[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 158 (Tuesday, November 4, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13898-S13899]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 7

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, 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; the Snowe amendment and the Grassley-Baucus 
amendment 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 giving bill, as amended by the Snowe-Grassley-Baucus 
amendments, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read the third 
time and passed and 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 2 and any statements relating 
to the bill be printed in the Record.
  Mr. REID. I object. To say going to a conference is the only way to 
legislate between the House and the Senate is not a valid argument. I 
personally favor this legislation. I voted for it and I think it is 
something that is needed. As everyone knows, I am not a cheerleader for 
the budget but I think this legislation is important for our country. I 
commend the President for moving forward on it.
  As I indicated, saying that a conference is the only way to legislate 
between the House and the Senate is not a valid argument. Almost every 
day, both Houses pass legislation for which a conference is not 
appointed.
  Last night, the Senate passed the Fallen Patriots Tax Relief Act. We 
amended this piece of legislation, then sent it back to the House 
without asking for a conference.
  We have done this lots of times. Here are bills that are now public 
laws. These pieces of legislation are now public laws. That is how they 
became public laws. We bundled them up, sent them to the House. On some 
of the occasions they accepted them, other times they sent them back 
with an amendment with which we dealt. H.R. 1584, H.R. 1298, H.R. 733, 
H.R. 13, H.R. 3146, H.R. 659 are extremely important pieces of 
legislation that we thought at the time were important. They are now 
law.
  It is my understanding that the Senate, because of the majority, is 
not willing to deal with the CARE Act, as has been so forcibly 
announced here today by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.
  I suggest and, in the form of a unanimous consent, request that we 
treat this legislation as we treat lots of legislation: Send it to the 
House; they might accept it. If they do not, they can send it back with 
an amendment or amendments on it. They may like our bill. They may want 
to amend our bill. They may want to send it back. At least we should 
give the House this opportunity rather than holding the bill hostage.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of H.R. 7, which is at the desk; that all after 
the enacting clause be stricken; the Snowe amendment and the Grassley-
Baucus amendment be agreed to en bloc; that the substitute amendment, 
which is the text of S. 476, as passed by the Senate and amended by the 
Snowe and Grassley-Baucus amendments, be agreed to; the bill, as 
amended, be read the third time and passed; and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard of the request of the 
Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Nevada?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I object.
  Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Nevada has suggested we 
simply amend the bill we passed earlier this year and send it back to 
the House.
  I respectfully suggest to the Senator from Nevada, through the 
Presiding Officer, we did that once. We passed this bill once and sent 
it to the House, and the House struck that bill and sent their version 
back. I don't think we gain anything by then taking the very bill they 
rejected and sending it back to them and expecting them to pass it. 
That is what I would call ping-pong. That is back and forth with nobody 
getting anywhere. That is why there are things such as conferences, 
where we actually sit down and try to work out differences.
  I am not familiar with the list of bills the Senator from Nevada laid 
out when he said we have been able to accomplish passing of legislation 
without having a conference. And that is true. We are going to do one, 
hopefully, tomorrow, the Syria Accountability Act. But the changes 
between what the House wanted and what the Senate wanted were very 
minor changes, a couple of finding changes and basically a change in 
the waiver status. We talked to the House and they were willing to 
accept it because they were minor changes. That is an important piece 
of legislation. I would consider that a major piece of legislation, but 
it is not a particularly complex piece of legislation as we are dealing 
with--with a lot of the moving parts--as we have in the charitable 
giving act, the CARE Act. This is a rather complex piece of 
legislation, complex tax law.
  There is a whole issue of $10 billion that is not paid for in one 
bill, in the House bill, and it is paid for here. How are we going to 
tell what, if anything, will be paid for and how much; what vehicles, 
what measures, we will use to offset this? This is a very complicated 
issue that has not just one--as the Syria Accountability bill--issue. 
There are many issues. There is the food donation provision. There are 
provisions on IRA rollovers. There are provisions on people who do not 
file long forms, people who do not itemize being able to deduct 
charitable giving. That is just three of probably a dozen issues we are 
going to have to deal with on this bill.
  To suggest we can do so by ping-ponging the bill back and forth and 
trying to find some equilibrium--I suggest the people who have been in 
this Chamber for a lot longer than I have would recognize that a bill 
of this complexity does not get handled that way.
  I hope we will recognize we have an obligation to try to finish this 
legislation. I hope we can do so in a way that will do well by the 
Senate. We have my commitment, the commitment of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, to be inclusive, not just because that is the way we have 
done it but that is the way we need to do it in order to be successful 
and get a compromise that will pass both the House and the Senate.
  I respectfully have to object to the unanimous consent request of the 
Senator from Nevada and hope we can continue to think of this and work 
on it and get to a successful conclusion.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as my friend has said, we do not want to 
prolong this, but I make another suggestion that may work. That would 
be that the two amendments, the Snowe amendment which deals with the 
child tax credit and the other amendment that deals with tax extenders, 
really have nothing to do with charitable choice. I suggest those be 
taken from the bill and the pure bill that passed the Senate be sent to 
the House forthwith. That may make it easier for the House to deal 
with--I would hope so--and the other issues which I know are very 
important, we could deal with at a later time.
  That is just a suggestion. I am not asking unanimous consent; I am 
just saying to my friend who has devoted so much of his time to this 
bill, which I know he believes in very sincerely, that might be a 
suggestion that is taken up with the majority leader and

[[Page S13899]]

others who have some persuasive powers in their ability to move this 
matter.
  For clarification with respect to my colloguy with the distinguished 
Senator from Pennsylvania, we are ready to send to the House all three 
components of the Senate amendment to H.R. 7, the version of S. 476, as 
passed the Senate, the Snowe-Lincoln child tax credit piece, and the 
Grassley-Baucus tax extenders piece. We are supportive of all these 
items. In order to help the Senator from Pennsylvania, we are ready to 
send all of them over separately, and of course, we are ready to go 
forward sending them over bundled just without the necessity of a 
conference.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I appreciate the suggestion of the Senator from Nevada.
  I suggest in response to that, again, this bill is the bill that has 
already passed the Senate. We already sent it over to the House. The 
House has already looked at the Senate bill and said: We have a better 
way. We do not want to have offsets to this bill; we do not want to 
have social service block grant funds; we do not want to have as 
generous a food donation provision. We want to have some other 
provisions that you do not have in this legislation. They sent it back.
  Now when you have such differing viewpoints on how to solve this 
problem, the tradition in this body, and out of necessity, is to 
convene a conference and get that done. Sending different versions back 
and forth does not make progress and, with all due respect, I do not 
believe will solve the problem.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________