Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the outgoing chair of the YMCA of the USA National Board of Public Policy Committee and a fellow Pennsylvanian, Judge Charles C. Brown, Jr. For the past three years, Judge Brown has steered the public policy initiatives of the YMCA of the USA through good and bad times. As a result, the YMCA of the USA now enjoys a strong and credible standing in the public policy arena. Under Judge Brown's leadership, the YMCA has earned the respect of other nonprofit organizations, administration officials, senators, and congressmen alike. Sadly, this month Judge Brown will step down as chair of the YMCA of the USA National Board of Public Policy Committee. During his tenure as chairman, Judge Brown was instrumental in shaping a new direction for the YMCA movement. The quintessential professional and team builder, the Judge--as he is respectfully called by his colleagues--was never satisfied to let the nation's largest youth-serving organization remain on the sidelines of public policy advocacy. Through Judge Brown's vision and guidance, the YMCA of the USA developed legislation which was introduced in Congress to expand youth development programs; held three national conferences to educate policy makers on the role and impact of YMCA programs; took the lead in coordinating a national coalition to support school-age child care provided by nonprofit organizations like the YMCA; helped shape and direct national legislation on juvenile justice; and became a leading national resource on the state of America's children, youth and families. Although one of these achievements would have been impressive in and of itself, the Judge insisted on a comprehensive, integrated advocacy role for the YMCA. For these and many other reasons, Judge Brown's leadership will be sincerely missed by the YMCA of the USA National Board of Directors. Mr. President, I believe it is important to recognize Judge Charles C. Brown's contributions to one of the nation's oldest and most respected organizations, the YMCA. As he prepares to pass the reigns of leadership, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending the Senate's best wishes for continued success to Judge Brown and his family.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I want to bring a rider to the attention of Members. In conference, a rider was added, not debated on this floor or in the House, that extended for 2 months the period of time in which Secretary Shalala and the Department of Health and Human Services--for regulations on organ donation policy to be implemented. The organ donation policy advocated by patient transplant organizations, to have a much more equitable system of organ donation, was put forward on a bipartisan basis support. The Senator from Louisiana put in an amendment to delay the implementation for 2 additional months over the objections of the administration. People will be dying as a result of this. Sick people who need organs are not going to get those organs as a result of this delay. We should not allow this to continue. I'm going to vote against this, and I hope that we will not continue this kind of delay.

Mr. SANTORUM. I was referring to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the House.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer for his recognition. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Coats for his tremendous leadership on what is, really, a new paradigm. Those listening to the debate on the Senate floor and the discussion of the Renewal Alliance agenda--renewal, empowerment, achievement learning for life--may be hearing some things for the first time, as to a different approach. One of the things that I know Senator Coats talked about and, in a sense, schooled many of us in here on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle, I might add, is the importance of understanding the problems of this country, the real intractable problems, the ones that we sort of don't believe that there are any quick fixes to and are not going to be fixed in Washington. In fact, many of us would argue that many were exacerbated by attempts by Washington to fix those problems. As a result of Senator Coats' urgings, the more I have gotten out into the neighborhoods in the last few years--poor neighborhoods, in particular, in Pennsylvania--to see what works and what doesn't: What are people doing at the local level that is making a difference in people's lives, that is taking absolute hopelessness and despair and turning it into productivity and optimism? What I see is that, almost without exception, they are not Government programs and, almost without exception, they don't take Government dollars because, in so doing, it would corrupt what works for them because the Government would have some way of dictating to them how this program must work or what hoops they must jump through. And they have designed a program that meets the needs of the people in that community, designed by people in that community who have, in many, if not most, cases experienced the same kind of hopelessness and despair before they arrived where they are today--in a state of now helping those come out of the problems they have. So what I have learned from my discussions with those very people is that we need to look here in Washington as to how we can help them, help them do the mission--and it is a mission, it is not a job. I don't know of anybody I have met in these communities who is making any money, who is getting a good night's sleep at night, who is profiting in any real financial way from, or any tangible way from, their work, but profiting enormously in the intangibles that are, frankly, the most satisfying. It is a true labor of love for people in these communities, whether they are in the economic development area, or in the community development area, or in dealing with homelessness, or abused women, or doing a charter school, or running a small parochial school. Whatever the case may be, these are people who are convicted, who care deeply-- not about education, not about homelessness, not about drug abuse; they care about that person sitting across the table from them. It is not a macroissue. It is a one-to-one, person-to-person challenge to save someone's life. They do it because they care. They do it because they love that person. That is the magic that no Government program can provide. What Dan Coats, Spencer Abraham, and Sam Brownback--those of us who are members of the alliance having looked into the eyes of those who care, not those who appropriate money here in Washington who say we care, but those who are there across the table shedding the tears, holding the hands, embracing those in real pain, those people who care--how can we help them? How can we help the world ministries, the real healing agents of our society to solve those intractable problems that, believe it or not, they solve, and do so so well? How did we help them do it better? How can we help them turn more lives around and replicate the great accomplishments they have made to so many neighborhoods? There isn't a neighborhood in America where there is not at least one person or one organization--whether it is a school or whether it is a rehab center or whether it is a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen--that isn't touching and changing people. We have come forward with this agenda that is not, as the speaker said before, a Washington-based solution to the problem. But it is, in fact, a way that Washington can, one, get out of the way; two, maybe help with some of the things in a legal sense to get out of the way; three, give financial resources to those organizations that need those resources to either help the community or help the economy; and, next, give resources to the hands of parents and children so they can have the opportunity to hope through an education that gives them the tools to be able to be successful in our society. But I am going to focus my couple of minutes more to talk in the area of education. I cannot tell you the number of employers I talked to just within the southeastern Pennsylvania area the other day, Philadelphia. Employer after employer, factory or industry, they told me how they desperately need skilled people. They desperately need people who are even semiskilled who can be trained. There are such shortages in the workplace today. Then I asked--the unemployment rate in the city of Philadelphia, the center city, or in Chester, or in Levittown, or places like that is very high, and there is available work? They say, ``Yes, there is. We have job fares. We ask people to apply, and they don't.'' I said, ``Why don't they?'' They said, ``Well, by and large, they don't have the education. They can't, in many cases, fill out applications, or they just simply don't have the education necessary to even meet what is a minimal skilled job.'' The jobs are there. But we just do not have people who are educated enough to take advantage of those opportunities. That is, in fact, a shame, and, as a result of a variety of factors, a breakdown in the family, the breakdown in the community, and, yes, the breakdown of the educational structure. There are lots of things we can do to solve the first two problems that have been talked about. I am going to talk about the third, which is the breakdown of the education structure. I am not going to profess to you I have the answer--the silver bullet to make public education work in America's poor neighborhoods. I do not have a silver bullet. I can sit up here and suggest a variety of things that may or may not work to solve that intractable problem in educating poor students in poor schools. I do not have that answer off the top of my head. What I do have is a solution that will give children and families the opportunity to send their child to school where they can get a good education tomorrow. We have to step back and say, ``Well, is that good enough?'' Some may say, ``Senator, you are not solving the big problem tomorrow in public education in the poor neighborhoods of our country.'' I will answer, You are right. I am not. I am not going to solve that problem tomorrow. But what I am going to start to do today is to give that young person who may have a dream, or that mother or father who sees the spark in that young child's eye and believes that spark can lead them to somewhere in life if given the educational tools. I am going to give them the chance to get that child a chance. That is all we can do right now--to give them a scholarship, to send them to a school where they will have the opportunity to see that spark catch fire, to feed them what they need to take on the world. Our program, called Educational Opportunities for Low-Income Families, is to provide scholarships through existing block grants that go to the States right now. We would allow that block grant to be used for scholarships to go to low-income children and 185 percent of poverty and below in the poorest neighborhoods in our country so that it will give low-income kids in poor neighborhoods the opportunity to have a scholarship that pays up to 60 percent of the cost of their tuition and would give them the opportunity to go to school and learn. I think it is a great opportunity for us to help one child at a time. I believe that in the long run helping one child at a time and giving that choice will, in fact, cause dramatic reforms in the whole educational system in those communities. I have been given the high sign here. I will follow my chairman's lead. Again, I thank Senator Coats for his tremendous leadership on this.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer for his recognition. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Coats for his tremendous leadership on what is, really, a new paradigm. Those listening to the debate on the Senate floor and the discussion of the Renewal Alliance agenda--renewal, empowerment, achievement learning for life--may be hearing some things for the first time, as to a different approach. One of the things that I know Senator Coats talked about and, in a sense, schooled many of us in here on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle, I might add, is the importance of understanding the problems of this country, the real intractable problems, the ones that we sort of don't believe that there are any quick fixes to and are not going to be fixed in Washington. In fact, many of us would argue that many were exacerbated by attempts by Washington to fix those problems. As a result of Senator Coats' urgings, the more I have gotten out into the neighborhoods in the last few years--poor neighborhoods, in particular, in Pennsylvania--to see what works and what doesn't: What are people doing at the local level that is making a difference in people's lives, that is taking absolute hopelessness and despair and turning it into productivity and optimism? What I see is that, almost without exception, they are not Government programs and, almost without exception, they don't take Government dollars because, in so doing, it would corrupt what works for them because the Government would have some way of dictating to them how this program must work or what hoops they must jump through. And they have designed a program that meets the needs of the people in that community, designed by people in that community who have, in many, if not most, cases experienced the same kind of hopelessness and despair before they arrived where they are today--in a state of now helping those come out of the problems they have. So what I have learned from my discussions with those very people is that we need to look here in Washington as to how we can help them, help them do the mission--and it is a mission, it is not a job. I don't know of anybody I have met in these communities who is making any money, who is getting a good night's sleep at night, who is profiting in any real financial way from, or any tangible way from, their work, but profiting enormously in the intangibles that are, frankly, the most satisfying. It is a true labor of love for people in these communities, whether they are in the economic development area, or in the community development area, or in dealing with homelessness, or abused women, or doing a charter school, or running a small parochial school. Whatever the case may be, these are people who are convicted, who care deeply-- not about education, not about homelessness, not about drug abuse; they care about that person sitting across the table from them. It is not a macroissue. It is a one-to-one, person-to-person challenge to save someone's life. They do it because they care. They do it because they love that person. That is the magic that no Government program can provide. What Dan Coats, Spencer Abraham, and Sam Brownback--those of us who are members of the alliance having looked into the eyes of those who care, not those who appropriate money here in Washington who say we care, but those who are there across the table shedding the tears, holding the hands, embracing those in real pain, those people who care--how can we help them? How can we help the world ministries, the real healing agents of our society to solve those intractable problems that, believe it or not, they solve, and do so so well? How did we help them do it better? How can we help them turn more lives around and replicate the great accomplishments they have made to so many neighborhoods? There isn't a neighborhood in America where there is not at least one person or one organization--whether it is a school or whether it is a rehab center or whether it is a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen--that isn't touching and changing people. We have come forward with this agenda that is not, as the speaker said before, a Washington-based solution to the problem. But it is, in fact, a way that Washington can, one, get out of the way; two, maybe help with some of the things in a legal sense to get out of the way; three, give financial resources to those organizations that need those resources to either help the community or help the economy; and, next, give resources to the hands of parents and children so they can have the opportunity to hope through an education that gives them the tools to be able to be successful in our society. But I am going to focus my couple of minutes more to talk in the area of education. I cannot tell you the number of employers I talked to just within the southeastern Pennsylvania area the other day, Philadelphia. Employer after employer, factory or industry, they told me how they desperately need skilled people. They desperately need people who are even semiskilled who can be trained. There are such shortages in the workplace today. Then I asked--the unemployment rate in the city of Philadelphia, the center city, or in Chester, or in Levittown, or places like that is very high, and there is available work? They say, ``Yes, there is. We have job fares. We ask people to apply, and they don't.'' I said, ``Why don't they?'' They said, ``Well, by and large, they don't have the education. They can't, in many cases, fill out applications, or they just simply don't have the education necessary to even meet what is a minimal skilled job.'' The jobs are there. But we just do not have people who are educated enough to take advantage of those opportunities. That is, in fact, a shame, and, as a result of a variety of factors, a breakdown in the family, the breakdown in the community, and, yes, the breakdown of the educational structure. There are lots of things we can do to solve the first two problems that have been talked about. I am going to talk about the third, which is the breakdown of the education structure. I am not going to profess to you I have the answer--the silver bullet to make public education work in America's poor neighborhoods. I do not have a silver bullet. I can sit up here and suggest a variety of things that may or may not work to solve that intractable problem in educating poor students in poor schools. I do not have that answer off the top of my head. What I do have is a solution that will give children and families the opportunity to send their child to school where they can get a good education tomorrow. We have to step back and say, ``Well, is that good enough?'' Some may say, ``Senator, you are not solving the big problem tomorrow in public education in the poor neighborhoods of our country.'' I will answer, You are right. I am not. I am not going to solve that problem tomorrow. But what I am going to start to do today is to give that young person who may have a dream, or that mother or father who sees the spark in that young child's eye and believes that spark can lead them to somewhere in life if given the educational tools. I am going to give them the chance to get that child a chance. That is all we can do right now--to give them a scholarship, to send them to a school where they will have the opportunity to see that spark catch fire, to feed them what they need to take on the world. Our program, called Educational Opportunities for Low-Income Families, is to provide scholarships through existing block grants that go to the States right now. We would allow that block grant to be used for scholarships to go to low-income children and 185 percent of poverty and below in the poorest neighborhoods in our country so that it will give low-income kids in poor neighborhoods the opportunity to have a scholarship that pays up to 60 percent of the cost of their tuition and would give them the opportunity to go to school and learn. I think it is a great opportunity for us to help one child at a time. I believe that in the long run helping one child at a time and giving that choice will, in fact, cause dramatic reforms in the whole educational system in those communities. I have been given the high sign here. I will follow my chairman's lead. Again, I thank Senator Coats for his tremendous leadership on this.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mrs. Louise Chase, a very special constituent from Horsham, Pennsylvania. A Navy veteran during WWII, Mrs. Chase continues to serve her country and her community as commander of the American Legion, Pennsylvania Department. Last summer, Mrs. Chase became the first woman to serve as commander of the Pennsylvania Department of the American Legion. She was elected at the conclusion of the 79th convention. Such an honor came as no surprise to those who have followed her involvement in the American Legion. In 1979, Louise was elected as the Department of Pennsylvania's first female vice commander. She has twice served as District Commander. Her Legion service also includes terms as adjutant of Philadelphia County and the Eastern Judicial Section, two terms as post commander, and 12 years as adjutant of Tioga Post 319. Other positions she has held within the organization include state legislative chairman, and chairman of the Select Committee on Economics and Benefits. Moreover, she is one of only two Pennsylvania Legionnaires who served on committees of the two National Conventions held in Pennsylvania. In the business world, Louise proved to be an equally hard-working and dedicated employee. She was the controller and office manager of Philadelphia's prestigious Germantown Cricket Club for 13 years. She managed two high rise apartment buildings. Mrs. Chase was also a manufacturers' representative for paper container companies. Recently, she retired as an international marketing representative of a major computer manufacturer. Mr. President, Louise Chase has continued her family's tradition of service to the nation, which literally spans from the Civil War to the Space Age. I ask the Senate to join me in extending the Senate's best wishes for continued success to Mrs. Chase and her family.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, on April 26, the Bethel Church of God in Christ will celebrate ``A New Work.'' Not only will this two year old ministry install a new pastor, Elder George Shepherd Christopher, but also, the congregation will dedicate its new church in Pittsburgh. The theme for the installation service comes from Psalm 118:23, ``This is the Lord's doing, it is marvelous in our eyes.'' The Bethel Church of God in Christ is a community based, Bible believing, Christ centered, Spirit directed fellowship. For the past two years, this church has selflessly dedicated itself to community service. The congregation believes it is necessary to minister to the whole person for the glory of God. Having pledged to provide ``Ministry to the heart of East Liberty and beyond,'' the church looks forward to the challenges and promises of the future. Mr. President, the parishioners and clergy have worked and prayed tirelessly for both the new building and their new pastor. In closing, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending the Senate's best wishes to the Bethel Church of God in Christ. With God's help, this church will be a light for lost souls in East Liberty and throughout Pittsburgh.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) hosted the annual Holocaust Memorial Ceremony starting on April 19 in remembrance of the six million Jews who died in the Holocaust. The theme for this year's ceremony is ``A People Survives: From the Gates of Hell to the Gates of Jerusalem.'' This memorial service draws over 3,000 people every year to honor the stoicism and faith of all people who were unjustly massacred by the Nazis. The Holocaust Memorial Ceremony is one of the most profound events in the Jewish Community. The JCRC was established in 1938 and works to promote issues of Jewish communal concern and is driven by Jewish values of humanitarianism, respect for others, and the sanctity of human life. To this day the JCRC has worked to create a society in which there is equal opportunity for all, freedom of thought, opinion, religion and constructive, amicable relationships between people of all races and creeds. They pledge to do all this while maintaining the integrity and character of the Jewish faith. In 1980 Congress established the United States Holocaust Memorial Council and mandated it to lead the nation in civic commemorations of the victims of the Holocaust (called Days of Remembrance), to sponsor the national annual civic commemoration and to encourage appropriate Remembrance observances throughout the country. This year Yom Hashoah was April 23. The Days of Remembrance of the victims of the Holocaust are being observed from Sunday, April 19 through Sunday, April 26. Before there was a United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Days of Remembrance was established and carried out, not only in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol, but all across the nation. This annual, national commemoration program is the United States Holocaust Memorial Council's longest-running program and is essential to the Council's Congressional mandate. We have now reached the time at which many of the Holocaust survivors are passing on. It is imperative that all of humanity maintain respect for and never forget the tremendous suffering of the Jewish community. It is true that this event is a wholly Jewish experience, and yet, the entire world still reels from its impact. It is the responsibility of the people of the United States and the world to ensure that the memory of the Holocaust lives on. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to give their blessings to the Holocaust Memorial Ceremony and to praise the efforts of the JCRC in maintaining awareness of the Holocaust.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Knights of Columbus recently honored Mr. Walter Hauk, Jr. for his contributions as the State Advocate over the past two years. I rise today to recognize Mr. Hauk and to discuss some of his outstanding contributions to his community. A resident of Plymouth Township, Pennsylvania, Walter has taken a very active role in local affairs. Over the past 25 years, Walter has been a cornerstone of the Knights of Columbus. In fact, he has held all of the top offices in the organization. In addition, he has served as member of the Conshohocken Zoning Board, assisted in the Conshohocken Soap Box Derby, and served as a Scout Master. Furthermore, I would note that he earned a degree in accounting by attending evening classes at St. Joseph's University. By all accounts, Walter is a dedicated husband and father. He and his wife, Carol, were blessed with four children--two sons and two daughters. They are also proud grandparents. Mr. President, Walter has dedicated his life to his family and his community. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending the Senate's best wishes for continued success to Mr. Hauk and his family.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I felt compelled, while I was in the chair in the last hour, to comment on the statements of the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Ohio. I found it quite remarkable, sitting and listening to what was laid out, I think, somewhat factually about the problems we have in education, that the educational system is not meeting the needs of our country in providing good citizens, the education necessary to be good citizens, and the education necessary to perform needed functions in our economy. The response to the problem in education from the Senator who spoke, and from others who oppose this bill, is two things. I hear two things. One, we need more bricks and mortar. If we had better looking schools and more nicely appointed schools, or even better equipment, somehow the problem would go away. On top of that, we need more teachers. So if we just did more of the same, only did it better, with nicer buildings and more people, things would improve. I am not too sure that most Americans who are interfacing with the school systems in this country right now would accept that as the reasonable course, that what we need is just a few more teachers in the schools and better looking buildings. I have been to a lot of schools. I have been to about 120 public school districts in my State. I go to schools all the time. I spend a great deal of my time as I travel the State talking in the public schools. I have been to a few private schools, too. By and large, I would say that the public schools I went to were in much better condition than the parochial schools and private schools I went to. No comparison. Much better equipment, much more state-of-the-art, much better teacher ratios than the parochial schools I went to. So if the problem in the public schools was better buildings and more teachers, then the results that I would get in going to a public school in inner-city Pittsburgh, and one that is a parochial school, should be dramatically different based on this criterion that more teachers and nicer buildings make good school districts and educate children. In fact, the results are just the opposite. It is not bricks and mortar. It is not numbers of teachers. It is structure, it is discipline, it is order, and it is caring and concern, it is love, it is involvement--all of those intangible things that have to do with families and people who are committed to educating children. So what those of us on our side believe is the answer is not to pump more money into bricks and mortar and existing structures, but to pump more money into the people who make a real difference in children's lives, and that is families--families, who can help their children by assisting them with some resources, help them in their public or private or parochial education. That is just a fundamental difference as to what we believe works in education. I don't think that continuing to throw money at the system would work. This is truly remarkable. You would think this bill took money from the public schools. For the record, there is nothing in this bill that takes one dollar out of the Federal commitment to education. In fact, there is more money in this bill, but you would not know that. I have been here for the last hour and 15 minutes, and you would not know that by listening to the other side. You would think that this were stripping money out of Federal support for education in the public schools. That is not true. Not one penny. In fact, more money for school construction is in this bill. So there is not one dollar being taken away, not one dollar being diverted away. This is in fact ``new Federal support'' for education. Where is it going? It is going to families. This is sort of funny. I almost feel bad saying, ``Where is it going?'' ``To families.'' We are letting it stay there; we are just going to be benevolent enough to let them keep it if they do with it what we want them to do, which is to help support their children in education. It is saying that if you do what we want you to do with that money, we will let you keep it. It is very nice of us to do this, isn't it? It is sort of nice to come around and say we will let you keep the money if you do what we tell you. What the other side wants to do is say, ``No, we are not going to even let you have the choice to take that money. Excuse me, we are going to give it over here to build more schools and give it to more teachers.'' They say that is the problem, that we don't have nice schools and we don't have enough teachers. Again, I don't think too many people really believe that. What we want to do is get at the heart of the problem, which is to give parents the opportunity to educate their children, not to give schools more money. There is another remarkable thing here. When I say not to give schools more money, what we are talking about here with these A+ accounts is $100 million a year. You would think we were talking about huge amounts of money vis-a-vis what we spend on public education. We spend roughly one-quarter of a trillion dollars on public education per year. The Senator from Georgia told me that. This bill is $100 million per year. This is hardly a division plowing into the main line of the educational establishment; this is a sniper, at best, saying, ``Look, we are here.'' This is a very moderate, very modest proposal, to say: Let's allow families to have some choices here. We do a great job. This is another astounding thing. The amendment of the Senator from Ohio says that we should not allow this money to be used for K-12, let it be used for postsecondary education. I travel around the State of Pennsylvania a lot and around the country a little bit. I hear a lot of people complaining to me about the quality of K-12 education and the problems in primary and secondary education. I hear a lot of complaints about higher education, but it is not about quality. It is not about quality. It is somewhat about access and about costs, yes. But I think we are the envy of the world when it comes to colleges and universities and technical schools after primary and secondary school. Yet, what do we want to do? We want to put more money where there isn't a problem as far as quality and producing good products, and not put it into the area where people think the biggest problem exists. Now, I am telling you, if I were running a company and I had two divisions, one that was doing well producing good product and the other that was not, and someone came forth and said they thought we could change the system by which we produce this product, look at a different approach, because we have been trying this old approach now for decades and it just isn't keeping up with the requirements of the new age that is out there, as far as the need for education, this product isn't keeping up with standards and we need to look at how to change it, some folks might come forward and say, ``See these old machines here. We need to put more bells and whistles on to make them look nicer. We don't need to change the structure or how it works, it just needs to be run better and we need more people running it.'' That is what their answer is. Some of us are saying, as well, that maybe we should try other machines or look to change this machine so it doesn't function a little differently than it has done in the past. We want to put some money in to do that. This board of directors is saying, ``Oh, no, no. Leave this system just the way it is. Clean it up a little bit, put a few more operators on the machine, and put the money over here where we have the good product. Don't fix the old product.'' I don't think that makes sense to most Americans. It certainly does not make sense to me. So what we are trying to do here in a very modest way is to say the future of education is going to be just like the future in everything we do, as we become more and more decentralized as an economy and as a country, with people demanding and expecting more choices and more freedom and needing it to be flexible enough to deal with the changing economy and the changing world. Instead of setting up institutions and structures that may or may not--in most cases, they will not--meet the changing needs of our economy and our educational needs, to invest that money into the flexible family, if you will, into the family that in my community in Penn Hills, PA, maybe have very different needs as to what their child needs to be educated for, given the capability of the child, given what the economy is in the area, given what skills are necessary in the region, whatever it is, than someone in Birmingham, AL, who may have a very different set of skills needed, a very different community, very different needs, but allow that family to make that decision, give them the resources if they want to send the child to the public school and use that money to buy some software, or to buy a computer, or to buy other kinds of teaching aids, or to buy tutorial services, whatever it is, give them the flexibility to meet the needs of their child instead of putting more bricks in a school. It is just common sense. It makes sense. It is so obvious on its face that, if we are going to do anything to allow the family and the individual student to have the flexibility to deal with this changing environment in education and our economy, it is the only direction we can take rather than put money into the old machine to just make it look nice and put more operators pulling the gadgets. I mean, it is just inconceivable that anybody thinks that is the answer to this dynamic educational marketplace that we have. We have a great opportunity here to show that we get it--that we in our hallowed Halls can walk outside and go into a community school to see what makes the difference in education is not nice buildings or small classrooms. Those are nice things. But it is committed families, committed teachers, and it is community involvement--someone going to a school where they can take part of something that is good for them, they can contribute to their well-being. That can only be done through families and giving them the resources to maximize their own children's future. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to pay my respects to several young people who recently lost their lives in a cabin fire. Two weeks ago, 11 friends from Northumberland and Lancaster Counties planned a weekend retreat at the Wehry family cabin. The site of many memorable family gatherings, the newly remodeled cabin seemed to be the perfect setting to eat, play cards, and enjoy rural Centre County's outdoor recreation. On Sunday morning, March 22, the friends' fun- filled weekend came to a devastating end. The ``mansion in the mountains'' caught fire at 5:20 a.m. All of the 11 friends died in their sleep from smoke inhalation. Each of these young people was special in his or her own right. A quiet girl, Toni Wehry wanted to be a teacher. Amanda Wehry was bright, outgoing, and popular. Tyrone Wehry, who was working for the House Republican caucus in Harrisburg, planned to pursue a career in politics. Warwick High School's former basketball star, Erik Gray was learning to be an electrician. Nicholas Berkey was lovingly described as a dependable young man who was saving money to buy a house. The versatile James Giliberti enjoyed martial arts, music, and finance; he had planned to invest in an IRA this year. Kip Snyder is remembered as a prankster who pitched for the Line Mountain High School baseball team. Chad Hain, who enjoyed hands-on technical work, had a promising career in carpentry. Quiet and sensitive, Jason Herrold was studying business administration at Susquehanna University. The Wiest brothers, Toby and David, owned a paint ball supply store. By all accounts, the vivacious Toby and the pensive David were best friends. Friends and neighbors have rallied to console the victims' families. Well wishers tied blue and gold ribbons--Line Mountain High School's colors--to telephone poles, lampposts, and front doors. These poignant memorials hang beside Easter decorations. Students at Line Mountain High signed banners in the auditorium to bid their friends farewell. Signs expressing words of comfort and encouragement hang in the windows of local businesses. One reads, ``Now they're in God's cabin.'' Mr. President, words cannot describe a parent's grief upon the death of a child. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending the Senate's condolences to the victims' families. Our prayers and heartfelt sympathies go out to them.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I would just suggest that if you went to a movie theater you would not see a Government-regulated movie because no one would go to it because it would be of such poor quality. It would be so burdened down by bureaucracy and red tape, because it simply could not produce the quality that the free market produces. There have been dramatic changes in health care. This continues every day. I met the other day with the chairman of the national board that certifies health care plans. She told me they are constantly updating quality standards, constantly updating to see whether patients are getting the kind of care and access through these plans that are certified. It is important to let this dynamic system of health care operate in the system of the free market which has brought us so far. Do not burden it down with all sorts of bells and whistles and bureaucracies and red tape that will just stifle innovation, stifle quality, stifle progress in medicine, result in more uninsured, result in less comprehensive care. This is about patients. Look, I am not a great fan of managed health care. But I am a fan of the marketplace working and getting the response. I would suspect that the Senator from Illinois knows that there are managers of health care companies who probably saw that movie. In fact, they didn't have to see that movie. For years, they have been coming to my office--and I know offices around this Capitol--and they have been going out in America getting the message. The Senator is right. A lot of people are upset about managed care. I am not a big fan of it, but I understand that, in time, the marketplace, the employers, and the employees will work much more effectively through that place in changing the system to produce quality where people will go somewhere else. Employers will go somewhere else. In fact, they are already. It is working out there. It takes time. What we don't need to freeze in place is some Government standard implemented by a bunch of bureaucrats who take 4 years to implement regulations to control something that is already out of date. Let the dynamism work. Don't put the hand of the Federal Government over the system that has improved the quality of health care so dramatically for so many millions of people. Allow that system to continue to improve. Allow that system to continue to grow to serve more people more compassionately. Yes; there are problems. But don't add the ultimate problem--Government suffocation to a dynamic system where ``change'' is the operative word of the day. Senator Kennedy suggests that his bill is supported by the President's commission. His hand-picked commission does not support the legislation that the Senator has proposed. He would give you that impression. They recommended no legislation. They recommended the marketplace. It is in the process of working. It is working. In many areas it is working, and will continue to work. Managed care is still a relatively new thing. Again, I repeat. I am not a big fan of managed care. But it is new. It is improving. Like any new product, it takes time to work out the bugs and to get to the point where they are doing the kind of customer satisfaction and quality that we need. But the last thing we need is to put the Government in charge of health care plans, the Government in charge of regulating what is quality and what is not. Oh, my goodness. Compare any private sector organization on quality. Compare what goes on at HCFA, at the IRS, or a whole variety of other agencies. Are we now, in Government, the arbiters of quality? Think about that. Do you really want the Government of the United States through their regulation process to dictate to you what quality is? I don't think so.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, may I have some time under the bill?

Mr. SANTORUM. Fifteen minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of Chairman Roth's amendment. There is nobody in this Chamber who has done more to look out for the retirement security of Americans than Senator Roth from Delaware. It is with his Roth IRA and other kinds of innovation in his work on the Finance Committee that he has helped to provide for retirement security for millions of Americans, which is legendary. I commend him for that and for firing, if you will, here on the floor of the Senate, the first salvo in what I believe will be a long debate, and I hope will not be a hostile debate, on the issue of transitioning Social Security. What we have seen is now a bipartisan agreement that personal savings accounts must have a very significant role in transitioning Social Security. Why is that? Social Security is in trouble. It is not in trouble next year or the year after, but Social Security, which was ``saved'' back in 1983 with the most recent revision--it was supposed to save it for generations to come, but it is now scheduled to go bankrupt some 30 years sooner than originally expected. That number is not set in stone either. It is now 2029 when the system goes bankrupt. In the year 2013, the system starts running a deficit, paying out more than it takes in. Now is the time, before that bulk of the population, the baby boom generation, goes into retirement, to begin to look at how we can begin to solve this problem. Well, there are things you can do within the current structure, like changing benefits--when I say ``changing,'' I don't mean raising them, I mean cutting benefits-- increasing taxes, and do a whole lot of things to try to preserve a pay-as-you-go system that will not work over time because of very simple demographics, the most important of which is that people are living much longer, which is a good thing, and also we have very low birth rates in this country. You have people living longer and fewer people to pay for them. So you are looking at dramatic increases in taxes or cuts in benefits, and that is a mindset of a finite, fixed pie. What Senator Roth is suggesting here is, let's grow the pie. So when he says let's grow the pie, let's invest this money, not, as Senator Domenici said, in Treasury bonds that earn a very small rate of return--in fact, if you are entering the work force now, the rate of return on Social Security taxes you are going to pay is below zero. That is not a good deal for young people in this country. But what we have to do is transition the system using the ideas of growth in producing more retirement income for people who are just entering the work force, or who have been in the work force a relatively short period of time, but at the same time, make sure that we do not change what has been promised to those at or near retirement. That is our challenge. But with challenge comes tremendous opportunity; in crisis comes a tremendous will to be innovative in using the private market systems that work so well in this country to provide wealth. As the Senator from Delaware said, our modest amount of money being paid on Social Security was never intended to be the sole source of retirement. As a result, it is a very modest amount. People living on Social Security today will tell you that if that is their only income and they have no other pension income or savings income, they are hard pressed to make a living. This is not an adequate savings system. What we need to do is enhance that, create an opportunity for more growth in people's wealth and, at the same time, protect those who are in the system or have been in the system such a long period of time, so that they will keep at least what we have promised in the past. We can do that, but we must use the power of the marketplace, the power of investment and savings. In so doing, we will not only open up the opportunity for wealth and a better retirement income for generations to come, but open up huge economic benefits for this country with the amount of money that is going to be poured into the capital markets and the debt markets, to be able to finance future economic expansion and growth, better jobs, and higher standards of living and real wage growth. I heard earlier today from Jose Pinero, who was the Secretary of Labor during the time Chile went to a private personal saving system there, some 17 years ago. He said that 30 years prior to Chile going to that system, they had a real wage growth of 1 percent a year, on average. Since they passed the personal savings accounts in Chile, they have had a real wage growth of 7 percent a year, for almost 15 years, in that country. What they have done is dramatically increase--over double; two and a half times--their savings rate. People now understood. Senator Roth said a very important thing, that only 40 percent of the people in this country have some investment in the marketplace and understand the dynamics of how the market works, how our economy works. That is a disability, if you will, for millions of Americans who don't have that advantage. The average, ordinary Chilean has that knowledge now and understands the marketplace and uses that knowledge to their own benefit--and not only their own benefit in their personal savings account, but in their life and in their savings and other skills of interacting in the economic marketplace. It creates such synergy that it will have a dramatically positive impact on the future of this country. This is the opportunity that is before us, and what I am so excited about is what I see is a real chance for a bipartisan solution to this problem. With Senator Moynihan's proposal of putting 2 percent aside in private savings, I think that is a very healthy initiative. We want to build, in my opinion, from that as to how we can transform this system to provide the security for those at or near retirement, put it in the law, which is not the case today, so that those benefits will be there as long as they are alive, that we will not change the benefit structure as long as they are alive--there is no law that says that right now--guarantee it. Then we can create opportunities for those, frankly, who have very little expectation that Social Security will be there. I talk to a lot of young people. I have been to over 110 high schools in my State since I have been in office. I can tell you, when I ask the question, ``How many believe Social Security will be there when you retire?'' if anybody raises their hand, the other kids in the crowd look at them and laugh at them. They have no expectation that Social Security will be there. They think it is, in fact, a pyramid scheme, a ponzi scheme, some sort of thing that the folks who are in power right now are just going to make them pay and then slash the heck out of Social Security when it comes their time. Well, what we are going to do here is create hope. One of the things I hear so much about is how young people are cynical in this country and they don't believe in our institutions and our culture, and what we are doing here is, in fact, giving them something they can hold, they can have a passbook with their money in it so they can track it every day and see how it grows, and they can say, ``This is my money,'' from the first day they worked flipping that first hamburger at a fast food restaurant. That money goes into their account and is building for their retirement security. They can see that happening with them at work. They can see hope. They can see the potential for wealth and for a good life. They will understand the dynamics that are so important for all of us to understand that have to survive economically in this country and in the world that is out in front. This is truly not something we should be looking at and saying, how are we going to fix Social Security? Such a problem, such a crisis. What are we going to do and have money? But to walk hand in hand and jump at the opportunity to create a whole new way of looking at providing opportunities for millions of Americans upon their retirement and energizing and uplifting an economy through that process, this is a great opportunity for all of us. What the chairman of the Finance Committee has done today is to lay down the first mark on the budget where it should be laid down, because what we will be doing by allowing private investment is dramatically lower--not everyone talks about how we are going to use the surplus in transition. That is a big concern we have to worry about--how we transition these costs. That is the big nut we have to crunch. But at the end, what will happen is that budget deficits and the huge unemployment liability in $7 trillion or $8 trillion of unfunded liability in the Social Security trust fund today will in effect over time vanish because of the dynamics of allowing private savings to occur. This is in fact a multifaceted solution to many problems that are out there, one of which is the long-term problems of the budget deficit in the outyears when the baby boomers are beginning to take retirement-- not only Social Security but Medicare as well--when the budget deficit comes back again. You hear so much about surplus. It comes back again. That is the era, that is the time that we can, by acting now, keep surpluses coming long into the future and grow the economy, create stability, create hope for those who now do not have it. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer tribute to the late Ms. Colleen Cleary-Myers and to offer condolences to her family on their loss. Mrs. Cleary-Myers was a beloved wife, daughter and mother. I describe her this way not only because it is true, but because, in a very literal way, it was these ties to these people that helped to define her life. It is these ties which are her legacy. Mrs. Cleary-Myers, only 30 years old, died of complications associated with a rare form of leukemia called chronic myleogensis. When she learned she was suffering from this illness, she was joyfully pregnant with her first child. Her husband, Michael, shared in this joy and grateful anticipation. In this way, she resembled most other young mothers. But unlike them, she was faced with a cruel choice: she could be treated immediately and risk the life of her baby or she could delay chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant, be treated after the child's birth and be unable to have more children. When faced with this dilemma, she did a noble thing. She chose to postpone treatment and looked forward to the birth of her son, Derek Vincent. Upon learning the news, Mrs. Cleary-Myers' family resolved to support her in any way that they could. Two of her sisters were compatible matches for the required bone marrow transplant and both were eager to assist her. Tragically, Mrs. Cleary-Myers died on March 15th. While I join her family in mourning her untimely death, I also am uplifted by the example and the standard she sets for all of us. Her example is the example of unselfish love and the standard she sets of willing and uncomplaining sacrifice for the sake of another life is one to which we can all aspire. Because this young woman knew, in an intimate way, a simple truth: Every life is infinitely precious and valuable. Too often, when confronted with an example of courage and sacrifice, we tell ourselves that others are capable of , and perhaps called to, such behavior, but we, most surely, are not. I believe this conclusion is a mistake. The example of Mrs. Cleary-Myers, a young woman living happily and without notoriety, reminds us that we are all capable of such gallantry and, in different ways, are called to it. Her son, Derek Vincent, provides us with eloquent testimony that such gallantry can sometimes mean nothing less than the protection of life itself. May God bless her, her husband and little Derek Vincent.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a constituent who has distinguished himself at home and abroad. This week, Edward J. Piszek will be honored in Philadelphia for receiving one of the Republic of Poland's highest civilian honors. On March 16, 1998, President Aleksander Kwasniewski bestowed the ``Polonia Restituta,'' or the ``Commander's Cross with a White Star'' upon Mr. Piszek. This medal is presented for extraordinary service to the nation of Poland. Recipients of the Polonia Restituta are celebrated for their achievements in government and public activities, for contributions to promote Poland's independence, or for advancing Polish culture in the areas of education, literature and the arts. The son of Polish immigrants, Ed exemplified his parents' strong work ethic. It was a lesson well learned. In 1946, with $350 and the help of a close friend, Ed founded Mrs. Paul's Kitchens, Inc. Under his direction, the company became one of America's largest producers of prepared frozen seafood and vegetables. Ed began his philanthropic work in Poland during the 1960s. After witnessing the tremendous suffering caused by the high incidence of tuberculosis, he donated an ambulance to the hospital in Tarnow in memory of his parents. Later, he would provide 11 mobile x-ray units and 42 support vehicles to transport technicians. Mr. Piszek's commitment to the Polish people did not end with those initial acts of kindness. When the country suffered from food shortages in the early 1980s, he donated 10 million pounds of fishcakes. After the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl, Ed participated in an airlift of powdered milk and food to those who were affected in Poland. Mr. Piszek has also worked to help the Polish people elevate their culture. He and author James A. Michener established a Young Polish Writer's workshop. Similarly, Ed supported the ``United States Peace Corps Partners in Teaching English'' which has already trained 25,000 new English teachers in Poland. On the home front, Ed has worked to elevate the image of Polish Americans. He purchased the home of General Thaddeus Kosciuszko--a Polish engineer who came to fight in the American Revolution and then later designed West Point--and donated the property to the National Park Service. In 1972, he founded the Copernicus Society of America. This private non-profit foundation strives to promote and encourage artistic, scientific, and historical activities throughout the world. In countless many ways, Ed Piszek has helped build a cultural bridge between the U.S. and Poland. For instance, he hosted a visit from Lech Walesa at the Copernicus Society's headquarters in Fort Washington, PA. He was instrumental in making arrangements for ABC News to go ``behind the walls'' of the Vatican and film John Paul II in his work day and private moments. The end result was The Pope and His Vatican, an ABC News Special which aired Easter Night, 1983. Another of Ed's noteworthy achievements was coordinating with the Copernicus Society and Penn State University to hold Agricultural Economic Development Summits in the Pzeszow Province of Poland. These one-week seminars allow agricultural experts from Poland and Penn State to share their knowledge and their expertise with neighboring countries. Finally, Mr. Piszek is working to promote the national pastime in Poland. A board member of the Little League Baseball Foundation in Williamsport, PA, Ed is deeply involved in developing the Little League Baseball European Training Center in Kutno, Poland. He hopes that baseball will teach children of all nations the concepts of teamwork, leadership, and character. All things considered, Edward Piszek was an obvious choice to accompany President Clinton to Warsaw in support of NATO membership for Poland. Mr. President, one man can truly make a difference. Mr. Piszek's work has touched thousands of lives. As he is honored at the Kosciuszko House on April 2, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending the Senate's best wishes for continued success to Edward J. Piszek and his family.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Right.

Mr. SANTORUM. I understand that. All I am saying is that money is going to be spent next year. That money is going to be spent next year. And in the appropriations bill that deals with these different accounts, we are saying we want to keep it under that cap, and that means to find money other places in the legislation, absolutely. That means that we are going to have to reduce other accounts to make sure we stay within those caps. This is about, in our opinion--I know the Senator from Texas agrees-- controlling the growth, controlling Government spending. What we are doing is saying, there is in fact a budget that says there is so much to spend, and whether we declare an emergency or not we are going to stay within that. If we declare an emergency, we can spend the money for that particular purpose --fine--but it is still going to stay in the aggregate cap for our total spending. That is the point we are trying to make.

Mr. SANTORUM. What we are suggesting is that money should count within the budget, that it should count within the amount for that appropriation.

Mr. SANTORUM. That is correct.

Mr. SANTORUM. Yes.