Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about S. Con. Res. 116, a concurrent resolution introduced by Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi which commends Israel's redeployment from southern Lebanon. I should have been reflected as a cosponsor of that resolution but my name was inadvertently left off the list of cosponsors. I ask that I be shown as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 116. Mr. President, I fully support the resolution and would like to offer my comments on the historic events that have recently transpired. Just yesterday, I met with a group of young students who were visiting Washington, DC, as part of a legislative conference sponsored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. I was truly impressed by the level of interest and knowledge of these students. One of the items we discussed was the need for the United States to provide support for Israel as it withdraws from southern Lebanon. I support the efforts of Prime Minister Barak to withdraw Israeli forces from southern Lebanon and echo the comments that it is time for all foreign military forces to leave Lebanon. Furthermore, the Governments of Syria and Iran must be held accountable for acts of terrorism committed in Lebanon. Mr. President, Israel has demonstrated its commitment to the peace process and its commitment to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425. It is now time for the United Nations and the international community in general to fulfill their obligations to the peace process and to ensure that southern Lebanon does not become a staging ground for attacks against Israel.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I wish to briefly continue the discussion started by Senator Grams from Minnesota. I commend him for his fine work on the issue of Social Security and moving forward on personal retirement accounts. I also commend Gov. George W. Bush for his bold and, I think, prescient decision to move forward on the issue of personal retirement accounts for Social Security. This is the kind of leadership this country is looking for, someone who is going to tell the truth to the country, let them know what the decisions to be made are with the most important social program in this country, Social Security. The Governor laid out very clearly the options before us: We can either raise taxes, we can cut benefits, or one can invest some of the current Social Security revenue stream into stocks and bonds. He came out and said: I am for investment. That is the way we are going to solve this problem and create opportunities for every working American, with every working American sharing a piece of the American dream, the free spirit of America. I commend him for that, thank him for his leadership, and look forward to talking about this issue over the next several months to move this issue forward for America.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to join Stefanou Chiropractic Centers in supporting the sixth annual Kids Day America/ International event in Philadelphia on May 20, 2000. Stefanou Chiropractic is the official chiropractic office representing Kids Day America/International at the event, which will benefit the World Children's Wellness Foundation. Kids Day America/International is a special day set aside to address health, safety and environmental issues. It was founded for the purpose of educating families and communities about important social concerns that affect us as individuals and as a community. Our children represent the promise of a bright future, and we must uphold our obligation to nurture and protect them, providing them with the opportunity to learn, achieve, grow and succeed in a healthy and safe environment. Kids Day America/International is an opportunity to teach our children positive principles which will benefit them for a lifetime. I would like to offer my best wishes to Stefanou Chiropractic Centers for a successful and educational event to be enjoyed by all. To honor this event, I put forward the following proclamation: Whereas, the health and well-being of children is our responsibility; and Whereas, the safety of our children is a significant concern for parents, community leaders and health care givers; and Whereas, environmental welfare is of universal concern and deserves the utmost attention; and Whereas, if started in childhood, proper health, safety and environmental habits can be maintained for a lifetime, producing a valued member of society, and enhancing our community; Now, therefore, I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in proclaiming the 20th of May, 2000 as ``Kids Day America/ International.''

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Ireland's President, Mary McAleese, as she will be awarded the prestigious Annual Brehon Medal in Philadelphia today for her outstanding contributions to the cause of Ireland throughout the world. Born on June 27th, 1951, Mary Leneghan was married in 1976 to Martin McAleese, with whom she has three children--Emma, Saramai and Justin. After graduating from Queen's University Belfast, Mary McAleese was called to the Northern Ireland Bar and practiced primarily criminal and family law. In 1975, she was appointed Reid Professor of Criminal Law, Criminology and Penology at Trinity College Dublin, a position she held until 1979 when she joined RTe as a journalist and presenter. She returned to the Reid Professorship at Trinity in 1981, while continuing with RTe on a part-time basis. In 1987, Mary McAleese was appointed Director of the Institute of Professional Legal Studies, which trains barristers and solicitors for the legal profession in Northern Ireland. In 1994, she was appointed a Pro-Vice Chancellor of Queen's University Belfast. Other appointments that she has held include Director of Channel 4 Television, Director of Northern Ireland Electricity, Director of the Royal Group of Hospitals Trust, and delegate to the 1995 White House Conference on Trade and Investment in Ireland and follow-up Pittsburgh Conference in 1996. She was also a member of the Catholic Church delegation to the North in 1996, the Commission on Contentious Parades, the Catholic Church Episcopal Delegation to the New Ireland Forum in 1984, and was a founding member of the Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas. On November 11, 1997, Mary McAleese was inaugurated as the eighth President of Ireland. As President, she has demonstrated a sincere commitment to promoting Ireland worldwide, and will be recognized for her service to Ireland today, May 16, 2000, at the Brehon Law Society's annual banquet in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I would like to welcome President McAleese to Philadelphia and extend my sincere congratulations on the prestigious honor which she will be receiving today.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize May 12 as Chronic Fatigue and Immune Dysfunctions Syndrome [CFIDS] Awareness Day as well as the efforts of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome [CFS] Association of the Lehigh Valley in fighting this disease. CFIDS, also known as CFS, is a complex illness which effects multiple systems of the body. The syndrome is characterized by neurological, rheumatological, and immunological problems; incapacitating fatigue; and numerous other symptoms. Over 800,000 Americans of all ages, races, and socioeconomic classes suffer from this often debilitating disease. Tragically, persons with this syndrome can experience symptoms sufficient to deprive them of opportunity for gainful employment. CFIDS is often misdiagnosed because it is frequently unrecognized and can resemble other disorders. Therefore, it is imperative that education and training of health professionals regarding CFIDS be expanded and that there be greater public awareness of this serious health problem. While there has been increased activity at the national, state, and local levels, and in private research institutions, more must be done to support patients and their families. The CFS Association of the Lehigh Valley works to encourage further research to conquer CFIDS and related disorders, and to inform and empower those affected by the disorder until a cure is found. The association, a member of the CFIDS Support Network of the CFIDS Association of America, is celebrating their eight year of service to the CFIDS community and has participated in May 12 activities since 1993. Moreover, the association has been awarded the CFIDS Support Network Action Award for ``Excellence in Service in the Area of CFIDS Awareness Day'' in 1996 and for ``Excellence in Commitment and Other Service to the CFIDS Community in the Area of Public Policy'' in 1995. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in commending the CFS Association of the Lehigh Valley for its efforts, and in recognizing May 12th as CFIDS Awareness Day.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today we celebrate the National Day of Prayer, set aside as a day to humbly come before God, seeking His guidance for our leaders and His grace upon us as a people. I would like to take this occasion to implore my fellow Americans to remember why it is that prayer is so important for our nation. Since the earliest days of America's heritage, we have been richly blessed by God. We have been granted liberty, prosperity, and a measure of peace unknown to most nations throughout history. Even during periods of hardship, God has given us strength to endure, and has used our tribulations to mold us into a better nation. While we daily enjoy God's bountiful provisions, we need only look at our nation's history to realize that His blessing has not been granted to us by accident. America has been blessed as a result of our historic reliance upon Him. From the moment that Christopher Columbus first set foot in the New World until today, Americans have trusted God and sought to follow His direction. Columbus prayed to God for strength and guidance to help his companions endure the difficult voyage to the New World. Our founding fathers looked to God in prayer for wisdom to create a government that would ensure freedom and liberty. Through war and depression, America called out to God for strength and courage. In times of prosperity, we praised God for his many blessings. God's blessing does not come without expectations, however. God commands us to obey Him and follow His laws. When calling for a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer in 1863, President Abraham Lincoln admonished our nation in the following statement: We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self- sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins and to pray for clemency and forgiveness. Those words are as true today as they were when spoken by Abraham Lincoln many years ago. God has given us commands to follow so that we might be able to fully enjoy His creation and receive the benefit of His blessing. When our nation has turned our back on God's commands, we have been plagued by such tragedies as slavery, crime, drug abuse, and abortion. If our nation is to continue to be blessed by God, we must renew our commitment to God daily through prayer. President Ronald Reagan designated the first Thursday in May to celebrate the National Day of Prayer. My challenge is to make every day a day of prayer, so that we might follow God's will and continue to receive His blessing into the 21st century and beyond.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, as we prepare to celebrate National Nurses Week during the week of May 6 through May 12, 2000, I would like to give special recognition to the dedicated nurses who serve the largest healthcare system in the world, the Veterans Health Administration. I rise today to recognize our Veterans Administration nurses for the critical care which they have provided throughout our nation's history and continue to provide today. The first VA nurses served the needs of veterans of the Spanish- American War and World War I. In the 1930's, the VA Nursing Service was created, and employed 2,500 registered nurses. Throughout World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf War, VA nurses continued the tradition of outstanding service to our nation's veterans. The number of VA nurses has grown substantially, and today the Veterans Health Administration employs 34,000 registered nurses and 26,000 licensed practical nurses and nursing assistants, serving an average of 25 million outpatients and 1 million inpatients annually. The VA Nursing Service maintains its tradition of excellence by encouraging nurses to pursue higher education, and was a forerunner in introducing advanced employment and educational policies. These trained professionals work in a nationwide system of VA health facilities located throughout the continental United States and its territories. I have been privileged to personally witness the hard work and dedication of Veterans Administration nurses. From 1946 until 1985, my mother served as a VA nurse at several hospitals including Aspinwall Veterans Hospital in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Butler Veterans Hospital in Butler, PA. As Chief of Nursing for 32 years, my mother can attest to the commitment which is typical of VA nurses everywhere. During times of low funding and limited staffing, VA nurses worked harder than ever to care for the needs of their patients. While my experience on the Senate Armed Services Committee has served as affirmation of the dedication of Veterans Administration nurses, it pales in comparison to the hard work and sacrifice that I personally witnessed as the son of a VA nurse. As we celebrate National Nurses Week, it is imperative that we remember those who have faithfully served and continue to care for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to remind my fellow Americans of a horrific tragedy which occurred in Poland six decades ago. April 13 serves as a day of remembrance of this terrible massacre. On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland to begin World War II. Two weeks later, in accordance with the secret Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the East and completed the partition of this nation. The Soviet invasion lasted eleven days and resulted in the forced deportation of 1.5 million Poles to Russian labor camps. Of those 1.5 million, approximately 15,000 Polish military officers disappeared under mysterious circumstances. On June 22, 1941, tensions between Germany and the Soviet Union exploded as the German army stormed into Soviet territory. It would take nearly two years before the German army would uncover evidence relating to the 15,000 Polish officers who had disappeared in 1940. In 1943, German forces near Smolensk, in western Russia, investigated reports they heard from Russian civilians to the effect that a large number of prisoners had been murdered by the Soviet secret police in the area nearly three years earlier. The German investigators were led by local Russians to a series of mounds in a wooded area about 10 miles west of Smolensk. On April 13, 1943, German officials made a gruesome discovery as they uncovered buried corpses. They found numerous victims, each with hands bound behind their backs and a bullet hole in the base of their skulls. Over the course of the next month, the Germans exhumed more than 4500 corpses. Unable to continue to dig through Katyn Forest, Germany requested the assistance of the International Red Cross and representatives of neutral countries to determine the circumstances surrounding the execution and burial of these 4500 Polish officers. After examining the bodies, these representatives reported to the appropriate authorities their conclusion that the men buried in Katyn Forest were those of Polish military officers, along with a number of civilian cultural leaders, business leaders, and intellectuals-- scientists, writers, and poets--who had been in the portion of Poland occupied by the Soviet Union in September 1939. The Soviet Union vehemently denied the allegations of responsibility. Once the Soviet Union had reclaimed Katyn Forest, a pro-Soviet investigation of the Katyn Forest Massacre determined that the Polish officers and leaders had been massacred by the German army. It would take another 45 years before the truth of the massacre would finally be acknowledged by the leaders of the Soviet Union. Aside from United States congressional hearings held in Britain, Italy, Germany and the United States in the early 1950s, the Katyn Forest Massacre was largely forgotten by the international community. But the truth of Katyn Forest remained vivid for the Polish nation. Polish nationals were determined to discover the truth. These individuals wanted justice for the fallen comrades. After the publication of an account of the Massacre by a Soviet historian in 1990, Polish President Wojciech Jaruzelski quickly arranged a series of meetings with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and other Soviet officials in an attempt to finally bring a conclusion to the Katyn conspiracy. On April 13, 1990, the day after President Jaruzelski's final meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet news agency published a statement of acknowledgment on behalf of the Soviet government for summary execution of 15,000 Polish officers in the Katyn Forest during late April and early May of 1940. The statement claimed that the NKVD, the Soviet secret police, followed the orders of their chief, Lavrenti P. Beria, and massacred these 15,000 Polish captives. We must never forget the crime against humanity which was carried out in this rural section of Poland. As our nation looks towards the 21st Century and the promising future, we must always remember the sacrifices of brave and gallant men in the defense of their nation and their heritage which have helping the world achieve greater freedom and democracy. April 13 should always be remembered not as a day in which hope briefly dimmed when these brave men were executed but a day in which freedom triumphed and shown brightly after decades of silence.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce legislation that would help people who ``telework'' or work from home, to receive a tax credit. Teleworkers are people who work a few days a week on-line from home by using computers and other information technology tools. Nearly 20 million Americans telework today, and according to experts, 40 percent of the nation's jobs are compatible with telework. At one national telecommunications company, nearly 25 percent of its workforce works from home at least one day a week. The company found positive results in the way of fewer days of sick leave, better retention, and higher productivity. I am introducing the Telework Tax Incentive Act to provide a $500 tax credit for telework. The purpose of my legislation is to provide an incentive to encourage more employers to consider telework for their employees. Telework should be a regular part of the 21st century workplace. The best part of telework is that it improves the quality of life for all. Telework also reduces traffic congestion and air pollution. It reduces gas consumption and our dependency on foreign oil. Telework is good for families--working parents have flexibility to meet everyday demands. Telework provides people with disabilities greater job opportunities. Telework helps fill our nation's labor market shortage. It can also be a good option for retirees choosing to work part-time. Last fall, a task force on telework initiated by Governor James Gilmore of Virginia made a number of recommendations to increase and promote telework. One recommendation was to establish a tax credit toward the purchase and installation of electronic and computer equipment that allow an employee to telework. For example, the cost of a computer, fax machine, modem, phone, printer, software, copier, and other expenses necessary to enable telework could count toward a tax credit, provided the person worked at home a minimum number of days per year. My legislation would provide a $500 tax credit ``for expenses paid or incurred under a teleworking arrangement for furnishings and electronic information equipment which are used to enable an individual to telework.'' An employee must telework a minimum of 75 days per year to qualify for the tax credit. Both the employer and employee are eligible for the tax credit, but the tax credit goes to whomever absorbs the expense for setting up the at-home worksite. I am pleased to work with Congressman Frank Wolf who has introduced identical legislation in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3819. A number of groups have already endorsed the Telework Tax Incentive Act including the International Telework Association and Council (ITAC), Covad Communications, National Town Builders Association, Litton Industries, Orbital Sciences Corporation, Consumer Electronic Association, Capnet, BTG Corporation, Electonic Industries Alliance, Telecommunications Industry Association, American Automobile Association Mid-Atlantic, Dimensions International Inc., Capunet, TManage, Science Applications International Corporation, AT&T, Northern Virginia Technology Council, Computer Associates Incorporated, and Dyn Corp. On October 9, 1999, legislation which I introduced last year in coordination with Representative Frank Wolf from Virginia was signed into law by the President as part of the annual Department of Transportation appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. S. 1521, the National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act, created a pilot program to study the feasibility of providing incentives for companies to allow their employees to telework in five major metropolitan areas including Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. Houston and Chicago have been added as well. I am pleased that the Philadelphia Area Design Team has been progressing well with its responsibility of examining the application of these incentives to the greater Philadelphia metropolitan area. I am excited that this opportunity continues to help to get the word out about the benefits of telecommuting for many employees and employers. Telecommuting improves air quality by reducing pollutants, provides employees and families flexibility, reduces traffic congestion, and increases productivity and retention rates for businesses while reducing their overhead costs. It's a growing opportunity and option which we should all include in our effort to maintain and improve quality of life issues in Pennsylvania and around the nation. According to statistics available from 1996, the Greater Philadelphia area ranked number 10 in the country for annual person-hours of delay due to traffic congestion. Because of this reality, all options including telecommuting should be pursued to address this challenge. The 1999 Telework America National Telework Survey, conducted by Joan H. Pratt Associates, found that today's 19.6 million teleworkers typically work 9 days per month at home at home with an average of 3 hours per week during normal business hours. In this study, teleworkers or telecommuters are defined overall as employees or independent contractors who work at least one day per month at home. These research findings impact the bottom line for employers and employees. Teleworkers seek a blend of job-related and personal benefits to enable them to better handle their work and life responsibilities. For employers, savings just from less absenteeism and increased employee retention total more than $10,000 per teleworker per year. Thus an organization with 100 employees, 20 of whom telework, could potentially realize a savings of $200,000 annually, or more, when productivity gains are added. Work is something you do, not someplace you go. There is nothing magical about strapping ourselves into a car and driving sometimes up to an hour and a half, arriving at a workplace and sitting before a computer, when we can access the same information from a computer in our homes. Wouldn't it be great if we could replace the evening rush hour commute with time spent with the family, or coaching little league or other important quality of life matters? Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider cosponsoring this legislation which promotes telework and helps encourage additional employee choices for the workplace.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce legislation that would help people who ``telework'' or work from home, to receive a tax credit. Teleworkers are people who work a few days a week on-line from home by using computers and other information technology tools. Nearly 20 million Americans telework today, and according to experts, 40 percent of the nation's jobs are compatible with telework. At one national telecommunications company, nearly 25 percent of its workforce works from home at least one day a week. The company found positive results in the way of fewer days of sick leave, better retention, and higher productivity. I am introducing the Telework Tax Incentive Act to provide a $500 tax credit for telework. The purpose of my legislation is to provide an incentive to encourage more employers to consider telework for their employees. Telework should be a regular part of the 21st century workplace. The best part of telework is that it improves the quality of life for all. Telework also reduces traffic congestion and air pollution. It reduces gas consumption and our dependency on foreign oil. Telework is good for families--working parents have flexibility to meet everyday demands. Telework provides people with disabilities greater job opportunities. Telework helps fill our nation's labor market shortage. It can also be a good option for retirees choosing to work part-time. Last fall, a task force on telework initiated by Governor James Gilmore of Virginia made a number of recommendations to increase and promote telework. One recommendation was to establish a tax credit toward the purchase and installation of electronic and computer equipment that allow an employee to telework. For example, the cost of a computer, fax machine, modem, phone, printer, software, copier, and other expenses necessary to enable telework could count toward a tax credit, provided the person worked at home a minimum number of days per year. My legislation would provide a $500 tax credit ``for expenses paid or incurred under a teleworking arrangement for furnishings and electronic information equipment which are used to enable an individual to telework.'' An employee must telework a minimum of 75 days per year to qualify for the tax credit. Both the employer and employee are eligible for the tax credit, but the tax credit goes to whomever absorbs the expense for setting up the at-home worksite. I am pleased to work with Congressman Frank Wolf who has introduced identical legislation in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3819. A number of groups have already endorsed the Telework Tax Incentive Act including the International Telework Association and Council (ITAC), Covad Communications, National Town Builders Association, Litton Industries, Orbital Sciences Corporation, Consumer Electronic Association, Capnet, BTG Corporation, Electonic Industries Alliance, Telecommunications Industry Association, American Automobile Association Mid-Atlantic, Dimensions International Inc., Capunet, TManage, Science Applications International Corporation, AT&T, Northern Virginia Technology Council, Computer Associates Incorporated, and Dyn Corp. On October 9, 1999, legislation which I introduced last year in coordination with Representative Frank Wolf from Virginia was signed into law by the President as part of the annual Department of Transportation appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. S. 1521, the National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act, created a pilot program to study the feasibility of providing incentives for companies to allow their employees to telework in five major metropolitan areas including Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles. Houston and Chicago have been added as well. I am pleased that the Philadelphia Area Design Team has been progressing well with its responsibility of examining the application of these incentives to the greater Philadelphia metropolitan area. I am excited that this opportunity continues to help to get the word out about the benefits of telecommuting for many employees and employers. Telecommuting improves air quality by reducing pollutants, provides employees and families flexibility, reduces traffic congestion, and increases productivity and retention rates for businesses while reducing their overhead costs. It's a growing opportunity and option which we should all include in our effort to maintain and improve quality of life issues in Pennsylvania and around the nation. According to statistics available from 1996, the Greater Philadelphia area ranked number 10 in the country for annual person-hours of delay due to traffic congestion. Because of this reality, all options including telecommuting should be pursued to address this challenge. The 1999 Telework America National Telework Survey, conducted by Joan H. Pratt Associates, found that today's 19.6 million teleworkers typically work 9 days per month at home at home with an average of 3 hours per week during normal business hours. In this study, teleworkers or telecommuters are defined overall as employees or independent contractors who work at least one day per month at home. These research findings impact the bottom line for employers and employees. Teleworkers seek a blend of job-related and personal benefits to enable them to better handle their work and life responsibilities. For employers, savings just from less absenteeism and increased employee retention total more than $10,000 per teleworker per year. Thus an organization with 100 employees, 20 of whom telework, could potentially realize a savings of $200,000 annually, or more, when productivity gains are added. Work is something you do, not someplace you go. There is nothing magical about strapping ourselves into a car and driving sometimes up to an hour and a half, arriving at a workplace and sitting before a computer, when we can access the same information from a computer in our homes. Wouldn't it be great if we could replace the evening rush hour commute with time spent with the family, or coaching little league or other important quality of life matters? Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider cosponsoring this legislation which promotes telework and helps encourage additional employee choices for the workplace.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I rise in support of S. 2390, ``Project Exile: The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act of 2000'', which establishes a grant program to provide incentives for states to enact mandatory minimum sentences for certain firearms offenses. I commend Senator DeWine for his leadership and appreciate the opportunity to join with him and other colleagues working together on this important legislation. The time has come to restore our commitment to aggressively prosecuting gun crimes around this country. In states and cities around the country where aggressive prosecution of gun crimes is coupled with tough prison sentences, violent crime has gone down. Tough law enforcement saves lives. This legislation provides $100 million of additional resources over five years as incentives for efforts like Project Exile. To qualify for the grant program, states must have a mandatory minimum of 5 years without parole for convictions of violent crimes and serious drug trafficking offenses where a firearm is used during or in relation to the crime. In the alternative, the state can have a federal prosecution agreement which would refer those arrested for federal prosecution of the alleged gun crime in a collaborative effort between law enforcement. Project Exile started in Richmond, Virginia as an attempt to reduce violent crime by aggressive enforcement of gun laws and improved law enforcement coordination. Since the program began in 1997, violent crimes involving handguns have decreased 65 percent and overall crime has been reduced by 35 percent. 385 guns were taken off of the street. In 1999, Project Exile was adopted statewide in Virginia. It has given prosecutors the ability to choose within which courts they will try offenders and created tougher penalties for people committing crimes with guns. I have also worked to help expand this approach to Philadelphia in 1999, where ``Operation Cease Fire'' also adopts a zero tolerance policy for federal gun crimes. Project Exile has already proven that present laws can work if enforced properly. Federal, state, and local law enforcement and prosecutors work side by side to expedite prosecution of every federal firearms violation. In 1999, over 200 federal gun-related indictments were issued in Philadelphia and the surrounding counties. This is a 70 percent increase in indictments in only one year. The bill authorizes $10 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2001, $15 million in FY02, $20 million in FY03, $25 million in FY04, and $30 million in FY05. States must provide at least a 10 percent match and must also at least maintain current funding levels to qualify. Funds can be used for public awareness campaigns, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, courts, probation and correctional officers, case management, coordination of criminal history records, and the juvenile justice system. Representative Bill McCollum introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives as H.R. 4051. This legislation passed the House yesterday by a 358-60 vote margin. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative to collaborate with local efforts to prosecute and prevent the criminal use of guns in our schools and neighborhoods.

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. President, my amendment increases veterans' health care benefits by $500 million, which is what the Independent Budget, which is supported by a variety of veterans organizations, has come forward and said they need to provide adequate health care for our Nation's veterans. I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee for increasing veterans' health care benefits by $1.4 billion, but that isn't enough to provide for the needs of our veterans population. This is an important issue to keep the promise that we made to our veterans to provide adequate health care. It is also important for our military. What we need to do is to show the people in the service right now, who want to stay in the service and make careers out of the service, that we are going to keep our promises to them when they leave the service. This is an important amendment to provide adequate health care benefits for our veterans as well as to show our people in the current military that we are going to keep our promises. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Abraham be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3031 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the type of medicare prescription drug benefit that Congress should pass)

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I understand my amendment is next in the queue. I ask the amendment be called up.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SANTORUM. I guess my question is, by putting more money into IDEA, are we actually sending more money into the schools on which he believes we need to be focusing?

Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator from Massachusetts, who just spoke, talked about how their legislation targets those schools in inner cities and poor areas that are most in need of this help and that our increase in spending will not do that. Can the Senator from New Hampshire tell me where the highest percentage of populations of IDEA students are located?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, in introducing the Social Security Right to Know Act of 2000. This legislation is aimed at providing the American people with accurate and up-to-date information about the current and future financial operations of the Social Security program, so that they may be in a better position to understand the choices involved in putting our most vital social program on sound financial footing for the long term. I would like to commend the Senator from New Hampshire for his instrumental role in promoting a similar proposal in the form of an amendment to the Social Security earnings test repeal legislation that this body recently considered and passed. Unfortunately, we did not take advantage of Senator Gregg's tireless efforts to reach across party lines to incorporate improved reporting to the public about the Social Security program as part of the earnings test repeal. This legislation is a complement to Senator Gregg's prior efforts, and I am pleased to be offering this legislation here today with his support. As Congress continues to consider options to preserve and strengthen our Social Security system, it is increasingly important that Americans have access to certain salient information with respect to Social Security's current and future financial picture. Why is this so important? As all of my colleagues will recall, in his State of the Union Address to Congress on January 27, 1998, President Clinton declared that it was time for the nation to begin a dialogue on the ``necessary measures to strengthen the Social Security system for the twenty-first century.'' He went on to say that the American people should be invited to join in this discussion, facing these issues squarely, and forming a true consensus on how we should proceed. In his address, the president announced a series of public policy forums to be held around the country, and also called for a White House Conference on Social Security to be held in December, 1998. The president indicated that early in 1999 he would convene the leaders of Congress to craft historic legislation that would re-create ``a Social Security system that is strong in the twenty-first century.'' I know that there was bipartisan support here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives for President Clinton's calling to make long-term Social Security reform our most important domestic policy priority. And two years ago I was optimistic about the prospects for enacting such historical legislation, particularly about the opportunity to engage the nation in an honest national discussion about the need to reform Social Security, and exchange ideas as to how we might best achieve this. But, as we all know, we held a national dialogue on Social Security, and the American people did participate in the policy forums which came to pass, and yet here we are today with little progress toward a bipartisan consensus on sustainable Social Security reform. I believe that this is so partly because of the fact that there is a tremendous amount of misinformation and lack of understanding among the American public about Social Security's financing challenges, and this lack of understanding continues to harden popular resistance to long- term Social Security solutions. Case in point: last week, we saw the release of the 2000 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds, popularly referred to as the Social Security Trustees' Report. The Social Security Administration relayed that this Report revealed that the Social Security program's long-range financial picture has improved since last year. Specifically, the Board of Trustees announced that the Social Security Trust Fund assets will not be depleted until 2037--three years later than reported in last year's report. At first glance, this statistic might convey an air of reassurance to the public, such to the point in some minds that if we can just continue to grow our economy at its current rate, we will obviate the need for enacting fundamental reforms to Social Security. Or at least, such reporting of Social Security's finances might lead to the common conclusion that the program is perfectly fine for nearly 40 years. This reliance on the paradigm of trust fund accounting is one of the main reasons that we have not been able to achieve bipartisan consensus on long-term Social Security reform. There is scarce mention in the Trustees' Report that the Social Security Trust Fund balances ``are available to finance future benefit payments . . . only in a bookkeeping sense. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits, or other expenditures. The existence of a large trust fund balance, therefore, does not have any impact on the Government's ability to pay benefits.'' Mr. President, if this description of the Trust Funds sounds familiar, it is because this is the exact wording contained in the Administration's budget up until its most recent submission for Fiscal Year 2001. What this means, in other words, is that the trust funds are merely claims on future government revenues, IOUs to be redeemed through higher taxation, lower spending on Social Security or other government obligations, or a return to deficit financing. I think that this is a rather important piece of information for the American people to understand in assessing Social Security's future. But it should not be buried in some multi-hundred page budget document or 223-page Social Security Trustees' Report. Maybe if we made this information more accessible and apparent, then we would have more concern for the fact that Social Security's financing problems begin as soon as 2015--when Social Security dedicated payroll tax receipts are no longer sufficient to pay benefits--and not in 2037. The Social Security Trustees last week revealed it will cost $11.3 trillion in new money between 2015 and 2037 to convert into cash benefits the IOUs held by the Social Security Trust Fund. But we have no actual resources necessary to meet these benefit promises between 2015 to 2037. Also not mentioned in the most recent Trustees' Report, Mr. President, is the fact that the system's unfunded obligations actually grew from the 1999 Report's release by about $1 trillion in constant 2000 dollars, according to analysis by the House Budget Committee. This is because the change in valuation period adds a new, expensive, underfunded 75th year and drops a year when benefit costs are relatively cheaper. This is a paradox of pay-as-you-go financing that is not known or understood by most of the public, and is rarely if ever referenced in the media. To be sure, the unfunded obligations of the United States government are measured and accounted for in some obscure Department of Treasury publications, but this data should be at the front and center of the Social Security reform discussion, in plain view for every American to access. Another information gap which the Social Security Right to Know Act seeks to close relates to individual Social Security statements, formerly known as Personal and Earnings and Benefits Statements (PEBES). This document was conceived by our friend and venerable colleague, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York. In 1989, Senator Moynihan persuaded Congress to adopt the requirement for the Social Security Administration to provide this document as a way ``to reassure Americans that Social Security will be there for them,'' and to help them adequately plan for retirement by indicating that Social Security doesn't fully replace wages or salaries. Though well intentioned, the current Social Security statement falls short of its desired goal by glaringly omitting certain information critical to understanding the system's serious future funding problems, and the related implications for individual and family retirement planning. To be fair, the statements do make reference to such bland phrases as ``changed in the past,'' ``must do so again'' and ``we are working to resolve.'' But the truth is that by 2037, the program will collect sufficient revenues to pay only $0.72 for every dollar of promised benefits. Overall, Social Security's deficit that year will come to more than $1 trillion in today's dollars. Again, this is important information that should be made abundantly clear in order for the American public to assess Social Security's and their own financial futures. This is why this legislation is so important. For too long, the nature and scope of Social Security's financing problems have been shrouded by inconsistent and incomplete information, which has yielded public confusion and has polarized the Social Security reform debate. The Social Security Right to Know Act would improve the information contained in current Social Security Administration publications, and thereby enable Americans to better plan for their own retirement and to understand the benefits and costs that the current Social Security system will produce. This legislation will do several things to shed more light on what lies ahead for Social Security. First, it will expand the Personal and Earnings and Benefits Statements (PEBES), now called ``Social Security Statements,'' to include information about the projected date of the program's first financing deficits as estimated by the Social Security Trustees, and also the percentage of promised benefits that can be funded under current law. Second, it will require the Trustees' Report to include an estimate of Social Security's aggregate unfunded obligations--i.e., the difference between the program's promised benefit outlays and its cash income over the long-range 75-year evaluation period--and the change in such amount from the previous year's estimates. Third, it calls on the Trustees to submit to Congress a separate summary publication that highlights salient data pertaining to Social Security's financing, identifying the first year that Social Security is projected to run a cash deficit, as well as the size of projected deficits. Fourth, it will expand the PEBES or Social Security Statements and the annual Social Security Trustees' Report to include an explanation of the role of the Social Security Trust Funds as debt owed by the federal government, as opposed to an asset of the federal government. Fifth, it will broaden the public accessibility of the economic modeling employed by the Office of the Chief Actuary. Our bill would introduce no new information that is not already acknowledged somewhere in past publications of the Social Security Trustees or in previous Presidential budget submissions. However, it is our view that the importance of this information is so great that it should be displayed before every wage-earner and beneficiary of the Social Security system, and not buried in documentation that is now available only to policymakers. Americans deserve ``straight talk''--clear and accessible information--about Social Security's long-term financing challenges in order that they might better understand the consequences of a rapidly growing aging population, and the reality of the choices before us. This is just what the Social Security Right to Know Act is designed to provide. And with these objectives in mind, this legislation is long overdue. I presume that we are all in agreement that the federal government should be telling Americans the full truth about Social Security. It is my sincere hope that our colleagues will look at this legislation and join us in building on Senator Gregg's prior efforts and other bipartisan ideas to make sure that Americans have as much information as possible in our national discussion on how best to save and strengthen Social Security. The Social Security Right to Know Act is an effort to continue a process, based on the principle that ``knowledge is power,'' and I truly believe that the information that this legislation is seeking to provide Americans in a clear and concise manner is essential for our moving forward toward sustainable solutions to Social Security's funding problems. Though some of our colleagues may have ideas and input as to how best to provide the American public with a better understanding of Social Security's future--and I am open to working with my colleagues to improve this bill's specific provisions as we continue this process toward Social Security reform--it is my firm belief that with the intent and principles contained in this legislation, we as a nation will be in a better position to cease assessing Social Security's future in terms of preconceived, fixed notions, and take heed of the demographic and economic realities which lie ahead. Mr. President, I again thank Senator Gregg for working with me in this effort, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, in closing, I would like to pay tribute to two of this Chamber's leaders on this issue: The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York and The Honorable Bob Kerrey of Nebraska. Both Senators Moynihan and Kerrey have been truly instrumental in advancing the cause of sustainable Social Security reform, and their presence and valued input on this issue will be sorely missed in the next session of Congress. I applaud both of them for their leadership in seeking to balance the interests and needs of younger and older Americans, and for their courage in working toward saving and strengthening Social Security in a manner that is fiscally responsible, actuarially sound and fair to all generations.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to join my friend and colleague, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, in introducing the Fair Care for the Uninsured Act of 2000, legislation aimed at ensuring that all Americans, regardless of income, have a basic level of resources to purchase health insurance. As we all know, the growing ranks of uninsured Americans--currently 44 million and increasing at a rate of 100,000 per month--remains a major national problem that must be addressed as Congress considers improvements to our healthcare delivery system. The uninsured are three times as likely not to receive needed medical care, at least twice as more likely to need hospitalization for avoidable conditions like pneumonia and diabetes, and four times more likely to rely on an emergency room or have no regular source of care than Americans who are privately insured. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act represents a major step toward helping the uninsured obtain health coverage through the creation of a new tax credit for the purchase of private health insurance, a concept which enjoys bipartisan support. This legislation directly addresses one of the main barriers which now inhibits access to health insurance for millions of Americans: discrimination in the tax code. Most Americans obtain health insurance through their place of work, and for good reason: workers receive their employer's contribution toward health insurance completely free from federal taxation (including payroll taxes). This is effectively a $120 billion per year federal subsidy for employer-provided health insurance. By contrast, individuals who purchase their own health insurance get virtually no tax relief. They must buy insurance with after-tax dollars, forcing many to earn twice as much income before taxes in order to purchase the same insurance. This hidden health tax penalty effectively punishes people who try to buy their insurance outside the workplace. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act would remedy this situation by creating a parallel system for working families who do not have access to health insurance through the workplace. Specifically, this legislation creates a refundable tax credit of $1,000 per adult and up to $3,000 per family (indexed for inflation), for the purchase of private health insurance; would be available to individuals and families who don't have access to coverage through the workplace or a federal government program; enables individuals to use their credit to shop for a basic plan that best suits their needs which would be portable from job to job; and allows individuals to buy more generous coverage with after-tax dollars. And of course the states could supplement the credit. This legislation complements a bipartisan consensus which is emerging around this means for addressing the serious problem of uninsured Americans: Instead of creating new government entitlements to medical services, tax credits provide public financing to help uninsured Americans buy private health insurance. Representative Dick Armey has been a leader in this field for some time now, having introduced last year similar legislation in the House of Representatives. And just recently, Senators Jeffords and Breaux introduced their own version of health insurance tax credit proposal here in the Senate. I applaud their efforts for advancing this important public policy initiative. A tax credit for the purchase of insurance would make it possible for many more people to obtain insurance, thereby helping to lower the total cost of insurance. In reducing the amount of uncompensated care that is offset through cost shifting to private insurance plans, and in substantially increasing the insurance base, a health insurance tax credit will help relieve some of the spiraling costs of our health care delivery system. It would also encourage insurance companies to write policies geared to the size of the credit, thus offering more options and making it possible for low income families to obtain coverage without paying much more than the available credits. It is time that we reduced the tax bias against families who do not have access to coverage through their place of work or existing government programs, and to encourage the creation of an effective market for family-selected and family-owned plans, where Americans have more choice and control over their health care dollars. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act would create tax fairness where currently none exists by requiring that all Americans receive the same tax encouragement to purchase health insurance, regardless of employment. It is my hope that my colleagues will join me in endorsing this approach to provide people who purchase health insurance on their own similar tax treatment as those who have access to insurance through their employer.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to join my friend and colleague, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, in introducing the Fair Care for the Uninsured Act of 2000, legislation aimed at ensuring that all Americans, regardless of income, have a basic level of resources to purchase health insurance. As we all know, the growing ranks of uninsured Americans--currently 44 million and increasing at a rate of 100,000 per month--remains a major national problem that must be addressed as Congress considers improvements to our healthcare delivery system. The uninsured are three times as likely not to receive needed medical care, at least twice as more likely to need hospitalization for avoidable conditions like pneumonia and diabetes, and four times more likely to rely on an emergency room or have no regular source of care than Americans who are privately insured. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act represents a major step toward helping the uninsured obtain health coverage through the creation of a new tax credit for the purchase of private health insurance, a concept which enjoys bipartisan support. This legislation directly addresses one of the main barriers which now inhibits access to health insurance for millions of Americans: discrimination in the tax code. Most Americans obtain health insurance through their place of work, and for good reason: workers receive their employer's contribution toward health insurance completely free from federal taxation (including payroll taxes). This is effectively a $120 billion per year federal subsidy for employer-provided health insurance. By contrast, individuals who purchase their own health insurance get virtually no tax relief. They must buy insurance with after-tax dollars, forcing many to earn twice as much income before taxes in order to purchase the same insurance. This hidden health tax penalty effectively punishes people who try to buy their insurance outside the workplace. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act would remedy this situation by creating a parallel system for working families who do not have access to health insurance through the workplace. Specifically, this legislation creates a refundable tax credit of $1,000 per adult and up to $3,000 per family (indexed for inflation), for the purchase of private health insurance; would be available to individuals and families who don't have access to coverage through the workplace or a federal government program; enables individuals to use their credit to shop for a basic plan that best suits their needs which would be portable from job to job; and allows individuals to buy more generous coverage with after-tax dollars. And of course the states could supplement the credit. This legislation complements a bipartisan consensus which is emerging around this means for addressing the serious problem of uninsured Americans: Instead of creating new government entitlements to medical services, tax credits provide public financing to help uninsured Americans buy private health insurance. Representative Dick Armey has been a leader in this field for some time now, having introduced last year similar legislation in the House of Representatives. And just recently, Senators Jeffords and Breaux introduced their own version of health insurance tax credit proposal here in the Senate. I applaud their efforts for advancing this important public policy initiative. A tax credit for the purchase of insurance would make it possible for many more people to obtain insurance, thereby helping to lower the total cost of insurance. In reducing the amount of uncompensated care that is offset through cost shifting to private insurance plans, and in substantially increasing the insurance base, a health insurance tax credit will help relieve some of the spiraling costs of our health care delivery system. It would also encourage insurance companies to write policies geared to the size of the credit, thus offering more options and making it possible for low income families to obtain coverage without paying much more than the available credits. It is time that we reduced the tax bias against families who do not have access to coverage through their place of work or existing government programs, and to encourage the creation of an effective market for family-selected and family-owned plans, where Americans have more choice and control over their health care dollars. The Fair Care for the Uninsured Act would create tax fairness where currently none exists by requiring that all Americans receive the same tax encouragement to purchase health insurance, regardless of employment. It is my hope that my colleagues will join me in endorsing this approach to provide people who purchase health insurance on their own similar tax treatment as those who have access to insurance through their employer.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, Senator John Edwards and I introduced S. 2293, the Deposit Insurance Fairness and Economic Opportunity Act. Also joining in this effort are Senators Jesse Helms, Frank Murkowski, and Kay Bailey Hutchison. This bill is a continuation of an effort begun last year during consideration of S. 900, the now Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I offered an amendment on the Senate floor regarding the annual obligation that banks and thrifts pay into their respective deposit insurance funds to retire the debt on bonds issued by the Financing Corporation (FICO) in the late 1980s. This annual assessment for banks and thrifts totals nearly $800 million. This money is used to support the federal deposit insurance system consisting of the Bank Insurance Fund [BIF] and the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF). By law, banks and thrifts are required to contribute the equivalent of 1.25 percent of their deposits into the insurance funds for it to be considered capitalized. Presently, and for the last several years, these funds have met--and exceeded--that statutory requirement. For example, the SAIF steadily increased from 1.25 percent in 1996 to 1.45 percent in 1999. Similarly, the BIF rose from 1.34 percent in 1996 to 1.37 percent in 1999. Over time, this situation has evolved where banks and thrifts are required to meet the annual obligation despite an overcapitalization of the insurance funds. In short, this is money that is leaving our communities that could be used for expanded lending in the areas of home buying, small business start-ups, and educational expenses. According to a former Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC] Commissioner, every dollar available for capital can yield $10 in additional community lending. Therefore, it is projected that this bill could generate up to $8 billion in new loans each year. To achieve the goals of requiring the banking community to meet their financial obligation to the funds; maintain the safety and soundness of the deposit insurance funds; and allow needed dollars to remain in our communities, Senator Edwards and I have proposed the following in S. 2293: (1) Raise the designated reserve ratio of the deposit insurance funds from the current 1.25 percent of assets to 1.4 percent of assets. This will provide an enhanced buffer in the deposit insurance funds to ensure their continued safety and soundness; (2) Allow funds in excess of the 1.4 reserve ratio to be used to pay the annual FICO obligation; (3) Allow money to be returned to banks and thrifts on a pro-rata basis when the debt is retired on the FICO bonds in 2017. As mentioned before, the BIF and SAIF are overcapitalized, and continue to grow since the funds are invested in government bonds and generate investment income. The legislation specifies that only when both BIF and SAIF exceed the 1.4 reserve ratio can the excess be used to pay the annual assessment. I believe the approach set out in S. 2293 is one of common sense. Congress required the two deposit insurance funds to be capitalized at a set level. The mandate was accepted and met by the bank and thrift industries, and growth in the fund has led them to exceed the original requirements. This legislation simply affirms that banks and thrifts must continue to meet their statutorily-required financial obligation, and if the deposit insurance funds are healthy and sound, then such excess dollars can be kept in their communities.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize John Castillo as he retires from the Department of Defense after 47 years of service. John Castillo and his wife, Connie, live in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. They have three children: Mike, who lives in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania; Lisa Marie, who lives in Reston, Virginia; and Tony, who lives in Warren, Michigan. Mr. Castillo, originally hired in 1953, was recruited as an Inventory Management Specialist Intern for the United States Air Force in 1959, where his assignments included Inventory Manager and Weapon System Logistics Officer (WSLO), supporting the Atlas ICBM Missile Squadrons assigned to the Strategic Air Command. His subsequent assignments were with the United States Army, where he worked for the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command (USASAC) in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania for 24 years. In 1997, he received a promotion to Division Chief of the Asia, Pacific and Americas Case Management Division. Mr. Castillo has consistently received Sustained Superior Performance awards or promotions throughout his career, and has established a reputation of outstanding service among his superiors and colleagues. Mr. Castillo will be honored at a retirement luncheon on Thursday, March 30, 2000. It is with great pleasure that I congratulate John Castillo for his 47 years of dedicated service to the Department of Defense, and I wish him continued success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to wholeheartedly support a resolution to designate May 25 as ``Day of Honor 2000,'' to recognize African American and other minorities who fought so valiantly during World War II. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage nationwide participation in this Day of Honor Observance. African Americans and other minorities fought and died in World War II to protect the freedom and liberty that we so often take for granted. Too often during the war and in years since, these brave men and women were subjected to unfair discrimination and have never received the recognition they deserve. In 1941, we lived in an era in which African Americans could not eat at a lunch room counter with others, or drink from the same water fountains. Yet, we felt no hesitation in asking these same Americans to fight for democracy. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I see firsthand the sacrifices that our men and women in the armed forces make to preserve America's freedom. How much harder must it have been to make these same sacrifices fifty years ago. We owe them more than we can ever repay, and for this reason I wholeheartedly support a resolution and encourage nationwide participation in recognizing those African Americans who helped to preserve the liberty that has made our country great. Pittsburgh will be joining cities across the nation who will host a ``Day of Honor Observance'' on March 15, 2000, as part of the effort to recognize these citizens to whom we owe so much. I will be participating in this observance and I encourage you to join me in honoring those who put their lives on the line so that we might be free.