[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 157 (Monday, November 3, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13829-S13830]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              THE CARE ACT

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the CARE Act. The 
CARE Act is the President's initiative to strengthen the work of 
charities in this country by providing greater incentives to give to 
nonprofits. Recent newspaper accounts have noted that charitable giving 
has declined in the recent year. Clearly, the President is right to 
seek additional tax benefits for charitable giving.
  I cannot improve upon the Democratic leader's own assessment at the 
time the CARE Act was passed by the Senate, when he said this:

       This legislation, the CARE Act, expands our Nation's 
     capacity to respond to the needs of its citizens who need 
     help.

  These are very fine words. Unfortunately, these words are not being 
translated into action. The Finance Committee passed the CARE Act on 
February 27 and it was passed by the full Senate on April 9. The other 
body passed the CARE Act earlier this fall. However, the Senate has 
been prevented from going to conference on this important legislation. 
The other side has repeatedly blocked efforts to take the traditional 
step of going to conference with the House to resolve outstanding 
matters and, in turn, then put the President's good goals into law.
  While there have been many arguments and claims made by the other 
side about why we cannot go to conference on the CARE Act, they seem to 
have settled now on one, that the CARE Act is not going forward because 
of concerns that Democrat conferees from the Senate will not be able to 
meaningfully participate in this conference.
  I think, at least in the case of any legislation coming out of the 
Finance Committee, that sort of argument is pure nonsense. There is 
nothing in the history of this specific act, the CARE Act, or my 
dealings with the other side, that would give the other side cause to 
suggest that they have justification to be concerned they would be shut 
out.
  The CARE Act has at all times been a bipartisan effort, beginning 
with Senators Santorum and Lieberman as the prime sponsors of this CARE 
Act. In addition, I have worked closely with Senator Baucus on this 
matter as well as other members of the Democratic side of the aisle. 
Many of the provisions of this bill are due to priorities and concerns 
voiced by the minority. I think it is fair to say that, as chairman, no 
one has gone further in working with and listening to the other side on 
matters that are of concern, not only in the CARE Act but in all 
legislation considered by the Finance Committee.
  The relationship between Senator Baucus and I working cooperatively 
is too well known for the leadership on the other side to ignore. I 
intend that tradition of bipartisanship to continue in conference on 
the CARE Act. In fact, let me make it very clear. I give my word at 
this time, as at other times, that all conferees from the Senate will 
be meaningfully participating in the conference, and I am confident we 
will come back from conference with a bill that will enjoy similar 
strong bipartisan support enjoyed by the CARE Act when it first passed 
the Senate.

[[Page S13830]]

  I cannot make a stronger statement or commitment. To reject it is to 
suggest that the Democratic leadership does not think that I and 
Senator Baucus will continue our tradition of working in a bipartisan 
spirit on this bill. I cannot believe the leadership of the other side 
harbors such a view.
  So if that is the true reason, concern that Senate Democrats will not 
be able to meaningfully participate, I have given my word that will not 
be the case. So we should now be able to go forward with a conference 
on the legislation that the minority leader stated, when it passed,

       . . . will get meaningful aid to organizations and 
     institutions that are equipped to help those who need help 
     the most.

  I am worried that even though I have addressed the stated concern, we 
will still not see movement on the CARE Act for unspoken reasons.
  When it comes to unspoken reasons, it is just a matter of guess, or 
maybe responding to whispers in the hallways.
  It has been discussed widely in the media that many people ``hate'' 
President Bush. I fear this hatred is being translated into stopping 
the President's signature initiative of strengthening our charitable 
arena.
  The sad thing is that the zeal to keep the President from having a 
``win'' will mean, as well noted by the minority leader, ``fewer meals 
for the hungry, fewer beds for the homeless, fewer safe havens for 
battered wives and children.'' I think this is most unfortunate.
  When I questioned President Clinton's AmeriCorps Program 10 years 
ago, I did not seek to end that program. I sought to reform it and to 
make it work the way President Clinton intended that it work. I thought 
then that President Clinton had a right to a small program for which he 
had campaigned so aggressively. President Bush deserves the same 
courtesy by allowing these tax initiatives for chartable giving to go 
through.
  I am also concerned that overlooked is that the CARE Act contains 
many other provisions Members are stopping. Let us not forget that the 
CARE Act is paid for by the most sweeping efforts to stop tax shelters 
in a generation. Those who stop the CARE Act are certainly being 
cheered on by the hucksters selling tax shelters so that corporations 
can continue to avoid fair taxation.
  In addition, the CARE Act also now includes legislation that will 
provide tax relief for our military as well as low-income families with 
children. I have never seen such hand-wringing in this Chamber as has 
been the case regarding the need to pass military tax relief and 
expanded child credit for low-income families. Now that we have a 
chance to have these matters go to conference on a bill that has a real 
chance of becoming law, we are being stopped by the Democratic 
minority. I am worried that what is desired by some is an issue--not a 
solution to the child credit for low-income families and tax relief for 
military personnel.
  Let me close by saying I have addressed the other side's stated 
concerns. I have given my personal commitment that Democratic Members 
will be meaningful participants in the conference on the CARE Act. If 
that is their only reason, then I have put that to rest. If they 
continue to object, I fear it is for a small reason, maybe a petty 
reason, a reason that puts partisanship before the welfare of those 
most in need. If that is the case, I can only state that I am saddened 
and certainly disappointed.
  At this point, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of H.R. 7, the charitable giving bill. I 
further ask unanimous consent that all after the enacting clause be 
stricken; that the Snowe amendment and the Grassley-Baucus amendments 
which are at the desk be agreed to en bloc; that the substitute 
amendment which is the text of S. 476, the Senate-passed version of the 
charitable choice bill, as amended by the Snowe and Grassley-Baucus 
amendments, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third 
time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; 
further, that the Senate insist upon its amendments and request a 
conference with the House; and, lastly, that the Chair be authorized to 
appoint conferees with the ratio of 3 to 12, and that any statements 
relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first of all, 
I say to my friend that I have the greatest admiration and respect for 
the Senator from Iowa. I don't say that lightly. No one I know of has 
ever questioned his ability to be a legislator in the truest sense of 
the word.
  Let me also say--and I speak for myself and I hope I speak for 
everyone on this side--that I don't hate President Bush. I disagree 
with him on certain issues. I certainly don't hate him. I don't dislike 
President Bush. I like him. In all of our meetings, on a personal 
basis, he has been very cordial. He seems to be a very nice man, and he 
is President of the United States; I recognize that. But on some 
issues, I disagree.
  This matter of how we should proceed has nothing to do with the 
integrity of the chairman of the Finance Committee. It has everything 
to do with what has happened with the Republican leadership in the 
House and the Senate as to what happened with the bills that need to go 
to conference. We, of course, over here are very concerned--and it is 
almost to a point of frightening--with these nonconferences that take 
place.
  I object, and I will put forward my own unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 7, as reported by the 
Senate Finance Committee; that there be only two amendments in order, 
which are at the desk; that those amendments be agreed to; that the 
act, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table without any intervening action or 
debate.
  I think that will move this very important piece of legislation 
forward, and we can resolve it within a matter of days.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request by the 
Senator from Nevada?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I 
will object--first of all, we have advanced this bill according to the 
rules of the Senate with the provisions that are necessary to go to 
conference. I am disappointed we don't have that opportunity to go to 
conference. This will not be our last effort to try to get to 
conference.
  I appreciate the unanimous consent request by my friend from Nevada, 
the assistant minority leader, because I know he is sincere in 
proceeding along the lines he would like to proceed. But I think it 
does suggest that there is a nervousness on the other side as to the 
rightness of my original request and that we ought to get this to 
conference.
  The conference could be settled very quickly. We could get the bill 
back here and for charitable organizations and for military families, 
and also try to help low-income families with refundable tax credits, 
as has been the position of the Senate for a long period of time.
  I also suggest he may be legitimately concerned about how the other 
body handles conferences. I appreciate his understanding that I try to 
be fair. But in the process, comity dictates that what the other body 
does the other body does, and we have to work within the environment of 
what we can control. What we can control is what the Senate does. Along 
those lines, I have made my commitment that there be full Democrat 
participation, and that is about as far as I can go.
  So I object to the unanimous consent request by the Senator from 
Nevada, the assistant minority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank the Senator 
from Nevada.

                          ____________________