[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.

                          ____________________