[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 24, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9093-S9095]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              THE CARE ACT

  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise to talk about an issue of grave 
importance. The Presiding Officer is from New York, and she knows of 
the great tragedy that has befallen her State as a result of 9/11, and 
the tremendous generosity that has been pouring out to the victims of 
terrorism in New York, northern Virginia, as well as Pennsylvania.
  What I am sure Members know also is that, as a result of that 
tremendous outpouring of giving, in a lot of other

[[Page S9094]]

areas of the country charitable giving is actually off between 20 and 
25 percent. Overall, charitable giving is up, but it has been 
channeled--legitimately so--toward the victims of terror.
  As a result of that, and for other reasons, too, Senator Lieberman 
and I have been working diligently with the President and our 
colleagues in the House to try to get a bill through the Congress this 
year because of its timeliness. It is a 2-year bill to try to get 
emergency help to faith-based organizations--but, frankly, if you read 
the legislation, to all nonprofit organizations that are out there 
trying to improve our society. This is a bill targeted at charitable 
organizations in an attempt to get more resources to them at a time 
when we have economic distress, wartime distress, as the war on terror 
goes on, and the distress coming from the terrorist attacks in the 
United States.
  We are trying to respond in a compassionate way with resources to the 
very organizations that really do meet the human services needs. We are 
working in the Senate on a strong, bipartisan basis to try to find a 
consensus.
  Now, this issue of the President's faith-based initiative has 
attracted a lot of controversy. Basically, it is centered around the 
issue of employment discrimination for those who would receive Federal 
dollars, whether they would be allowed to--because they are religious 
organizations--discriminate in employment.
  Senator Lieberman and I have attempted to build a bipartisan 
consensus to try to move a bill through the Senate and have chosen to 
set that issue aside, basically. Probably Senator Lieberman and I have 
different views, and there are different views probably on both sides 
of the aisle. We thought this issue was so important, getting these 
resources at a time of economic need, at a time of war, to the 
nonprofit organizations was so important that, even though I believe 
this hiring discrimination language for nonprofit organizations is 
important, I was willing to set it aside. The President has agreed to 
set this aside in order to get bipartisan consensus to really work in 
the sort of bare bones, or the nuts and bolts, of what the President's 
initiative was about--getting help to charitable organizations, or to 
the ``armies of compassion,'' as he terms it.
  Senator Lieberman and I came up with the CARE Act, and I thank 
Senators Baucus and Grassley. It has moved through the Finance 
Committee and has broad bipartisan support. It has the Presiding 
Officer's support and also the majority leader's support. He has 
announced his support for the legislation. It is, I believe, from most 
people's perspective, a noncontroversial bill.
  There are some who I understand have some concerns about the 
legislation. We have some on our side, and I understand there are some 
on the Democratic side of the aisle with specific provisions of the 
bill. Over the past several months, Senator Lieberman and I have been 
working with our leadership and the Democratic leadership trying to 
clear this legislation so we can get the bill considered on the floor, 
with some sort of time agreement, because we are close to wrapping up 
the session, and with some limitation on amendments.
  I would be perfectly willing to allow for two, three, four, five, or 
whatever amendments are necessary to meet objections on both sides of 
the aisle. Frankly, I don't see many objections, per se, to the bill, 
although I understand there are some. I also know there are people--
because this is a tax bill--who would like to see a variety of tax 
issues considered on this bill. I am willing, if that is how we will 
reach a consensus, and I think Senator Lieberman will be willing to 
debate those.
  We have been informed by the majority leader that he does not want 
that debate. He would like to limit this to one amendment on each side 
with a relatively tight time agreement. That was a little bit of a 
heavy lift from our side of the aisle, but I proceeded, with the help 
of the rest of our leadership team, to work through our side of the 
aisle to get some amendments in the managers' package, and from that 
side of the aisle also. Yet we came down here with, yes, we can whittle 
it down.
  In fact, last week we cleared a unanimous consent request for one 
amendment on our side--the one by Senator Gramm from Texas, who has an 
amendment to a provision that isn't in the CARE Act, but it is in the 
package on the floor. Senator Gramm would like to have an amendment. We 
submitted that to the Finance Committee 2 weeks ago and to the 
Democratic leader 2 weeks ago. They have been able to review that 
amendment. We have been working on a managers' amendment, and last week 
we were able to get a consensus. I thank Senators Grassley and Baucus 
and their staffs for working diligently in trying to run through and 
get the consensus managers' amendment, which has been shared with my 
Republican colleagues.
  It is a rather voluminous amendment, I might add. It is 200-some 
pages. That amendment was shared--and I thank the Finance Committee 
staff--with the Republican leader and with the minority Finance 
Committee members. We have that amendment. It is my understanding that 
amendment has been cleared on both sides.
  We are at a point now where we have an amendment that has been 
available for 2 weeks on our side of the aisle. We have been able to 
hold off all other amendments, and I guarantee I have a long list of 
Senators who would like to offer amendments to this bill. But in the 
spirit of trying to pass what I believe is very important legislation--
and I think most Members would agree getting help to charitable 
organizations during a time of economic stress and war is a good thing 
to do. It is a short period. It is not a long and permanent change to 
the Tax Code. It is a short period of infusion of resources into the 
charitable community. We now are at a place where we can try to move 
forward.
  I know the Senator from Nevada, who is in the Chamber, the Senator 
from Connecticut and the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, have 
been trying to work on the Democratic side of the aisle to clear this 
amendment and this bill and try to get unanimous consent.
  I will propound a unanimous consent request, and I am curious to hear 
the comments from the majority whip as to where we are in the state of 
play on the Democratic side of the aisle at this point. The reason I do 
so, I want to announce beforehand, is that last week when I came to the 
floor, having worked this now for several weeks, I said it is important 
we try to bring this issue to a head, and if we could not get a 
unanimous consent agreement offered by the leader that I would do so to 
attempt to provide to the Senate a better understanding of where this 
process stands and the likelihood for success in getting this done 
between now and the end of the session.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by 
the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the 
Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 496, H.R. 7, which 
is the House-passed President's faith-based initiative, and that it be 
considered under the following limitation: That there be 1 hour for 
general debate on the bill equally divided between the two managers; 
that the only amendment in order, other than a managers' substitute, be 
the following: One first-degree amendment offered by Senator Reed of 
Rhode Island regarding charitable choice; and one first-degree 
amendment to be offered by Senator Gramm of Texas regarding land/water 
sales or exchanges; that the amendments be limited to 60 minutes each 
to be divided between the proponents and opponents.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of 
the above amendments and expiration of debate, the bill be read for a 
third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, 
with no further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I think 
there is agreement by the vast majority of Senators on both sides of 
the aisle that this faith-based bill is important; that it is an 
important initiative we need to address. Fortunately, Senator 
Lieberman, who has worked hand in hand with the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, is in the Chamber. I do not know

[[Page S9095]]

of anyone better qualified to work on this issue than the Senator from 
Connecticut, who has devoted much of his life to issues such as this 
and sets an example on faith-based issues generally. We should listen 
to him, and certainly we will.

  Senators Lieberman and Santorum have crafted a bill that avoids many 
of the pitfalls some believe are contained in the House bill. As the 
Senator from Pennsylvania knows, we have also diligently worked to 
secure a unanimous consent agreement that would allow for consideration 
of this important legislation.
  It is frustrating. We have not yet been able to work it out, but 
there is a lot of frustration on a lot of different issues in the 
Senate at this time.
  We have been advised by a number of Senators, as late as this 
morning, that we need more time to work through some of the details of 
this unanimous consent request.
  Again, I appreciate Senator Santorum's and Senator Lieberman's 
commitment to this issue, but I object at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, if I may, objection has been heard, 
but I thank both my colleague from Pennsylvania and my colleague from 
Nevada for their statements. I share the frustration of the Senator 
from Pennsylvania and the disappointment with our inability to reach an 
agreement to allow for consideration of the CARE Act, which started out 
much broader. We have worked on it and really got it down to its 
essence and it is a good bill. It employs an expanding number of tax 
incentives to encourage charitable contributions.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania said not just faith-based organizations 
but all charitable organizations. It is kind of a community-based or 
civic-based, nonprofit-based bill. It has the support of 22 cosponsors 
in the Senate. The occupant of the chair, the junior Senator from New 
York, is one of our original cosponsors. It is supported by the 
President, by the majority leader, Senator Daschle, as we said, and by 
1,600--I repeat, 1,600--religious and community groups and social 
service providers, large and small, across the country.

  We ought to pass this bill. It is one of the best bills we take up 
this year for not just faith-based groups but for our communities.
  For reasons that are sometimes clear and sometimes not, some of our 
colleagues are holding up action on the CARE Act. Some who are 
objecting have not yet disclosed their identity. Given the fact that 
time is slipping away in this session, I appeal to my colleagues to not 
let this opportunity to help make our country as good as our values 
slip away, and let's particularly not squander the bipartisan consensus 
we have achieved on this method of transforming the good will in our 
country into more good work.
  A lot of effort has gone into crafting this bill by people on both 
sides. I particularly thank Senator Daschle and his staff for the work 
they have done. Ideally, we can agree, as the Senator's unanimous 
consent proposal stated, to have one amendment on each side. Maybe we 
could agree on a couple more, if that is necessary. Let's have an open 
debate. Let's move the bill forward. Let's deliver this unique CARE 
package to its rightful destination, which is on the President's desk.
  I hate to have Senator Santorum and me in a position where we start 
to look for a vehicle to which we can attach this as an amendment. We 
should not have to do that. I hope, working together, we can avoid that 
and get this legislation passed.
  I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.

                          ____________________