[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 158 (Tuesday, November 4, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13897-S13898]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              THE CARE ACT

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I will not take any more time than 
necessary because I know the Senator from Nevada, who has spent 
countless hours here on the floor, would like to leave, like so many 
others here, but I raise again the issue of H.R. 7.
  H.R. 7 is the charitable giving act, the CARE Act, that passed both 
the House and the Senate. I want to state again for the Record this is 
a bipartisan bill. This is a bill that was worked out in the Senate by 
Senator Lieberman and myself. I worked with Senators Durbin and Reed of 
Rhode Island and others when they brought up concerns about this bill. 
We wanted to have a balanced bill, a bipartisan bill, one that could 
pass here with the kind of support for a bill which encourages 
charitable giving and individual development accounts for low-income 
individuals and social services block grants to help those 
organizations that meet the needs of people who are hurting in our 
communities. It should pass on a bipartisan basis. We were able to work 
that out. I even worked out something I wasn't sure I could work out, 
which is a commitment to try to work with the House to make sure they 
didn't include language which Senator Reed of Rhode Island requested 
and Senator Durbin requested; that it not include language having to do 
with faith-based organizations and expanding charitable choice.
  Charitable choice is a provision in the law that was passed here 
three times and signed by the President three times to allow faith-
based organizations to participate in social service funding programs 
the Federal Government implements. I said I would do my best to make 
sure that it was not in the House bill, and lo and behold, I was 
successful and it is not in the House bill. It is not a conferenceable 
issue. The biggest concern by about government and faith being mixed 
together is not in this bill. It is not a conferenceable item. There is 
no poison pill that can come back in this bill because it is not a 
conferenceable item. I kept the commitment on a bipartisan basis to 
keep this bill clean.

  There are controversies between the House and Senate bills. The 
Senate bill is paid for. We have offsets in the bill. The House bill is 
not paid for. The social services block grant, which is a very 
important component of this mix, is in the Senate bill and is not in 
the House bill. There are a variety of different tax provisions that 
are treated differently in the House and Senate.
  This isn't going to necessarily be an easy conference. There will 
have to be a lot of give and take, as in most conferences, when we are 
dealing with taxes and spending.
  I think it is important that we sit down with the House and have a 
conference. I will tell you that I fully anticipate needing and wanting 
support from my colleagues here in the Senate on both sides of the 
aisle to get this bill done. We are going to need that kind of leverage 
to go to the House and be able to work out this compromise. I will need 
their support because I want to pass this bill. It is a bill that is on 
the President's agenda. This is one of the bills he really wants to 
accomplish.
  I fully anticipate that if this bill comes back in the form that is 
not acceptable to the minority, there is probably very little chance 
they are going to give us the votes to be able to pass it.
  To be crass about it, we have to work together. But to be honest 
about it, I want to work together. I think I have shown throughout the 
entire legislative history of this act that I have done so, and I have 
done so honestly and straightforwardly. We have produced a bill that 
has gotten overwhelming support. Actually a higher percentage of 
Democrats voted for this bill than Republicans.
  I am concerned. I understand the minority has said and the Senator 
from Nevada has said with frequency they are not being treated fairly 
in conference. I understand that, and I don't necessarily want to get 
into that issue. They may have points, and they can take them up with 
the committee chairman and with the leader. I am talking about this 
bill. This is the first bill on which this charge has been leveled. We 
are not going to conference on this bill because of those reasons. I 
think it is not the best bill to pass. There may be other bills that 
have not been worked on on a bipartisan basis. But the prospect of 
having a bipartisan compromise is less likely than with this bill. This 
is a bill that helps poor kids. This is a bill that is going to provide 
social services funding to make sure people do not go homeless or 
hungry. This is a bill that we need to finish before the holiday 
season.
  It makes no sense for us to use this vehicle as sort of the line in 
the sand that the minority is going to draw to say we are not happy 
with the way we are being treated. Fine. You are not happy with the way 
you are being treated, I understand that. But you certainly haven't 
been treated poorly on this bill. On this bill, you have been treated, 
I hope, as good as on any bill that has been passed through this 
Chamber. I anticipate that continuing. I anticipate--in fact, solicit 
and expect--full participation from Senator Baucus, with whom I have 
talked on this issue, and Senator Grassley, with whom I have talked. 
Senator Grassley came to the floor yesterday and said he anticipates, 
as he does with most if not all of the conferences he has been involved 
with, working on a bipartisan basis as is the custom in the Finance 
Committee.

  I say in conclusion, before I enter into the unanimous consent 
request, to please look at what this bill has the potential of doing--2 
billion pounds of food and more will be donated as a result of this 
bill passing over the next few years, 2 billion pounds of food that 
will be donated so people in America who are hungry and people who will 
be homeless will no longer be hungry and homeless; people who want 
quality education will have a better opportunity

[[Page S13898]]

to get that education; people who want to save and invest and start a 
small business or to go to school or to buy a home will have the 
opportunity to do that which they don't have today.
  That is what this is all about. This should not be about 
disappointment over past practices. I hope we can focus on the goodness 
of this legislation and not take something that is accepted by both 
sides as a desirable and good thing for those who need help in America 
and use that as the point of departure of a new idea that says we are 
not going to go to conference because we have not been treated fairly.
  I just hope in searching yourselves on the minority side that you 
will grab another piece of legislation and use that as the starting 
point. I don't think this legislation deserves it. I don't think the 
people who will benefit from it deserve it. I hope after further 
consideration we can have a reasonable conference and get this 
accomplished.

                          ____________________