[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 48 (Thursday, March 19, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3381-S3382]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Americans are focused on a number of 
important issues at the moment relating to the economy and to the 
administration's response to it, but it would be a mistake in the midst 
of all of these immediate concerns to take our eye off the 
administration's long-term economic plan as outlined in its budget. The 
American people already have an idea that this budget spends too much, 
it taxes too much, and it borrows too much, particularly in the midst 
of a severe recession. They are also concerned about the staggering 
number of things the administration is trying to do. Still, it is 
important to look closely at the details of the administration's long-
term budget plan so people have an idea of what is coming.

[[Page S3382]]

  Over the past 2 weeks, Republicans have discussed the spending side 
of the budget and some of the massive new taxes the budget calls for on 
energy use and on small businesses. Today, I wish to briefly discuss 
another element of the tax plan, and that is the proposal to limit the 
benefit taxpayers receive for making charitable donations to nonprofits 
and charitable organizations.
  Let's be clear about something from the outset. This is not something 
only Republicans oppose. This proposal has been met with wide 
bipartisan opposition in Congress and widespread criticism from the 
many thousands of organizations that would be adversely affected by it. 
With a challenged economy already causing endowments at colleges and 
universities, charities, museums, and other nonprofits to shrivel up, 
the last thing America's nonprofit organizations expected was for the 
administration to introduce yet another disincentive to charitable 
giving, and many of them, including many of them from the opposite ends 
of the political spectrum, are uniting in strong opposition to the 
administration's proposal. One reason: According to a February survey 
in the Chronicle of Higher Education, college and university endowments 
lost more than 20 percent of their value in a recent 5-month period, 
largely as a result of the plunging stock market. The administration's 
proposal is a bad one, frankly, at any time, but now is the worst time 
of all.

  Earlier this week, I received a letter on this very proposal from the 
president of Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green. He said the 
university has worked hard over the past year to increase its support 
from charitable gifts and that they have had a lot of success doing 
that. He also noted that WKU is in the middle of a major annual 
fundraising campaign to increase opportunities for students and that 95 
percent of the total will come from the generosity of fewer than 500 
donors.
  The message was clear: The importance of major gifts to Western 
Kentucky University and to thousands of other colleges and universities 
across the country is impossible to overstate, and disincentivizing 
those gifts would strike a serious blow to every one of these 
institutions--every single one of them.
  There is another important aspect of this issue, and it is one 
President Ransdell at WKU pointed out in his letter. Americans are 
known the world over for their generosity. That generosity was 
encouraged by the creation of the charitable gift deduction in the 
early part of the last century, and that deduction is one of the 
reasons that last year Americans gave more than $300 billion to 
charitable causes--that was back in 2007--and roughly 75 percent of 
those donations--or $229 billion--came from individuals. I will say 
that again: 75 percent of the $300 billion given to charitable causes 
in 2007, which is $229 billion, came from individuals. One of the 
things Americans are most proud of is that no other industrialized 
nation in the world gives more to charity than the United States. It is 
not even close. As a share of our GDP, Americans give more than twice 
as much as Britain and 10 times more than France. Seven out of ten 
American households donate to charities, supporting a wide range of 
religious, educational, cultural, health care, and environmental goals. 
This is something to be proud of. It is uniquely American. It is not 
something we want to discourage.
  So Americans from all walks of life and both political parties are 
worried about this proposal. They don't understand why charitable 
organizations and the people they serve should suffer in order to pay 
for new or expanded Government programs. According to one study, this 
proposal could lead to $9 billion less in charitable giving each year. 
That is less money for places such as Western Kentucky University, the 
Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, hospitals, churches, food pantries, and 
countless other causes that are quite worthy of our support. These 
organizations are hurting enough. The administration doesn't need to 
hit them up for more tax revenue while they are down, and it doesn't 
need to blunt one of the things Americans are most proud of; that is, 
of course, our generosity.
  The following quote attributed to President Kennedy sums up the way 
most Americans feel about this issue, and it captures my own sentiments 
as well. This is what he had to say:

       The raising of extraordinarily large sums of money, given 
     voluntarily and freely by millions of our fellow Americans, 
     is a unique American tradition . . . Philanthropy, charity, 
     giving voluntarily and freely . . . call it what you like, 
     but it is truly a jewel of an American tradition.

  Charities provide a valuable public service to society's most 
vulnerable citizens. Now more than ever, these organizations need our 
help. This plan to disincentivize charitable giving is absolutely 
wrong. Many of us on both sides of the aisle will be working hard to 
make sure it doesn't become law. Congress should preserve the full 
deduction for charitable donations and actually look for additional 
ways to encourage charitable giving, not discourage it.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________