[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 37 (Tuesday, March 23, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2948-S2952]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE CARE ACT
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to offer a unanimous consent
request having to do with the CARE Act. I noted that a week ago the
Senator from South Dakota, the Democratic leader, sent a letter
suggesting we should move forward on this legislation. I wanted to take
him up on his suggestion. I believe, as he says in his letter, it is
important for us to take a piece of legislation that passed with over
90 votes, has passed the House of Representatives, and give it the
opportunity to be negotiated between the House and the Senate so we can
get it to the President's desk in a timely fashion.
I want to put in the Record about a dozen articles, letters, and
press releases from a variety of groups--everything from the United
Jewish Communities, to the Catholic Health Association, to the Farm
Bureau, to the National Conference of State Legislatures, all of which
are asking to either put this legislation on the bill we have before us
or, more preferably, get this bill to conference where we can work out
the differences.
I ask unanimous consent that this information be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
United Jewish Communities,
Washington, DC.
Charitable Giving and Social Services Block Grants
2004 Priority: Enact charitable giving tax incentives and restore
funding for the Social Services Block Grant
For decades, many Jewish organizations have partnered with
government to provide a wide range of social services for
people in need. In 2004, UJC has made it a priority to
support restoration of funding for Social Services Block
Grants and tax incentives for charitable giving as a way to
ensure and expand critical nonprofit services.
In 2003, both the Senate and the House of Representatives
overwhelmingly passed legislation that would create new
charitable giving tax incentives--specifically, IRA
charitable rollovers and tax deductions for non-itemizers.
Current tax law requires that
[[Page S2949]]
IRAs be fully taxed before they can be transferred to a
charity, substantially reducing both the amounts transferred
and the size of the contributor's tax deduction. The proposed
IRA rollover provision--in what is generally referred to as
the CARE legislation--would permit tax-free donation of IRAs
to charities. The non-itemizer provision would allow
individuals who do not itemize deductions on their tax
returns to receive a deduction for charitable gifts.
The Senate-passed CARE bill would also restore funding to
the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG); the House bill did
not include the SSBG funding increase. The SSBG provides
Federal grants to the States on a formula basis, which are
then allocated to local agencies. SSBG programming is
delivered through countless agencies that provide adult day
care, kosher Meals on Wheels and other nutrition programs,
employment training for the homeless, immigrants and
refugees, and counseling. SSBG is currently funded at $1.7
billion--a cut of more than $1.1 billion since 1995. The
budget cuts have forced social services providers, including
Federation agencies, to discontinue services and reduce
benefits for families in need. The current shortfalls in
State budgets will make SSBG funding even more crucial over
the next few years.
The CARE legislation's new incentives for charitable
giving, as well as restoration of SSBG to its 1995 level of
$2.8 billion are vital to meeting the needs of the most
vulnerable members of our communities. UJC is working hard to
ensure passage of a CARE bill that would enable Federations
and other charitable non-profits to access new sources of
planned giving and restore vital SSBG funding.
____
March 11, 2004.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: We urge you to support an amendment by
Senators Santorum and Lieberman to attach the Charity Aid,
Recovery and Empowerment Act of 2003 (CARE Act) to S. 1637,
the Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act. While we have
not taken a position on S. 1637, we see this as an
opportunity to pass the CARE Act.
The CARE Act, which the Senate has already approved by an
overwhelming 95-5 vote, will provide crucial assistance to
charities and the people they serve by restoring $1.3 billion
in funding to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) program;
allowing non-itemizers to claim charitable deductions on
their taxes to spur additional private giving; creating a
Compassion Capital Fund to provide technical assistance and
capacity building for faith-based and community groups; and
authorizing $33 million to establish group maternity homes
for young mothers.
Restoring SSBG funding is especially crucial given the
state of the economy and the severe fiscal crises facing the
states. States use SSBG funding to assist community groups
and religious agencies that serve working families, abused
and abandoned children, persons with disabilities, and the
frail elderly.
We support these provisions in the CARE Act because they
are among the very few active legislative initiatives that
will help low-income families and the most vulnerable members
of our society. If enacted, they will strengthen the
partnership between government and religious and other
community groups to meet the basic human needs of all in our
country, a partnership that is demanded by the moral scandal
of so much poverty in the richest nation on earth.
We urge you to vote ``yes'' on the amendment to add the
CARE Act to S. 1637.
Sincerely,
Theodore Cardinal McCarrick,
Archbishop of Washington, Chairman, Domestic Policy
Committee, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Thomas A. DeStefano,
President, Catholic Charities USA.
Rev. Michael D. Place, STD,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Catholic Health
Association of the United States.
____
Alliance for IDA Tax Credits,
Washington, DC, March 11, 2004.
Hon. Roy Blunt,
Majority Whip, House of Representatives, Capitol Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Rick Santorum,
Chairman, Republican Conference, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Blunt and Senator Santorum: The
Alliance for Individual Development Account (IDA) Tax
Credits--a consortium of philanthropic organizations,
businesses, industry associations, and organizations of
elected officials created to champion tax credit legislation
for IDAs--is strongly committed to enacting needed tax
incentives to help working, low-income families save, build
assets and move into the financial mainstream. The Alliance
has been a consistent supporter of the Savings for Working
Families Act, which is Title V of S. 476, the CARE Act of
2003, as it will provide tax credits to create 300,000 IDAs
across the country. We also strongly support upcoming efforts
to finally begin conference deliberations of S. 476, and H.R.
7, the Charitable Giving Act of 2003, and encourage these
conference discussions to include the IDA provisions of S.
476 as part of any final agreement regarding S. 476 and H.R.
7.
IDAs are endorsed by President Bush and have received
considerable bipartisan support in the House led by
Representatives Joe Pitts and Charles Stenholm and in the
Senate by Senators Rick Santorum and Joe Lieberman, as these
policymakers recognize the importance of rewarding work,
savings, and self-reliance by low-income families and
individuals. Passage of Title V of S. 476 presents an
opportunity to enact sound asset-building tax policy for a
segment of our society that traditionally does not benefit
from existing wealth building, tax-based incentives.
IDAs are targeted, matched savings accounts held by
financial institutions and credit unions, which help low- and
moderate-income families and individuals buy their first
home, start a small business, or expand post-secondary
education. No federal resources are provided until people
work, save their own hard-earned dollars, fulfill financial
education requirements, and meet their savings goals. In
addition, IDA accountholders have to meet strict program
standards and safeguards to ensure that IDAs are a hand-up,
and not a handout.
The upcoming conference deliberations on S. 476 and H.R. 7
provides both the House of Representatives and the Senate
with an historic opportunity to show its support for helping
working, low-income families who want to build a better
future and achieve their piece of the American Dream.
Including the Savings for Working Families Act in the final
conference agreement on the CARE Act/Charitable Giving Act
will provide the necessary matching dollars to make IDAs a
reality for hundreds of thousands of working-poor individuals
and families and will help those who want to help themselves.
Thank you in advance of your support for IDAs. If you have
any questions or need any additional information on how IDAs
work, please call Sandi Smith at the Corporation for
Enterprise Development at 202-408-9788.
America's Community Bankers
Association for Enterprise Opportunity
Center for Social Development
Consumer Federation of America
Corporation for Enterprise Development
Credit Union National Association
Economic Security 2000
Education, Training and Enterprise Center
Entergy
Enterprise Corporation of the Delta
Financial Services Roundtable
First Nations Development Institute
Foundation for the Mid South
H&R Block
Ibero American Chamber of Commerce
Institute for Responsible Fatherhood
Levi Strauss & Co.
National Association of Homebuilders
National Bankers Association
National Black Chamber of Commerce
National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise
National Conference of State Legislatures
National Congress for Community Economic Development
National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions
National Housing Conference
National Organization of African Americans in Housing
New America Foundation
Progressive Policy Institute
RESULTS
Shorebank Corporation
The Empowerment Network
The Enterprise Foundation
US Pan Asian American Chamber of Commerce
United Way of America
Wal-Mart
____
National Conference of
State Legislatures,
Washington, DC, March 9, 2004.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Conference of State
Legislatures (NCSL), we urge you to adopt Amendment 2670 to
the S. 1637--Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act. This
amendment, offered by Senators Santorum and Lieberman, would
add the language of S. 476 (the CARE Act) which passed the
Senate 95-5 on April 9, 2003 into the underlying bill. The
CARE Act will enhance the role of faith-based and community
based organizations in the delivery of social services and
provide much needed technical guidance and assistance to
states without compromising the states' role in the
implementation of social services to people in need. The CARE
Act reflects a thoughtful and harmonized approach to the
inclusion of faith-based organizations in providing services
at the state level.
It is laudable that the CARE Act increases funding for the
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). The SSBG is an essential
source of funds for community and home-based services to the
most vulnerable segments of our society including the
disabled, elderly and children. We cannot expand the role of
faith-based and community programs without increasing the
funds available for these programs. We support the Individual
Development Account provisions, as such accounts are an
important tool to promote self-sufficiency that will
complement state efforts to reform welfare. We are especially
pleased to see that the CARE Act provides funding to states
for seed money and for technical assistance to the states to
support administering the provisions of the bill. NCSL
greatly appreciates Senators' Santorum and
[[Page S2950]]
Lieberman commitment to this legislation and their
willingness to work with NCSL to resolve our outstanding
issues.
We support the CARE Act and urge you to vote for Amendment
2670 during floor considerations of the JOBS Act. For further
information about NCSL's position, please contact Sheri
Steisel, Federal Affairs Counsel and Director, Human Services
Committee or Tamra Spielvogel, Policy Associate, State-
Federal Relations in NCSL's Washington, DC Office at 202/624-
5400.
Sincerely,
Martin R. Stephens,
Speaker of the House, Utah,
President, NCSL.
____
America's Second Harvest,
March 10, 2004.
Hon. Tom Daschle,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Daschle: I'm writing to you today because
times are desperate for the food banks in South Dakota. We
need your help in the passage of important legislation
pending before the Senate. In tens of thousands of local food
pantries, soup kitchens and emergency shelters the lines of
needy Americans requesting short-term food assistance are
increasing. These increasing lines of needy families include
the faces of the working poor, the recently unemployed and
children. As these lines grow, I continue to hear from our
member food banks what sounds like a broken record: ``there's
more requests for food, and it's hard to keep pace.''
Last year, you joined 94 other Senators in the common call
that we need the CARE Act now more than ever. Now, America's
emergency food providers are asking you to continue your
strong commitment to America's hungry by supporting an
amendment to the JOBS Act, S. 1637, which would allow the
provisions of the Senate-passed Charity, Aid, Recovery and
Empowerment Act of 2003 (the CARE Act, S. 476/H.R. 7) to move
forward.
As you know, the CARE Act includes a strong food donation
tax incentive provision that we estimate will create more
than 878 million new meals over the next 10 years, much of
that food coming from farmers, ranchers, and small
businesses. The need for this tax law change is urgent.
Today, the USDA estimates that nearly 96 billion pounds of
food in the United States is wasted, dumped, plowed over or
destroyed. If even one percent of that food was donated,
rather than dumped, we would be able to feed hundreds of
thousands more needy Americans. Simply put, we have a strong
moral obligation to stop the waste, and get this food on the
tables of the people who desperately need it.
Passage of Senate Amendment 2670 is critical for the
emergency food providers in DC and the America's Second
Harvest nationwide network of food banks and food rescue
organizations working so hard to encourage food donations
within the food industry. The provisions in the Santorum-
Lieberman amendment are very important to companies trying to
decide how to dispose of their surplus food.
We're hoping we can continue to count on you to make sure
this amendment is adopted and the CARE Act becomes law. Thank
you for consideration.
Sincerely,
Robert Forney,
President and CEO,
America's Second Harvest.
____
American Farm Bureau Federation,
Washington, DC.
Statement by Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau Federation,
Regarding the CARE Act
Washington, D.C., March 11, 2004.--``Congress can provide
important hunger-relief assistance by enacting the CARE Act
of 2003. The legislation has been adopted by both chambers,
endorsed by President Bush, and is awaiting conference.
If enacted, the law would create incentives to allow all
farmers and ranchers to deduct the costs and value of food
donated to hunger-relief charities, regardless of how their
farming business is organized. This will enable us to get
more food to hungry people who can't afford to feed their
families. The CARE Act would increase the amount of food
provided to needy people by an estimated 878 million new
meals over the next 10 years.
Passage of the CARE Act could not come at a better time.
The American Farm Bureau Federation and America's Second
Harvest just completed a successful year of activity with a
program called ``Harvest for All.'' Throughout the year,
farmers across the nation donated food, funds and people
power with the goal of creating a hunger-free America. Both
organizations, in partnership with Syngenta, are working
together to ensure that every American can enjoy the bounty
produced on American farms and ranches. Those efforts will be
greatly enhanced by enactment of the CARE Act.''
____
March of Dimes,
Washington, DC, March 4, 2004.
Hon. Thomas Daschle,
Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Democratic Leader Daschle: On behalf of more than 3
million volunteers and 1400 staff members of the March of
Dimes, I am writing to urge you to vote for Senate Amendment
2670 to S. 1637, the Foreign Sales Corporation/
Extraterritorial Income (FSC/ETI) bill. This amendment
provides much needed tax incentives to encourage charitable
giving.
As you know, many of America's charities are facing
heightened financial challenges due to the soft economy and
increasing reliance on services offered through community
based programs. Tax incentives to encourage increased
charitable giving are needed now more than ever. The March of
Dimes strongly supports the following two provisions that we
believe will stimulate additional charitable donations and
create greater equity in the tax code:
Creation of a charitable tax deduction for individuals and
couples who do not itemize on their tax returns; and
An IRA Charitable Rollover provision that would allow
donors who are at least 59\1/2\ to rollover amounts from a
traditional or Roth IRA to create a life income gift and
donors who are at least 70\1/2\ to be eligible to rollover
amounts as direct gifts.
If enacted, these provisions would benefit the March of
Dimes and other charities that rely on small donations, by
creating incentives for current donors and encouraging others
to become donors. The donations stimulated by these changes
in the tax code would provide increased resources for
expanding the Foundation's investment in cutting-edge
research, widening the distribution of education materials
aimed at preventing birth defects and infant mortality, and
increasing support of community-based programs to improve
birth outcomes.
March of Dimes volunteers and staff in every state as well
as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico stand ready to
work with you to secure enactment of this important
amendment. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Marina L. Weiss, Ph.D.,
Senior Vice President, Public Policy
and Government Affairs.
____
America's Blood Centers,
Washington, DC, March 18, 2004.
Senator Thomas A. Daschle,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Daschle: We are writing to ask that you allow
the Charity, Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment Act of 2003 (CARE
Act--S. 476) and the Charitable Giving Act of 2003 (H.R. 7)
to go to a conference committee. Members of America's Blood
Centers, such as United Blood Services of South Dakota and
Siouxland Community Blood Bank, which together support the
blood needs of all South Dakota patients, strongly endorse
this legislation and specifically support a provision
contained in both bills that corrects an inequality by
extending to not-for-profit independent community blood
centers certain exemptions from the Federal excise tax.
In spite of their importance in maintaining America's
volunteer donor blood supply, community-based blood centers
do not enjoy the same status as the Red Cross blood centers
under the Federal tax code. Even though the Red Cross is
exempt from paying Federal excise taxes for its blood-related
activities and functions, America's independent, community-
based, not-for-profit blood centers are not. These taxes
directly impact the ability of blood centers to provide
mobile blood collections, conduct telerecruiting of donors,
and engage in other similar activities. The tax exemption
will significantly help our centers and other community-based
blood centers by allowing us to allocate more of our funding
to what we do best--collecting blood for the millions of
Americans who rely upon us.
The differences between the House and Senate versions of
the charitable giving bills are small. Now is the time to
take the steps needed to turn this legislation into law.
America's Blood Centers strongly urge you to support a
successful conference and quick passage of this legislation
to level the playing field among blood collection
organizations and demonstrate your strong support for the
importance of independent, community-based, not-for-profit
blood centers. Please contact ABC's CEO Jim MacPherson
([email protected]); 202-654-2902 if you have any
questions. We appreciate your attention to this concern and
thank you in advance for your responsiveness.
Sincerely,
Louis Katz, M.D.,
President.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is a bill that has been a
bipartisan bill. The Senator from South Dakota has mentioned on
numerous occasions, and again in this letter, that the concern is--and
in the newspaper article--that things have been put in conference that
were not either the scope of the conference or slipped in without the
minority's knowledge of what was going to happen.
I just ask the Senator from South Dakota and all those who are
objecting to this bill going to conference to look at the history of
this legislation.
The history of this legislation has been bipartisan. Senator Joe
Lieberman and I have worked to put this bill together. It has
priorities on the Democratic side. It has priorities
[[Page S2951]]
on the Republican side. We have worked to take out everything that
could be controversial.
At a press conference we had the other day, Senator Lieberman said
this bill is simply all good. There is not anything bad or
controversial. There is not any kind of strong opposition to this bill
on either side of the aisle. If there was strong opposition on either
side of the aisle, it would not be in this bill. We have a bill that
provides money to those who are serving those in need in our society.
We have a bill on which the track record through the Finance Committee
and through the Senate floor has shown we have worked together.
Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus have worked together in committee
to pass a bill unanimously out of that committee, on a bipartisan
basis. When it came to the floor, there were concerns. We were able to
take care of those concerns and pass a bill. I believe it was 95 to 5.
As we were going through the passage, we had some concerns as to some
things the House might be interested in putting in this bill, some
faith-based provisions some Members on the Democratic side had concerns
about. We received a letter from the House saying they had no intention
of doing that. In a sense, we were able to preconference some of the
concerns to make sure we were trying to pass something good and helpful
to those agencies and individuals wanting to help people in need in our
society. At a time when many in this Chamber are clamoring about those
who are falling through the cracks, this is an opportunity for us to
get literally billions of dollars, some of it Government money but most
of it contributed by individuals, to groups which get favorable tax
treatment for doing so.
We set up individual development accounts, which has been a high
priority of Senator Lieberman, Senator Feinstein, myself, and others on
both sides of the aisle. We have a laundry list of very positive things
this legislation does, and we have a history of bipartisan cooperation.
With some of the other legislation that may have been brought
forward, I understand why the Senator from South Dakota may say, well,
I do not want to take the chance, let's say, of the FSC bill, for
example, or something going to conference; we do not know what is going
to go on there and there may have been controversies around it.
There has been no controversy around this bill. Other bills have
passed and gone to conference we did not have great controversy about,
we had a broad consensus about, and they were allowed to be worked out.
For some reason, this was the first one grabbed and it has been held on
to now for quite some time.
One final thing. Senator Frist, the leader, and I have given a
commitment the Democrats will be fully involved in this conference;
there will be no backdoor meetings because, candidly, Senator Lieberman
and I have worked hand in glove on this. We continue to work hand in
glove, as have Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley.
We will continue to work with our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle because we believe it is so important to get done. I believe
basically the four corners of the bill are fairly well established. It
is now working on how we do it.
Another thing that shows bipartisan cooperation is we have actually
been working on a bipartisan basis on offsets. I know the Democratic
leader has been rather insistent about having the tax provisions
offset. We have been working, again in a bipartisan manner, on the
Finance Committee. I know Senator Lieberman and myself have been trying
to find offsets to get this bill in a position to get strong bipartisan
support. I would make the point there may be instances in which the
Democratic leader can justifiably say there has not been a cooperative
venture in getting a bill through the Senate and we are hesitant about
taking a bill to conference because of that. That has not been the case
on this bill.
The Senator has the commitment from the leader and myself that it
will not be the case in conference, and I am hopeful that word and the
track record of this bill will have some influence over the Democratic
leader's decision to allow this bill to move forward in the process so
we can get a good negotiation going with the House of Representatives
to get this done.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 7
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 amendment 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 giving
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, 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 a ratio
of 3 to 2, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Is there objection?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will
respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania by saying there are two
issues. One is process and the other is substance. I think there is
ample opportunity for us to agree on substance. The distinguished
Senator from Pennsylvania and I have talked on a few occasions in
recent weeks about this matter and it comes down to two questions: the
social services block grant and the importance we place on fully
funding it, and the need for offsets to the tax provisions in this
legislation.
We agree there should be tax provisions. We agree there should be an
SSBG provision. What we have not agreed to is how we resolve ways in
which to fully fund them and to offset the costs involved with the tax
provisions of the bill. That is a substantive question.
Then there is a procedural question. The Senator from Pennsylvania
continues to insist the only way to resolve the procedural issue is by
forcing this bill to conference. As I have said to him on several
occasions, we are very reluctant without the concurrence of the House
leadership that there will be the kind of bipartisan participation we
need to resolve these issues in a fair way. He has given his assurance,
but he has also indicated to me privately he cannot commit for the
House, and I understand that. I would not expect him to.
We have done a lot of work between the House and the Senate in the
last two Congresses in the way I have proposed we resolve these issues.
We send the bill over to the House. The House deals with the
amendments. We preconference or we negotiate the amendment and either
through conference or a final ratification of the bill the legislation
is sent to the President.
We have actually resolved our differences with the House without a
conference on 51 occasions during the 107th Congress, and already this
year we have resolved our differences with the House on 19 occasions on
a whole array of bills: the veterans benefits bill, the Healthy Forest
Act last year, the Syrian Accountability Act, the military tax bill.
All of these issues have been preconferenced and resolved in a way that
has allowed us to work through our differences, with the assurance we
would have the kind of involvement and participation I expect and all
of our colleagues expect with regard to the conferencing or the working
out of the differences between the two versions. I ask unanimous
consent that we simply remove references to the conference in the
request made by the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania so we can
do what we have done on 19 occasions so far in this Congress: Send the
bill to the House, let us resolve our differences through negotiation,
and send the bill to the President, as we all want.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania so modify
his request?
Mr. SANTORUM. No, Mr. President, I do not. I ask that my unanimous
consent be acted upon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DASCHLE. With the objection raised by the Senator from
Pennsylvania, I, too, would have to object.
[[Page S2952]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The Senator from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am very disappointed we cannot get
agreement. As the Senator from South Dakota said, there are two major
issues. They are not particularly complex issues, but they are ones in
which I think it is important for us to be in a position to be able to
drive to a resolution. There has been no talk about extraneous matters
being brought in. This is simply the four corners of this bill trying
to be worked out. The way we have done it historically in this Congress
and previous Congresses is to sit down with both bodies in a conference
and work it out. I am very disappointed we do not have the opportunity
to get that done for this very important bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. DASCHLE. I want to make sure the record is clear. We have not
actually resolved our differences in the House on a majority of
occasions through conference. We have actually done the opposite. We
have done what I have suggested we do with this bill. On 51 occasions
in the 107th Congress and on 19 occasions so far in the 108th Congress,
we have not gone to conference. We have resolved these matters by
sending the bill to the House and worked on legislation either in
preconference or through negotiation. I am fully prepared to do that
again in this case and look forward to working not only with the
Senator from Pennsylvania but others who want to see this legislation
passed as I do.
I yield the floor.
____________________