Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 147 (Thursday, November 14, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 147 (Thursday, November 14, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10993-S10997]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CHARITY AID RECOVERY AND EMPOWERMENT ACT OF 2002

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Presiding Officer. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak. I am prepared to offer a unanimous consent on the
CARE Act, which is the act that passed out of the Finance Committee 147
days ago. It is the Charity Aid Recovery and Empowerment Act of 2002. I
will let the Members know what the legislation does, and then I will
ask unanimous consent to consider the legislation before we leave.
This legislation came out of the Finance Committee with 28 bipartisan
cosponsors. More than 1,600 small and large charitable organizations
support this act because it promotes giving, it promotes savings for
low-income individuals, and makes the Tax Code more fair, particularly
for the low-income and moderate-income individuals who do not fill out
the long form on their tax return.
It provides 86 million Americans the opportunity to itemize
charitable organizations, which now they cannot do because they do not
fill out the long form. It allows 300,000 low-income individuals the
opportunity to build assets through something that Senator Lieberman
and Senator Feinstein and others on both sides of the aisle have
promoted--individual development accounts. It will provide incentives
for $1 billion in food donations from farmers, restaurants, and
corporations. It will provide $150 million in a compassionate capital
fund to provide money for smaller charities.
A lot of charities do not participate in government funding programs
because they do not have the technical expertise to do so. We are
providing money for technical assistance to some of the community
grassroots organizations, faith-based organizations, and non-faith-
based organizations to participate in providing social services in a
very effective and compassionate way.
This is the way to do it. It adds something Senator Lieberman was a
great advocate of, $1.2 billion in new social service block grant funds
to provide social services to those in need in our society. It allows
people to give tax-free contributions from their individual retirement
accounts. Again, right now if someone wants to give to a charitable
organization, and you want to give it out of your IRA, you have to pay
taxes and penalties. This allows for a distribution from people who
have money in their IRA's who have a desire to give to charitable
organizations. We will allow them to do that, liberating hundreds of
millions and billions of dollars to faith-based organizations.
This is legislation designed in response to 9/11 and the recession we
have been going through to try to target resources to these small,
charitable organizations; to try to get moderate-or low-income
individuals the opportunity to deduct the charitable contributions. One
of the ways it is paid for is through corporate inversion. I argue we
are nailing corporations that are moving their operations out of the
United States and avoiding taxes. We are taking money that could be
raised by these corporate inversion provisions and channeling it to
those most in need in our society.
That is what the legislation does. There is one other provision I
make clear. There is equal treatment language in this legislation. Let
me state what that does. It is noncontroversial, equal treatment
language. It says organizations that receive government funds can
display a religious icon, that they can have a religious name. Believe
it or not, I have been to many organizations, particularly in the
Jewish community, and because they have a Hebrew name, they are
automatically left off the list of organizations that can participate
in government funds, even though they are not Jewish in nature. They
may be Jewish, but they are not in any way affiliated with the Jewish
faith. They just happen to be culturally a Jewish organization.
Having a religious name like St. John's should not eliminate you from
participating in government funds, if you are not religious in nature,
or do something unique for a religious purpose. You can have religious
language in your chartering documents, you can quote the Bible in your
chartering documents, and it should not eliminate you from Federal
funds. Again, these are not controversial. You can use on your
governing boards, nonprofits, not paid governing boards some sort of
religious criteria as to who serves. So if you are the Mormon Church
and have a governing board on your social service agencies, you can
require they be Mormons. I don't know that necessarily discriminates
against anybody in the sense these are not paid positions. They are
church-affiliated. We are not discriminating in the hiring. We are
talking about oversight of charitable organizations.

These are the provisions of this act. I believe if you look just at
the four walls of this bill, there is not a lot of controversy in this
legislation. What we have attempted to do, Senator Lieberman and
myself--we have been working this legislation now for almost 150 days.
Obviously this is legislation the President strongly supports. He
believes we need to get this money out into communities to try to help
those in need in our society.
We have been working with Senator Daschle. I thank Senator Daschle
and Senator Reid for their good-faith effort to try to move this
legislation forward. As many here in the Chamber know, Senator Daschle
said publicly over and over, over the past couple of years, he would
give the President a vote on this initiative, which is just a piece of
the President's faith-based initiative. He has worked diligently to try
to make that happen.
We have been hotlining a unanimous consent agreement. The unanimous
consent agreement would allow for four Democrat amendments on the
substance of the legislation, attacking the substance of the
legislation, and one Republican amendment.
I want to repeat we are allowing the Democrat side four amendments
and we have accepted it on our side. We hotlined it this week. There is
no objection on our side of the aisle to giving four times as many
amendments to the Democrats as we have on this side.
I am hopeful that, given the importance of this legislation, given
the fact this is going to help those in need at a time of economic
distress and uncertainty, we can liberate literally billions of dollars
to be targeted to organizations that want to help those in need in our
society.
I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the majority
leader, after consultation with the Republican leader--however, no
later than the close of business of the Senate--the Senate proceed to
the consideration of Calendar No. 496, H.R. 7, and it be considered
under the following limitations: That there be 1 hour for general
debate on the bill equally divided between the two managers, the only
amendments in order, other than the managers' substitute, be the
following: An amendment prohibiting proselytization using public funds,
an amendment prohibiting discrimination using public funds, an
amendment prohibiting direct funding of religion, an amendment
preserving State and local government options--these amendments were
provided to us by Senator Daschle, I believe to be offered by Senator
Reid--and a Republican amendment, to be offered by Senator Gramm, is an
amendment expanding benefits of land conservation provisions to all
charities; the amendments be limited to 60 minutes each, to be divided
between the proponents and opponents, with no second degrees in order.
I ask following the disposition of the amendments and expiration of
debate, the bill will be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a
vote on passage of the bill with no further intervening action or
debate.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I
will

[[Page S10994]]

not object, I support the request of the Senator from Pennsylvania for
unanimous consent. I have been his cosponsor and coworker in this cause
for many a year now. This is part of an attempt to find a
constitutionally appropriate way to engage. The initial attempt was to
engage faith-based groups in making this a better society, using the
particular skills they have, and sense of mission that faith-based
groups have, to help us deal with some of society's social problems.
Of course, there are thousands of faith-based groups that are doing
that today with regard to fundamental human needs such as hunger and
homelessness, and going beyond that, to violence, family dysfunction,
drug abuse, substance abuse, and a host of other problems. This was an
attempt to see if we could find a constitutionally appropriate way to
have the Government help these groups do that.
Along the way many concerns were raised. The bill was passed in the
House, so-called charitable choice, building, in fact, on a charitable
choice provision that was in the welfare reform bill of 1996 and signed
by President Clinton. A similar provision was adopted in three other
social service programs, but when it came to introducing this
legislation last year--which President Bush had coordinated and
initiated--there was some opposition and controversy around it.
I must say here, and perhaps it is timely and appropriate to say it,
as the pending legislation before the Senate is the homeland security
legislation, where this Senator has said several times I have felt the
administration, on a particular point, has been inflexible or--in any
case, in this measure, with regard to faith-based institutions, the
administration has in fact been quite flexible. We have now come
together on a proposal that is not really any longer strictly a faith-
based initiative. It is a charity initiative. We have eliminated all of
the controversial sections that were in the House-passed legislation,
passed earlier in the 107th session. We have it honed down now to very
significant tax incentives for charitable giving, for people to give to
charities, faith-based and otherwise, at a time when those charities'
income is falling because of the economy and other demands. Yet the
needs, if anything, as the economy is stagnating, are even greater.
As to the $1.2 billion to social services block grants, if there was
nothing else in this bill, I would say it was worth it because these
are critically important, humane programs that are carried out. Again,
they don't just go to faith-based groups. They go to all--they go
mostly to nonfaith-based groups. And then technical assistance for
charities to be able to qualify for public assistance, the Individual
Development Accounts, which were a wonderful way--experimented with in
several places around the country--to help poor people build savings
that are matched by financial institutions, to get some wealth and work
their way up into the middle class.
I know there remain some concerns about the bill. But they are not
about the language of the bill, which I believe is noncontroversial at
this point. They are about trying, around this bill, to change some
language that is in the statute now--particular language in title VII
of the Civil Rights Act that allows faith-based groups to hire people
only of the faith of the group. That is an issue on which we can all
agree or disagree. But I plead with my colleagues, it is an issue for
another day.

The fact is, under the unanimous consent proposal that the Senator
from Pennsylvania has made, our colleagues who are concerned about that
issue, though it is not specifically within the parameters of this
proposal, will have the opportunity to introduce amendments to alter
it.
I think this is a very reasonable proposal which is all good and will
help charitable groups of all kinds help us make this a better country.
Therefore, I appeal to my colleagues to allow this unanimous consent to
be adopted so that, before we leave, we can in a sense give a gift, as
we approach the holiday season, to those who are most in need in our
society and particularly directly to those charitable groups where the
focus is on helping those most in need.
I hope we can agree on this unanimous consent proposal.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, my problem with this unanimous consent
request relates to the limitation on amendments. There have been four
amendments specified. I have been trying for weeks and months, in some
cases years, and other Members of this body have also been attempting
to get other amendments that relate to the Finance Committee's work
before this body for a vote.
The Senator from Connecticut talks about the needy. Clearly, he is
right. There are needy people in this country. One of the neediest
groups is the people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. We
have been trying for months to get an extension of unemployment
compensation before this body for a vote. In prior recessions, there
have been extensions of unemployment of 29 weeks in 1974, 26 weeks in
1981, 33 weeks in 1990, and 26 weeks in 2002. We need an extension of
unemployment benefits. We have a large number of people--900,000
workers--who have exhausted all of their additional weeks of Federal
unemployment insurance between May and July of 2002. This number is
going to grow to 2.2 million before the end of the year. We have lost 2
million private sector jobs in this country since January of 2001--an
actual decline in private sector jobs for the first time in 50 years.
We have economic problems. We have suffering. We want to extend
unemployment benefits. Yet I am precluded--as have our other colleagues
who have been working diligently on this issue--from offering an
amendment to this bill to extend unemployment benefits. It is that
limitation, that restriction, that prohibition in the unanimous consent
proposal that I have a problem with. I think it is important that those
who are fighting for an extension of unemployment compensation have
this opportunity on this bill because this is a bill which can pass and
offer immediate and critical help to our people.
That is the problem I have with the unanimous consent request.
In addition to the extension of unemployment benefits, I ask if the
author of this unanimous consent request would consider modifying his
request to allow three amendments I have been trying to get considered
by this body. One is the extension of unemployment compensation which
many people have been attempting for months to have considered by this
body. I would like to see that locked in and guaranteed for
consideration on this bill. This bill can pass. No. 1.
No. 2, an amendment relevant to stock options which was blocked.
Senator McCain was blocked from offering it a number of months ago. The
amendment would simply require the Financial Accounting Standards Board
to consider the issue of stock options within a year and report back.
The third is the Securities and Exchange Commission administrative
enforcement amendment.
We circulated those amendments. They are clearly within the
jurisdiction of this committee. The only way we are going to get these
amendments considered is if they are part of a unanimous consent
request such as this.
I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania whether he would consider
amending his unanimous consent request to allow three additional
amendments. That is the only problem I have with his unanimous consent
request--it precludes amendments from being offered which are within
the jurisdiction of this committee, which are critically important to
this country, and which won't be considered unless we can make them
part of a unanimous consent request.
That is my question to the sponsor of the unanimous consent.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, let me address the three amendments.
With respect to the first amendment, I agree with the Senator from
Michigan. That is something we should do. Even though I believe it is
not germane to the package we have before us, it is certainly within--
from the standpoint of what this bill is trying to do, which is help
with the financial and economic stress--it certainly meets the overall
goal of the legislation.
My understanding is that there is a very good chance the House is
going to

[[Page S10995]]

pass an extension today and send that over. In fact, I feel very
confident about that. They are going to pass an extension and send it
over, which I hope we will be able to act upon and pass.
I would say to the Senator from Michigan with respect to this piece
of legislation that I think you will have an opportunity to deal with
that issue on the bill that certainly will have just as much chance of
passing as this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield on that point? Is it the Senator's
understanding that that extension is simply an extension or part of a
larger package which has many other features to it?
Mr. SANTORUM. I do not know if anybody else has a better
understanding than I do. If they do, feel free to chime in.
My understanding is they are going to pass a clean extension.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield on
that question?
Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that the unemployment extension
benefits that the House is considering, first of all, are embraced
within the package that encompasses other things as well.
Second, and more importantly perhaps, the unemployment insurance
benefits issue itself is very limited and falls far short of the sort
of amendment the Senator from Michigan is considering in terms of
extending these unemployment insurance benefits, which is a growing
crisis in the country. We need to recognize that. I certainly support
the Senator from Michigan in his effort to ensure the unemployment
benefits. But what the House is considering, as I understand it, is
grossly inadequate in terms of addressing the unemployment insurance.
It doesn't even carry forward a full extension of the current situation
beyond that. There are going to be people falling off the cliff here
very shortly. Many of them have already fallen off the cliff.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Senator is making the point that he
doesn't have another vehicle for an opportunity to offer his amendment.
My point is, when this bill comes over, he will have an opportunity to
offer an amendment on unemployment extension, and he does not need to
use this vehicle. That is the point.
Mr. LEVIN. Is my understanding correct that an unemployment benefit
extension is part of a larger package which has many controversial
issues in it? If so, then that bill may not go anywhere because of the
other parts of it--not because of the unemployment extension, which
purportedly everyone favors around here but then wants it to be used to
produce other achievements and successes that are highly controversial.
This is not a controversial amendment. This extension we are talking
about is not a particularly controversial amendment. The Senator from
Pennsylvania favors it. And yet, when I am asking whether he favors an
extension----

Mr. SANTORUM. I haven't seen the amendment. I do not know.
Mr. LEVIN. I withdraw that--favors an extension of unemployment
compensation, we may be able to sit down and work out something that
the Senator from Pennsylvania does favor in the area of unemployment
compensation extension and include that in his unanimous consent.
But it seems to me it is absolutely reasonable to ask for a more
certain way of getting an unemployment benefit extension passed through
this Congress. It is critically important to hundreds of thousands of
people who are suffering. It is immediate. It is urgent.
I therefore renew my request that those three amendments be added to
the unanimous consent request of the Senator.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would certainly be willing on the
first amendment to sit down with the Senator to see if there is an
unemployment extension that can be agreed to. I think it is something
we need to do. I think there is a willingness on our side to have an
unemployment extension. I would have no objection to setting aside the
unanimous consent request to try to work out a unanimous agreement on
the issue of unemployment compensation.
There are other issues which are really outside the scope of this,
and they are very controversial. I understand the Senator--I know
because I have been on the floor many times--from Michigan has
attempted to get the initiative aired. I understand his passion on it.
I respect how he feels about it. But I think the Senator from Michigan
would agree with me that these are hotly contested. In fact, one of the
cosponsors of this legislation on the other side of that issue is the
Senator from Michigan. I think adding those two amendments that really
aren't germane for helping those in need in our society are outside of
the scope, and in fact the amendments would sink the entire bill if
they were adopted.
I can try to meet the Senator halfway. Let us try to work together on
unemployment. If we can do that, and if the Senator is willing to set
aside the other two amendments, then we can try to move forward with
the consent request. I would be happy to work with him.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me ask the Senator from Pennsylvania
about the third amendment to which I referred, which wasn't
particularly controversial but yet precluded when we considered the
Sarbanes bill, which has to do with administrative enforcement by the
SEC of their regulations.
The only area that the SEC cannot now administratively enforce with
civil fines is the area of regulations involving corporate executives
and auditors. When it comes to the stockbrokers, they are able to
enforce administratively their regulations with the use of civil fines,
of course subject to the appeals courts. But the area which has been so
crucial and so sensitive--violations of regulations which have
contributed so much to the suffering in the economy, violations by
corporate executives and by auditors--in that area, the SEC does not
have the authority to proceed administratively. They want it. I do not
know of folks who oppose it. But unless we can act on it this year,
there will be another delay.

I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania whether or not his offer to go
halfway would include the second of the three amendments relative to
the SEC administrative enforcement.
Mr. SANTORUM. My understanding is that third amendment is not a tax-
related amendment and would be appropriate to be offered, for example,
if you wanted to, on the homeland security bill or another piece of
legislation that is coming through. So there isn't a need to have that
amendment attached particularly to a tax vehicle.
I understand your second amendment has tax implications and is
necessary to offer to a tax bill. But this amendment you could offer,
if you wanted to, once we leave this unanimous consent, to homeland
security. It probably has a much better chance of being passed and
signed by the President in this legislation.
So I would say to the Senator, if he wants to do that, I would argue
that the better opportunity for him to do it is on homeland security,
not this tax bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield on that?
Actually, both the amendments have tax revenue implications. Stock
options have been, in my judgment, excessively used in an inconsistent
way, where a tax deduction is given to a stock option which is not
shown as an expense on the books but is taken as an expense on the tax
return. So there are very significant tax issues on the stock option
issue.
Also, on the auditors and executive issue, there are tax revenue
implications because in both cases we have lost significant amounts.
Because of violation of regulations by auditors and by executives, we
have lost tax revenue.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Michigan, the
third amendment, from my reading of it, is an amendment that is under
the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee and not under the
jurisdiction of the Finance Committee and not a tax-related amendment.
There may be revenue implications, but there are lots of revenue
implications of things we do here that are in the jurisdiction of other
committees having to do with enforcement. But there is no tax
implication. Therefore, there is no need to offer it here in this tax
legislation. The second one certainly does.

[[Page S10996]]

Mr. LEVIN. On the stock option, there has even been a hearing in the
Finance Committee.
Mr. SANTORUM. I understand the third one, that you are arguing for
now, is not necessarily appropriate for this legislation.
Mr. LEVIN. Happily, the Senator's argument against it on the third
amendment helps me on the second amendment because it is clearly in the
jurisdiction----
Mr. SANTORUM. The second amendment is highly controversial and would
be an amendment that would surely sink any possibility of this
legislation being passed.
Mr. SARBANES. Would the Senator yield for a question about his second
amendment on the stock option?
Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.
Does the Senator from Pennsylvania yield?
Mr. SANTORUM. I yield.
Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that the amendment the Senator
from Michigan is talking about on stock options does not have a
substantive result contained in the amendment. It is simply a request
that the Financial Accounting Standards Board study the issue and
report back.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. In that sense, it is neutral on the substance of the
issue; is that correct?
Mr. LEVIN. That is correct. There is a requirement that they report
back in a year. But the Senator is correct, on the substance of the
issue, it is neutral.
I think the Senator from Pennsylvania might also find that some of
the people who previously opposed the effort in the area of stock
options may not object to having the Financial Accounting Standards
Board review this matter and report back in a year, for the very reason
that the Senator from Maryland raises, which is that it is
substantively neutral.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). The Senator from Pennsylvania
has the floor.
Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much.
I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania and my colleague from
Connecticut, I understand the importance of this issue to each of you
personally, and to those who are cosponsors, and why you are anxious to
raise the flag and at least raise the issue in the closing days and
hours of this session.
I find it interesting, in listening to the presentation here, that we
have focused on the Finance Committee and tax implications, referrals
from the Finance Committee, and their debate, and really have,
unfortunately, not addressed what I consider to be the larger issue, an
issue which should have been addressed by the Judiciary Committee, an
issue which goes to constitutionality and the premise of the separation
of church and state in the United States of America--something that
many of us find fundamental to the American experience and to our
American society.
I do not quarrel with the premise of the Senator from Pennsylvania. I
could list, and he could, too, so many faith-based charities in his
home State and my home State that have done wonderful work, and
continue to do so. They receive Government assistance, and they should.
I have supported them. I have found appropriations for them. I will
continue to do that. I do not believe that is the issue here.
Frankly, if that were the referendum before us, it would receive a
unanimous vote. We all concede charitable and faith-based organizations
do exceptional work, and governmental assistance, under the right
circumstances, can be of benefit to America as a society.
But the President's initiative that you have brought to the floor
suggests the way we have done business in America for decades has to be
changed substantially, dramatically. Those changes deserve an airing
and full debate.

The Senator from Pennsylvania has been kind enough to acknowledge
four amendments prepared by Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island as well
as myself to bring to the floor. I would argue, perhaps, that 1 hour of
debate for each of these amendments, considering the gravity and
importance, is not nearly adequate.
But I also say this to my colleague from Pennsylvania. Is it not a
fact that with the House minutes or hours away from adjournment, and
the fact that no conference committee is likely to ever convene on this
issue, there is little that can be accomplished in a substantive way on
an issue of this importance?
Is it also not a fact that this issue is of such importance to us
that we should take time to engage in a debate which, frankly, will
give all sides an opportunity to express themselves, to make certain we
do not----
Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has called for the
regular order.
Mr. DURBIN. Let me say I reserve the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is that a request has been
made.
Mr. DURBIN. Well, then, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. And a Senator, when the regular order is
called for, must either object or the request will be granted.
Did the Senator from Illinois object?
Mr. DURBIN. I was trying to keep the floor open for those who wanted
to express themselves on this issue. If I am forced to object, I will,
but I have other colleagues here who would like to share some concerns
with the Senator from Pennsylvania. And as I understood, there was a
dialogue between us, or at least I hoped there would be. That was the
reason I was asking questions of the Senator. And if it is necessary at
this point to object, and it will foreclose my colleagues from making a
statement, I did not want that to happen. But if that is where we stand
on this, I suppose I have no alternative. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Pennsylvania continues to have the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am very disappointed that there was an
objection. I understand the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from
Rhode Island have objections to this legislation. As the Senator from
Connecticut said very clearly and very articulately in his statement,
the objections they have are not with this legislation. They may be
with current law, the 1996 Welfare Act and the three other provisions
that were signed by President Clinton and passed by this Senate, two of
which were passed unanimously, to my recollection.
The objections are to underlying law, not to this legislation. This
legislation does not deal with any of the issues that are in the
amendments the Senator from Illinois has offered.
The Senator mentioned that an hour's debate is not enough. I am
willing to spend as long--2 hours, 3 hours per amendment. I offered an
hour of debate as an accommodation to the leader, to the majority
leader, in trying to find a reasonable amount of time to finish.
I agree with the Senator from Illinois, this is a very important
piece of legislation. But if the problem is that we need more time for
debate, I certainly would, and I know the Senator from Connecticut
would, be perfectly willing to come here.
I think these are important issues, but I would argue they are not
issues about this legislation. They are not issues in your amendments
having to do with proselytization using public funds. There is nothing
in this legislation that permits that--nothing. Nothing even addresses
it or comes close to it. These are tax provisions that allow----
Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania does have the
floor.
Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I will yield to the Senator
from Rhode Island for a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. The Senator from Pennsylvania points out that the
legislation is silent on the critical issues, but the

[[Page S10997]]

silence is not correct. There are potential constitutional flaws that
are inherent in the legislation. As I understand it, part of the
legislation is to authorize directly funding religious institutions to
provide social services.
Mr. SANTORUM. Reclaiming my time, I will read to you the provisions
of this legislation on what the money is expended for. No. 1, it talks
about $2.6 billion of this legislation is a nonitemized or charitable
deduction. It is not for religious organizations. It allows people who
fill out the short form to deduct charitable contributions.
No. 2, IRA charitable rollovers. What it says is people who have an
IRA can roll over that IRA into a charitable organization, qualified
under 501(c)(3) or other, whatever organizations would be eligible, and
that is $2.9 billion over the next 10 years--again, nothing to do with
faith-based organizations; no direct government dollars to anybody.
Third has to do with enhancing charitable deductions for farmers,
restaurateurs, and businesses for food donations. Again, it has nothing
to do with charitable choice, nothing to do with any kind of government
funds going to charitable organizations.
Fourth, we have enhanced charitable deductions for book donations--
again, nothing to do with charitable choice. Incentives for S
corporations to give more money to charities--again, nothing to do with
faith-based organizations. We have an IDA amendment, which is something
the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from California, Mrs.
Feinstein, have championed, and I have worked on our side to allow low-
income individuals to have matched savings accounts for purposes of
buying a home, going to school, or starting a small business--again,
nothing to do with charitable, faith-based organizations.
Also, we have the social services block grant fund which I know is
wildly popular on the Democratic side of the aisle. That is $1.37
billion over the next 2 years.
So if you look at all of these provisions, I understand the Senator
from Rhode Island and the Senator from Illinois have serious concerns
about the existing charitable choice provisions in law. I accept that.
I understand that. I understand the Senators from Rhode Island and from
Illinois have problems with the bill the House passed because it did
have an expansion of that in the House-passed bill. But the Senator
from Connecticut has been very tough at negotiating with the White
House and with the Senator from Pennsylvania in leaving every
controversial element that could touch on any kind of constitutional
infirmity out of this legislation.
You can argue that we don't fix the problem that may be in existing
law, but there is nothing in this legislation that even comes close to
any of those provisions. You have as much argument, in my opinion, to
offer the amendments that you have offered to homeland security as you
do to this bill because neither of them deal with the subject of your
amendments.
I understand there is a problem. I understand there is a debate that
needs to be had on these issues, but not on this bill because this bill
doesn't do what many are suggesting it does.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. I worked with the two leaders in arranging time that you
could offer this unanimous consent request. The two managers are very
anxious to get to homeland security. We have two cloture votes facing
us. People wanted to offer amendments. I would ask that the Senator
from Pennsylvania, as soon as he has completed his statement, yield the
floor so we automatically, as I understand it, go back to homeland
security. Is that right, Mr. President?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is right. The Senate
would resume consideration of the pending business which is the
substitute on homeland security.
Mr. REID. I would say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, we
anticipated this taking just a little bit of time. It has taken a large
amount of time.
To all my friends who have problems with this legislation, as has
been indicated, the homeland defense bill is open for debate and
certainly amendment. Anyone who has anything they have not been able to
complete saying now on this issue could complete their statements on
H.R. 5005.
All I am saying is, I hope the Senator from Pennsylvania won't talk
too much longer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to say with all respect to the
Senator from Nevada, the Senator from Pennsylvania has been trying to
respond, actually giving the opportunity to other Members to express
their concerns about this legislation. I did not call for regular
order. I did not try to limit in any way those who have concerns about
the legislation from having the opportunity to speak. I was using the
time I had to give them the opportunity to express their concerns and
then, to the extent I could, try to respond to their concerns.
I have no intention of trying to hold up the homeland security bill.
I just wanted the opportunity, if we could, to have a discussion to see
if we could reach some sort of accord to actually move what many of us
believe is a very important piece of legislation. It does not look as
if that is going to happen.
I am disappointed because I do not believe the issues that have been
raised about infirmities of other pieces of statutory law are in any
way impacted by this legislation. It is a tragedy that literally tens
of billions of dollars that could go to low-income individuals,
incentives for people to give, the opportunity to have matched savings
accounts for low-income individuals to buy a home and to start a small
business or to get an education, that is going to be forfeited on
issues that have nothing to do with the underlying bill.
That is unfortunate. I am hopeful that now that we have had this
discussion, Members will think more about it and hopefully come to a
different conclusion as to whether to object to this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

____________________