811 disabled housing program each provide crucial affordable housing for very low- income individuals, whose incomes are 50 percent or below of the area median income. By law, sponsors, or owners, of Section 202 or Section 811 housing must be non-profit organizations. Many sponsors are faith- based. The Affordable Housing for Seniors and Families Act will increase the stock of Section 202 and 811 housing in several ways. First, it reauthorizes funding for Section 202 and 811 housing programs in the amount of $700 million and $225 million, respectively, in FY 01. Such sums as are necessary are authorized for FY 02 through FY 04. Second, it creates an optional matching grant program that will enable sponsors to leverage additional money for construction. Third, it allows Section 202 housing sponsors to buy new properties. This legislation also codifies options giving owners financial flexibility to use sources of income besides the Section 202 and Section 811 funds. For instance, by requiring HUD to approve prepayment of the 202 mortgages, this bill allows sponsors to build equity in their projects, which can be used to leverage funding for capital improvements or services for tenants. It gives sponsors maximum flexibility to use all sources of financing, including federal money, for construction, amenities, and relevant design features. In order to raise additional outside revenue and offer a convenience to tenants, owners are permitted to rent space to commercial facilities. In the cases of both Section 202 and 811 housing, owners may use their project reserves to retrofit or modernize obsolete or unmarketable units. Finally, this bill allows project sponsors to form limited partnerships with for-profit entities. Through such a partnership, sponsors can also compete for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, and build larger developments. The importance of providing a ``continuum of care'' for seniors and disabled persons to continue living independently is addressed in the Affordable Housing for Seniors and Families Act. For example, this bill helps seniors stay in their apartments as they become older and more frail by authorizing competitive grants for conversion of elderly housing and public housing projects designated for occupancy by elderly persons to assisted living facilities. Responding to obstacles the handicapped face in finding special-needs housing, it allows private non-profits to administer tenant-based rental assistance for the disabled. It also ensures that funding will continue to be invested in building housing for the disabled by limiting funding for tenant-based assistance under the Section 811 program to 25% of the program's appropriation. Funding for service coordinators, who link residents with supportive or medical services in the community, is authorized through FY 04. Moreover, service coordinators are permitted to assist low-income elderly or disabled families in the vicinity of their projects. Seniors who live in their own houses will be assisted by a provision in Title V which allows them to maximize the equity in their homes by streamlining the process of refinancing an existing federal- insured reverse mortgage. Title IV of this legislation focuses on preserving the existing stock of federally assisted properties as affordable housing for low and very low-income families. Each year, 100,000 low-cost apartments across the country are demolished, abandoned, or converted to market rate use. For every 100 extremely low-income households, having 30% or less of area median income, only 36 units were both affordable and available. Even in rural areas, the potential loss of assisted, affordable housing is very real due to prepayment of mortgages, opt-out of assisted housing programs upon contract expirations, frustration with government bureaucracy, or simply a recognition that the building would be more profitable as market-rate housing. Title IV responds with a matching grant program to assist state and local governments who are devoting their own money to affordable housing preservation. Likewise, it authorizes a competitive grant program to assist nonprofits in buying federally assisted property. Current law allowing the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to insure mortgages on hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities has become outdated. Title V modernizes the law and removes barriers to using FHA insurance for such facilities. Likewise, it recognizes the integrated nature of healthcare by allowing the FHA to provide mortgage insurance for ``integrated service facilities,'' such as ambulatory care centers, which treat sick, injured, disabled, elderly, or infirm persons. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important bipartisan legislation. In closing, I would like to express my gratitude to Senator Kerry for working closely with me on this important legislation. I also would like to thank Senator Sarbanes for his cosponsorship. 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 address the issue of Social Security. Last week I got up toward the end of our time and did not have a chance to talk about the issue, but I briefly mentioned my strong admiration and support for Gov. George W. Bush's courageous and bold proposal in offering to the American public an opportunity to meet the Social Security crisis head on and deal with it in a responsible way through investment as a way to try to bridge the gap that now exists in the Social Security system--``the gap'' meaning not enough money coming in to pay benefits down the road once the baby boom generation begins to retire. I have been out for the past 4 years talking about this issue and have talked in front of every conceivable group you can imagine. Yesterday I was in Harrisburg, PA, talking to the State AARP about Social Security and the importance of having politicians face up to the issue and explain to the American public how we are going to fix the problem. The problem is very simple. Right now, there are about 3.3 people working for every retiree on Social Security. Social Security is a pay- as-you-go system. So those 3.3 working people have to pay enough in Social Security tax to pay for the benefits to that 1 retiree. Just to give you a comparison, back in 1950 we had 17 workers paying into the system for every 1 retiree. That is why, in 1950, we had a payroll tax of 2 percent on the first $3,000 you earned, because there were 17 people paying and you could pay a relatively low rate of taxation to pay for the benefits. Now you pay 12.4 percent of every dollar you earn, up to, I believe it is, $72,000. So it is a dramatic increase in taxes that has occurred because we went from 17 workers to every 1 retiree to 3.3 workers to every 1 retiree. In the next 20 years, we will go from 3.3 workers to every 1 retiree, to around 2 workers or maybe even a little less than 2 workers to every 1 retiree. It is pretty obvious what is going to have to happen. We are going to have to make a change in the system because the current flow of revenue from 3.3 workers to support 1 retiree will be dramatically reduced when you only have 2 workers. You cannot keep the current rate of taxation and support that 1 retiree. So the question is, What do we do about it? Do we wait, knowing it is going to happen? Everybody who is going to be working 20 years from now has been born, and everybody who is going to retire in 20 years from now has been born. So we know what the demographics are going to look like. The question is, What are we going to do about it? There are three things you can do to fix the Social Security problem and only three things. There are only three things you can do. No. 1, you can do what we have done 20-some times in the past; that is, increase taxes, from what started out as 2 percent on the first $3,000 to now 12.4 percent on up to $70,000 of income. So you can increase taxes. The second thing you can do is reduce benefits. We have done that in the past, too. We raised the retirement age. We adjusted some of the benefit numbers. You can reduce benefits. How much would we have to do of either raising taxes or cutting benefits? According to the Social Security trustees, the actuaries there, we are looking at a payroll tax increase, if we wait 15 or 20 years--which is what some here at the national level, the Vice President, for example, and some on the other side of the aisle have suggested; that if we wait, everything is going to be fine, that there will be no problem for another 30 or 35 years. Just wait. What if we wait? If we wait 20 years to fix this problem, we are looking at a payroll tax increase of roughly 40 percent, going from 12.4 to about an 18- or 19-percent payroll tax for the next generation. So if you are a politician today and you do not plan on being around 20 years from now, I guess the answer of waiting is a pretty good option: Put it on to the next group of politicians and the next generation of people, and let them pay those taxes. They may say: ``As for me, I would rather just get elected and not make any tough decisions and not have to tell anybody about what pain is going to be in the future because under my watch there will not be any.'' That is the kind of leadership we do not need in America, in my opinion. But that is an option. The first option is to increase taxes dramatically down the road. The second option is to cut benefits. By the year 2035, I think it is, Social Security taxes coming in will cover about 70 percent of what is needed to be paid out in benefits. So what does that tell you? We will have to cut benefits by about a third; that if we do not increase taxes, then we will have to cut benefits by a third. I suspect you will not find one vote in the Senate to do that today. And I do not believe you will find any votes in 20 years to do that. So that option is pretty much off the table, I suspect. So those are the two options that are available, unless you take the third option. This is where Governor Bush has come out. I give him a lot of credit for doing so. The third option is investment, increase the rate of return on the money that is actually going into the system now to make up the shortfall in the long run. This is not a view that is a partisan viewpoint; this has broad bipartisan support in the Senate. Many on the other side of the aisle believe in personal retirement accounts. Even more Members on the other side of the aisle and the President agree with investment where the Government actually takes the money and invests it. So there are two kinds of investments. We can do it two different ways. The way I suggest and Governor Bush suggests is that every individual get a portion of their payroll tax to be put in a personal retirement account, which they own, they control, they invest, but they cannot touch until they retire. That is how I suggest the investment be done: The individual owning it, the individual investing it, the individual controlling it. The President's suggestion, in two of his budgets in this current term of office, is that, yes, a portion of Social Security trust funds can be invested, but the Government invests it. There would be no individual ownership. It would be Government ownership. The Government would invest a portion of the Social Security trust funds in stocks and corporate bonds. Why? The President pretty much gave the same speech I am giving where he said there are three options: You can increase taxes, cut benefits, or invest; and the President chose investment. The President, in his budget, chose investment. But the investment he chose was the Government ownership of that investment. We choose investment and say the individual should own the investment, and the individual should benefit from the investment; that the Government should not ``benefit'' from the investment. There are a whole host of reasons the Government should not own corporations or stocks. We already regulate corporations. We tax corporations. Now we have gotten in the business of suing corporations. We should not also own them. That is the Government owning the means of production. For those of you who have not been in your political science class recently, the Government owning the means of production comes right out of the books of Karl Marx. We do not need the Government of the United States owning corporations. By the way, I think most Americans believe very strongly about that, that Government ownership of stocks and bonds is not something that is particularly desirable, but the idea of investment is desirable. The biggest criticism I hear from the Vice President, and the critics of Governor Bush's idea, is that this is a ``risky scheme.'' Contrast that with what their proposal is. Their proposal has, I would agree, less risk and more certainty. I would agree with that. There is less risk and more certainty. The certainty, though, is not a particularly desirable one. The certainty is we will have to raise taxes or cut benefits. So you can argue that the Gore plan is less risky, is much more certain. We will have to raise taxes or we will have to cut benefits, or do a little of both. So in that respect there is certainty. But it is not certainty that I think the American public is looking for. He suggested the Bush plan is risky because it involves investment. I did not hear that criticism of the President's plan to invest in the equities market. He did not criticize his own President's plan when he suggested that money from Social Security should be invested in the equities market. I guess some believe it is not risky if the Government invests it, but it is risky if you do. I am not too sure that holds a lot of water. Either investment in the market is risky or it is not risky. Sure, obviously, there are risks in investment in the market. But every other retirement system in America is financed through investment. The people who are doing basically pretty well in America have 401(k) plans and IRAs and Keogh plans and other plans where they take money that they are earning. Here in the Federal Government, Federal employees have a thrift savings plan, all of which is invested in stocks and bonds. And we use the miracle of compound interest, over time, to be able to then afford to pay the benefits for those retirees once they hit retirement. Every person who is doing pretty well in America has one of those plans at their disposal. It is the folks who are not doing so well who don't get a piece of the American pie. What the Vice President is saying is: For you folks who have these plans, that is OK; we think that is a good idea. In fact, you will find the Vice President and others who are opposing personal retirement accounts for Social Security are at the same time encouraging people to go out and develop 401(k)s and invest and save for retirement; that it is a good idea. ``So if you have your own money and you make enough money, we encourage you to invest it. But if you are low income and you can't put money aside, we don't want you to have a piece of this. We don't want you to have your own personal retirement account within Social Security. We are just going to reserve that for people who have enough money to do it on their own. We will allow you to participate in the growth of the American economy, in the increase in the markets and economy, in the dynamism of the American dream that is going on in our capital markets today. If you have money, you go ahead and participate, and we will encourage you. We will provide tax incentives for you to do that. But if you are lower income and you are making ends meet and all you have for your retirement is Social Security, sorry, we will not allow you. It is too risky for you to do this.'' How paternal; how discriminatory. What we support is to give every working American a very small piece at first. Maybe in years to come it will be larger, but at first a very small piece of the American pie, 2 percent, 3 percent of every dollar they earn for low and middle-income people to be put in a personal retirement account for them to invest; so as America grows and prospers, they won't be sitting on the sideline watching the rich get richer while they do not prosper from the growth in America. That is cruel. We have an opportunity to reach out to moderate and low-income individuals and allow them to participate in the American dream of ownership, of investment, of participating in the growth of America, not just their own growth with respect to their wages. I think it is a tremendous opportunity. It is the first and biggest chance to bridge what I see as one of the biggest problems facing America today, which is the growing gap between the rich and the poor in this country. I will never forget back in 1992, then-candidate Clinton would talk about the decade of greed of the 1980s, how the rich got richer and the poor didn't get it. ``The 1980s, under Reagan, was the decade of greed.'' We don't hear President Clinton talking about that now. Does anybody ever wonder why he doesn't talk about that anymore? The reason he doesn't talk about it anymore is because during the 1990s, the rich got far richer than they did in the 1980s, and the poor didn't do that much better than they did in the 1980s. In fact, the gap between the rich and the poor widened more in the 1990s than it did in the 1980s. If the 1980s was the decade of greed, the 1990s, under the Clinton-Gore administration, was the decade of supergreed. Why did that happen? It is pretty obvious why it happened. It happened because those who were wealthy, who owned and invested as the markets went up, as the value of assets went up, their income went up. Their wealth went up. If you are a worker who doesn't have wealth, doesn't have savings, doesn't have investment, then your wealth only goes up by the wage increase you get, which is 3 or 4 percent. So while the NASDAQ goes up or the Dow Jones goes up 10, 15, 20 percent or higher, your wages go up here at the bottom 2 or 3 percent, the gap grows. One-third of all income in this country comes from investment. Yet the average person in America, someone right in the middle, has a total savings of $1,385. Half of America or more is left behind. What we want to do with personal retirement accounts for Social Security is say to those Americans: Welcome to the American economy; participate in the American dream of growth and ownership of investment. With that, we will not only fix Social Security, but we will begin to do something that is fundamental, which is to bridge the wealth gap in America. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am going to take 15 minutes of the time set aside for the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment for two reasons: No. 1, on its substance. If everyone is concerned about the damage to the political system and the damage to the public and the violation of things in which we believe, of organizations running independent expenditures, then cover everybody who does it. If my colleagues are only concerned about certain political groups and not concerned about other political groups that may happen to favor their political position, then this is all about politics and not about reform. Let's be clear. This is a rifle shot on this bill. This does not cover labor unions, this does not cover the Sierra Club, this does not cover the trial lawyers, all of which are the major funders of the other side of the aisle. I am one of those Senators up for reelection who is going to be at the butt end of the expenditures of those very same groups, and no one over there will be outraged by the ``damage to the public,'' these groups do. They are only concerned about the damage to the public that groups that do not favor them do. We heard so much: We need to talk honestly with the public. Let's talk honestly with the public. We are rifle shooting here. We are killing the American political process by picking winners and losers. At the same time, the second reason I oppose this bill is because we are killing the Defense authorization. So we have two losers here. We have the political process--the big loser--because here we are in Congress picking winners and losers. And the second, we have the Defense authorization process, which I, as a subcommittee chairman, and like my colleague from Arkansas, a subcommittee chairman, we put a lot of time and effort into this bill because we understand, as the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, Jim Inhofe, said, we put in a lot of effort trying to craft a bipartisan bill. We don't have too many coming to the floor these days. It is a bipartisan bill. I have worked with my ranking member, Joe Lieberman. We have worked together in concert to put together a bill we can all support--and we all did support in committee --that really meets the needs of our military, that addresses some of the critical issues we had in our subcommittee. We had to deal with the transformation of the Army. I know everybody in this Chamber is concerned about how we transform the Army. There are some very critical decisions we made in this bill that affect the future of our armed services, and particularly the Army, that I don't believe will be made correctly if we do not pass this bill. There are some critical issues in the area of the Joint Strike Fighter. We made tough decisions that will not be met if we do not pass this bill. A lot of people say we can wait. The House may not blue-slip this. The House voted on this issue. They voted it down. We know what they will do on this issue. The fact is, even if that is not the case, this is not the right amendment. This is not the right way to address this issue. If you care about the ``corruption of the system'' that these organizations do, cover everybody. If you care about gaining political advantage, vote for this amendment because you will gain political advantage. You will put a chilling effect on some groups and ``Katie bar the door'' on the others. If that is what you want, if what you want is political advantage, you got it. Vote for it and kill both fairness in public discourse and disclosure, which I am for. I will vote for an amendment--but not on this bill because I think it will hurt this bill--at some time. I hope the leader brings up this issue. But make sure we cover everybody. Make sure we do not pick our friends: You don't have to say anything. You don't have to disclose anything. And by the way, you guys who we really don't like, we are going to get you. We are going to chill your contributions. We are going to make you report everything. That is what this is about, folks. If we are talking about honesty here, tell the truth. What does your amendment do? That is the truth. So I am happy to debate the truth. The truth is, I will support an amendment that is broad. I will support an amendment that provides disclosure for everybody who engages in political campaigns but not pick my friends over my enemies. I would not vote for a bill that just picks my friends. Even you said we are not going to cover those organizations, Senator, that help you; we are just going to cover the guys who do not help you, I would vote against it. Do you know why? Because we should not be doing that. That is wrong. You want to talk about breeding cynicism? Bring up an amendment that calls for disclosure which excludes the groups that favor you and punishes the ones that don't, that brings cynicism to the process. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask the Senator from Kentucky, does the Sierra Club run some of their campaign expenditures through their (c)(4), not through their 527 group?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will assist our nation's dairy farmers at a time when the dairy industry is facing tremendous difficulty. This legislation proposes a regionally equitable plan that will bring some predictability to a business that is otherwise challenged by inherent variability that accompanies dairy farming. I am pleased to have Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin join with me today in this effort. Given the importance of the dairy industry to our respective states, Senator Kohl and I worked together over the past few months to forge a consensus plan that addresses the concerns of dairy farmers nationwide. For far too long, regional politics has 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 are receiving the lowest price for their milk in more than twenty years, I feel strongly that Congress needed to step to the plate and offer a fair and responsible solution-- the very reason for this action. 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; 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 so far eluded us. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee who represents the fourth largest dairy producing state in the nation, I am committed to preserving the viability of Pennsylvania's dairy farmers. This legislative proposal represents 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.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of 30,020 Pennsylvanian Wal-Mart associates. These dedicated individuals, along with 870,000 other Wal-Mart associates nationwide, raised more than $14 million for the National World War II Memorial Campaign. This outstanding achievement brought the World War II Memorial Fund to more than $90 million. This donation brings the fund increasingly closer to its goal of $100 million. On June 6, 2000, Barbara Ritenour and Bonnie Cowell from Belle Vernon, PA joined 40 other Wal-Mart associates to present this contribution to former Senator Robert Dole, National Chairman of the World War II Memorial Campaign on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this event on June 6 was to thank those who went above and beyond the call of duty to help meet this financial goal. It was the small contributions of bake sales and parking lot carnivals that made such a difference. Wal-Mart employs over 1,900 World War II veterans. They recognize the importance of constructing a memorial to salute the men and women who fought in the war as well as those who supported it from the home front. I commend the efforts of those so dedicated to the memory of those who served in World War II, and I wish the World War II Memorial Campaign continued success as they work to meet the remainder of their $100 million goal.