Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SANTORUM. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, for your willingness to work with me on this issue as the Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act of 2003 moves forward. Limitation Provision

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to engage the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee in a colloquy regarding subtitle E, section 364, of the Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act of 2003, S. 1054. This section would limit the deduction for charitable contributions of patents and similar properties. It is my understanding that this provision would include a limitation on tax deductions for donation of the following items: any patent, copyright, trademark, trade name, trade secret, know-how, software, or similar property, or applications or registrations of such property. The effective date of this limitation would apply to contributions made after May 7, 2003. I have a specific concern about this provision. I understand the intent behind this change is to eliminate abuses associated with deductions claimed under IRC 170(e)(1)(B). What has resulted, however, is the unintended consequence of capturing legitimate and pending contributions that were in the process of being formalized, but not enacted by the effective date. Specifically, I am concerned about the impact of a pending transaction between two organizations in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The process to formalize the referenced donation began in December 2002, with the targeted date of April 21, 2003, for a signed and completed transfer. In an effort to clarify the impact of S. 1054 on this specific pending transaction, the involved organizations have worked with your staff to provide adequate background and substantial documentation to verify the legitimacy of the concern. I inquire of the chairman of the Finance Committee if he would comment on Section 364 of the bill, and my stated concern about a pending transaction?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of National Nurses Week, celebrated this year from May 5 through May 12. Our annual tribute to the women and men who give comfort to the ill and injured across the country reminds us that nurses stand daily on the front lines of the health care profession. This year, however, we should also be reminded of the brave nursing professionals who serve on and behind the front lines of battle: America's military nurses. With our campaign in Iraq coming to a close, it is fitting to honor the patriots who mend and support our Armed Forces in the field, in addition to those who keep us healthy at home. The first official military nurse corps in the United States was established in the Army at the turn of the last century. American women, however, had served as combat nurses in every major conflict since the Revolutionary War and, until the creation of the Army Nurse Corps, did so without recognition and as volunteers. In grade school we learned the story of Clara Barton and the gracious care she gave to soldiers wounded in the Civil War. But there were many women throughout American history--quite often the wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters of military men--who took up the role of nurse and treated the injured. They were compelled by genuine concern, kindness, and patriotism, and they used whatever supplies were available to them in their homes and neighborhoods. In the First and Second World Wars, nursing was the predominant service women were allowed to perform as participating members of the military. During these wars and in conflicts since, nurses have sacrificed their safety and, at times, their lives in serving overseas as medical professionals. Here in our Nation's Capital, as part of the Vietnam Memorial on the National Mall, there is a very poignant statue dedicated to the nurses who joined our troops in Southeast Asia. The image illustrates the important integration of medical care givers in successful military operations and the strength of these women who traveled to Vietnam and faced the same dangers and perils our soldiers did. In the gulf war, Afghanistan, and Iraq, military nurses have continued to exhibit this resolve and calm while tending to our Armed Forces. For a wounded soldier abroad, I can imagine no greater comfort. My appreciation for those who serve our communities and our Nation through the nursing profession stems from my experiences growing up on the campus of a Veterans Administration, VA, hospital. Additionally, my mother, sister, and wife all have nursing backgrounds and I have witnessed their commitment to quality health care and to their patients throughout my life. As we honor the women and men who are dedicated to this profession in clinics, hospitals, and VA facilities across the country, we also honor those nurses who are themselves veterans. They are soldiers of a different, yet equally brave, stripe and they are certainly heroes to the wounded troops they help to bring home. I hope my Senate colleagues will join me in recognizing and thanking America's nurses, military and civilian, for the incredible, indispensable, and courageous work they do.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join concerned colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, as well as concerned citizens, including Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs among many other faiths. We come together in support of a simple proposition. America is distinguished internationally as a land of religious freedom. It should be a place where people should not be forced to choose between keeping their faith and keeping their job. That is why I am joining with Senators Kerry, Ensign, Mikulski, Smith, Murray, Hatch, Lieberman, Brownback, and Corzine in introducing the bipartisan Workplace Religious Freedom Act. This legislation provides a much needed, balanced approach to reconciling the needs of people of faith in the workplace. It recognizes that work and religion can be reconciled without undue hardship. Americans continue to be a religious people, many with a deep personal faith commitment. With this commitment comes personal religious standards which govern personal activity. For example, some Americans don't work on Saturdays, while others don't work on Sundays. Not because they're lazy or frivolous, but because their faith convictions call for a Sabbath day, requiring a day to be set aside as holy. Similarly, some Americans need to wear a skullcap to work, or a head covering, or a turban. As a Nation whose great strength rests in diversity, surely we can protect such diverse yet simple and unobtrusive expressions of personal faith. Surely we're generous enough, and respecting enough as a Nation, to support others in genuine expressions of their faith. I am particularly anxious for the religious minorities, for the Muslims and the Jews and the others who are very small in number but great in conviction. In our increasingly diverse society, many remain among us who still hold to ancient, heartfelt principles governed by a deep personal belief. I submit to you they deserve the decency of respect which includes our protection in preserving their peaceful religious expressions. This is a core principle which cannot be compromised, because it speaks to the essence of who we are as a people committed to preserving freedom. Religious freedom is best protected and maintained by respecting the diversity of religious traditions, especially minority religions. The tragedy of September 11, 2001 has reminded us that religious pluralism is one the great strengths of this country and an example to much of the world. In this land of religious freedom, one would hope that employers would spontaneously accommodate the religious needs of their employees whenever reasonable. That is, after all, what we do whenever possible here in Congress. For example, we don't conduct votes or hearings on certain holidays so that Members and staff can observe their religious holy days. While most private employers also extend this simple but important decency to their workers, some unfortunately do not. Historically, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was meant to address conflicts between religion and work. On its face it requires employers to ``reasonably accommodate'' the religious needs of their employees as long as this does not impose an ``undue hardship'' on the employer. The problem is that our Federal courts have essentially read these lines out of the law by ruling that any hardship is an undue hardship. This is not right, nor does it hold with the spirit of this great Nation which was founded as a refuge for religious freedom. Thus, a Maryland trucking company can try to force a devout Christian truck driver to take a Sunday shift. A local sheriff's department in Nevada can tell a Seventh Day Adventist that she must work a Saturday shift if she wants to continue working for them. The Workplace Religious Freedom Act will re-establish the principle that employers must reasonably accommodate the religious needs of employees such as these. This legislation is carefully crafted and strikes an appropriate balance between religious accommodation, while ensuring that an undue burden is not forced upon American employers. It is flexible and case-oriented on an individual basis. Thus, a smaller business with less resources and personnel would not be asked to accommodate religious employees in exactly the same fashion as would a large manufacturing concern. I am proud of the fact that this is a bipartisan effort. I am proud that this legislation is supported by such a broad spectrum of groups ranging from the Christian Legal Society, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Council of Churches, the North American Council for Muslim Women, the Sikh Resource Taskforce, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the American Jewish Committee and many others. America is a great Nation because we honor not only the freedom of conscience--but also the freedom to exercise one's religion according to the dictates of that religious conscience. This liberty, known as the ``first freedom,'' is worthy of our continued vigilance. It should be supported from all quarters through religious accommodation in both the public and private sectors. This fundamental freedom is protected here in this legislation which re-establishes an appropriate balance between the demands of work and the principles of faith.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join concerned colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, as well as concerned citizens, including Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs among many other faiths. We come together in support of a simple proposition. America is distinguished internationally as a land of religious freedom. It should be a place where people should not be forced to choose between keeping their faith and keeping their job. That is why I am joining with Senators Kerry, Ensign, Mikulski, Smith, Murray, Hatch, Lieberman, Brownback, and Corzine in introducing the bipartisan Workplace Religious Freedom Act. This legislation provides a much needed, balanced approach to reconciling the needs of people of faith in the workplace. It recognizes that work and religion can be reconciled without undue hardship. Americans continue to be a religious people, many with a deep personal faith commitment. With this commitment comes personal religious standards which govern personal activity. For example, some Americans don't work on Saturdays, while others don't work on Sundays. Not because they're lazy or frivolous, but because their faith convictions call for a Sabbath day, requiring a day to be set aside as holy. Similarly, some Americans need to wear a skullcap to work, or a head covering, or a turban. As a Nation whose great strength rests in diversity, surely we can protect such diverse yet simple and unobtrusive expressions of personal faith. Surely we're generous enough, and respecting enough as a Nation, to support others in genuine expressions of their faith. I am particularly anxious for the religious minorities, for the Muslims and the Jews and the others who are very small in number but great in conviction. In our increasingly diverse society, many remain among us who still hold to ancient, heartfelt principles governed by a deep personal belief. I submit to you they deserve the decency of respect which includes our protection in preserving their peaceful religious expressions. This is a core principle which cannot be compromised, because it speaks to the essence of who we are as a people committed to preserving freedom. Religious freedom is best protected and maintained by respecting the diversity of religious traditions, especially minority religions. The tragedy of September 11, 2001 has reminded us that religious pluralism is one the great strengths of this country and an example to much of the world. In this land of religious freedom, one would hope that employers would spontaneously accommodate the religious needs of their employees whenever reasonable. That is, after all, what we do whenever possible here in Congress. For example, we don't conduct votes or hearings on certain holidays so that Members and staff can observe their religious holy days. While most private employers also extend this simple but important decency to their workers, some unfortunately do not. Historically, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was meant to address conflicts between religion and work. On its face it requires employers to ``reasonably accommodate'' the religious needs of their employees as long as this does not impose an ``undue hardship'' on the employer. The problem is that our Federal courts have essentially read these lines out of the law by ruling that any hardship is an undue hardship. This is not right, nor does it hold with the spirit of this great Nation which was founded as a refuge for religious freedom. Thus, a Maryland trucking company can try to force a devout Christian truck driver to take a Sunday shift. A local sheriff's department in Nevada can tell a Seventh Day Adventist that she must work a Saturday shift if she wants to continue working for them. The Workplace Religious Freedom Act will re-establish the principle that employers must reasonably accommodate the religious needs of employees such as these. This legislation is carefully crafted and strikes an appropriate balance between religious accommodation, while ensuring that an undue burden is not forced upon American employers. It is flexible and case-oriented on an individual basis. Thus, a smaller business with less resources and personnel would not be asked to accommodate religious employees in exactly the same fashion as would a large manufacturing concern. I am proud of the fact that this is a bipartisan effort. I am proud that this legislation is supported by such a broad spectrum of groups ranging from the Christian Legal Society, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Council of Churches, the North American Council for Muslim Women, the Sikh Resource Taskforce, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the American Jewish Committee and many others. America is a great Nation because we honor not only the freedom of conscience--but also the freedom to exercise one's religion according to the dictates of that religious conscience. This liberty, known as the ``first freedom,'' is worthy of our continued vigilance. It should be supported from all quarters through religious accommodation in both the public and private sectors. This fundamental freedom is protected here in this legislation which re-establishes an appropriate balance between the demands of work and the principles of faith.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for the tremendous bipartisan work it took to bring this bill to the floor, where I hope we will have a very strong vote on final passage. Particularly I thank the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, for his outstanding cooperation and work to make sure this was done in a very strong, bipartisan way. Finally, I thank Randy Brandt, from my staff, who has put his heart and soul into this legislation and just did an outstanding job. I thank him and yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank my colleague from Connecticut for his kind remarks and for his steadfast support. It was a struggle and took a lot of persistence. That is a virtue we have seen exhibited on this legislation. He has been persistently for it, has worked diligently to find the common ground. That is what this legislation is all about-- finding common ground. We have seen very strong bipartisan support for the bill. It is nice to see that every now and then on the floor of the Senate. We will help people who are in need of help, people who are out there serving our fellow man. It is a good day in the Senate that we are doing something positive to help those in need in society. We are doing it in a bipartisan way, and we are doing it in a fiscally responsible way. It is a win-win-win across the board. I thank my leader, Senator Frist. He has been a steadfast supporter as well. He has fought for this priority of our conference. This is one of the high priority items we have fought for on our side of the aisle, and gratefully we have seen it also as a high priority on the other side of the aisle. That is a wonderful thing. I thank Senator Daschle and Senator Reid for their cooperation and willingness to continue to work this issue until we could arrive at a point where we are successful today. I think we will be successful in a very overwhelming way. We have already seen that the House is going through the process of marking up--they have not done it yet, but they have a template laid out for their version of the bill. We are optimistic that the House will promptly act to move a piece of legislation with which we can go to conference and get a bill to the President expeditiously to help many in our society who are out there working on the front lines trying to help people in need-- particularly those people of faith. One of the things I have heard is that the faith-based elements have been stripped. I counter that by saying if you look at the donations we are encouraging and some of these provisions that we have--for example, maternity group homes or food donation provisions--food donation in this country is overwhelmingly done by organizations of faith. They are the ones who collect the donations and distribute them. It is the same thing with maternity group homes. A large segment of those homes out there are faith based in nature, as well as a lot of the charitable giving provisions that will disproportionately have a positive impact on faith-based organizations. This will help faith-based organizations on the giving side, and, as I mentioned yesterday, the compassion capital fund in the bill provides technical assistance to small charities. Again, the principal beneficiaries will be small, inner-city, faith- based organizations, these neighborhoods with many nondenominational churches which are already receiving technical assistance and instruction on how to apply for Federal funds through the charitable choice provisions of the 1996 Welfare Act. Already we are providing that assistance. This will increase that amount and will increase the grassroots, faith-based, inner-city entities, working in many cases in the most difficult neighborhoods, with the opportunity to access funds. Their base of funds isn't that great. They are some of the poorest neighborhoods in America. So it is a great day for those who have been working hard and committing their lives in some of the most difficult neighborhoods of the country that will be getting the resources that are much needed to the grassroots organizations that, as the President has said, are driven by their faith commitment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise today to engage the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee in a colloquy regarding welfare benefit plans in relation to title VII of S. 476. Employee Welfare Benefit plans, regulated under ERISA, are employer- sponsored plans that provide security to employees at the time of an event that interrupts or impairs their earning power by providing benefits such as death benefits, medical insurance, long-term care and child care. By way of introduction, sections 419 and 419A of the Internal Revenue Code set forth special rules for the deduction of contributions to a welfare benefit fund, including limitations on the amount of the deduction that would otherwise be deductible. Moreover, 419A(f)(6) provides that the rules of sections 419 and 419A do not apply in the case of a welfare benefit fund that is part of a plan to which more than one employer contributes and to which no employer normally contributes more than 10 percent of the contributions of all employers under the plan. This exception for 10 or more employer plans, however, does not apply to any plan that maintains experience rating arrangements with respect to individual employers. It is my understanding that there is ongoing review of sections 419 and 419A as the Department of Treasury seeks to establish further guidance relative to 10 or more employer plans. It is my understanding that such considerations have contributed to uncertainty in the tax treatment of these plans. I inquire of Chairman Grassley if he is aware of the concerns surrounding the uncertain tax treatment of 10 or more employer plans, and if so, if he would agree to continue discussions with Treasury in an effort to achieve clarity.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the chairman for agreeing to work with me on this important issue.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next two votes be 10 minutes in duration.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln, as well as Senators Jeffords, Kyl, Coleman and Clinton, in introducing the Medicare Innovation Responsiveness Act of 2003. Given all that is going on in the world today, it is sometimes difficult to focus on issues related to Medicare coverage, coding and payment procedures. But we must, because every day there are seniors and people with disabilities in need of lifesaving and life-enhancing medical treatments and technologies. And every day, there are creative people in Pennsylvania, Arkansas, and all across our great country developing new ways to prevent and treat illness and save lives. Medicare patients should not be denied access to these new procedures and technologies because the Medicare program is slow to respond to innovations in medical care and the changing needs of patients. Congress passed legislation with strong bipartisan support in 1999 and in 2000 to try to address these problems. Unfortunately, however, Medicare has failed to deliver on key commitments in the legislation and these barriers persist. That is why we are here today--to introduce legislation that will finally make timely access to lifesaving advanced medical tests and treatments for Medicare patients a reality. Our bill builds on constructive approaches the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, has taken recently to help Medicare keep up with advancements in treating patients. For example, CMS recently took proactive, unprecedented steps to address one of the newest innovations in minimally invasive cardiology that will soon be available for patients: drug-eluting stents. These tiny medal scaffolds, long-used to reopen blocked heart arteries, can be more effective now that researchers have combined them with time- released drugs to prevent the growth of unwanted cells. The Agency established new hospital inpatient codes and reimbursements for the new stints because it recognized that the technology will quickly become the standard of care when approved by FDA in the coming weeks. The Agency understood the potential the stents hold to transform patient care and health care delivery--and acted in a timely fashion. This forward-looking approach should be the rule, not the exception, in dealing with new treatment breakthroughs. And that is what our legislation today seeks to achieve. At an event where Senator Lincoln and I spoke to underscore the need for this legislation, we were pleased to be joined by medical professionals from our respective states, people who took time out of their busy schedules to come to Washington, DC and help us explain the importance of some of the provisions in the bill we are introducing today. For example, three years after a mandate from Congress, Medicare has yet to provide special transitional payments for any new medical device used in the inpatient setting. As a result, Medicare will continue to take anywhere from 15 months to five years to integrate a new medical technology into the inpatient setting--and that is after it has already been approved as safe and effective by the FDA. Dr. Mark Wholey from Pittsburgh is involved in research on carotid stenting, and he commented today on the promise of this new treatment option and the importance of reducing barriers to Medicare patient access for new and innovative technologies. In another area of coverage policy, Medicare discourages development of breakthrough devices like heart assist devices because it does not cover the routine costs of clinical trials for many innovative technologies. Dr. Walter Pae, Professor of Surgery at Penn State University, also came to Washington today to share some details of the pioneering work he is doing at Hershey Medical Center and to reinforce the importance of patient access to these promising clinical trials. These reforms are reasonable and bipartisan. Most importantly, they are critical to patients in need of new and breakthrough technologies. I look forward to working with Senator Lincoln and my colleagues on the Finance Committee in moving these important reforms in Committee and the Senate this year.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Indiana. I yield to him as much time as he may consume.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Finance Committee, for his kind words and his cooperation. I thank the ranking member of the committee for his cooperation. There are some things in this legislation that he is not particularly enamored with, but he was most cooperative and helpful in moving the legislation forward. We are now at a point where we are within 24 hours of passing the legislation. Most of all, I thank my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, who has been a faithful partner--to use a play on words--a faithful partner in putting this initiative together. We have worked together closely with the President, who has been truly the motivating force to try to provide some ammunition to the armies of compassion out there on the front lines every day, fighting for hope and opportunity for the millions of Americans who have yet to realize their dreams in dealing with the problems that confront them. The President has, through his faith-based initiative, been very clear in the role of charitable organizations, particularly people of faith within those organizations, to heal many of the ills that confront society. We are a society that, while very prosperous by any measure, even at a time of economic downturn that we are experiencing right now, we are still the wealthiest country in the history of the world. With that great wealth comes responsibility. So many people have taken up that responsibility, trying to meet and serve those who in a society of great wealth have experienced a multitude of problems in trying to achieve, both from the economic perspective but again, as I said before, pursuing their dreams. This piece of legislation, while it is not everything the President requested--it is not all of his faith-based initiative--certainly gets at one of the most important components which is the one funding organizations which do charitable purposes or have charitable purposes. No. 2, there is a provision called the Compassionate Capital Fund which is grants to small organizations with less than six employees or less than $\1/2\ million in funding, to go out and be able to, for the first time, compete for Federal funds. A lot of these small organizations, most of which are faith based in nature, have not been successful in applying for government grants principally because they don't have the resources or the expertise to do so. When you are running a food pantry with one or two people, most of whom are part-time employees and many volunteers, you don't have the expertise to apply for Federal grant dollars or any other kind of grant dollars. You try to do what you can to make ends meet. This provides the kind of technical assistance necessary for a lot of smaller, mostly inner-city organizations that right now do not take advantage of the money available through the Federal Government, again, whether they are faith based or not. Most of these organizations are faith based in nature so there is a faith component to this. As I will show later, many of the provisions in the act will have a disproportionate benefit to charitable organizations which are faith based. It doesn't accomplish a couple of the things the President set out to do. The issue Senator Durbin spoke of earlier having to do with equal treatment, even though it is not in this legislation, let me address it very briefly and then maybe in more detail later on. The whole concept of equal treatment is to allow those who have some element of faith within their organization--and there is a whole range across the charitable organization horizon. There is a whole range of faith, how much faith is integrated into those organizations--some are, to use the term, ``saturated'' or completely faith based in nature and expressively faith based in their programs, to the whole range of the other side which are those that are exclusively secular and even to some degree hostile to faith. In between there are gradations. What the President has tried to do is instead of, as we do right now, as we did prior to the 1996 welfare reform, which allowed for charitable choice, in other words, for some government programs to go, these dollars to go to faith organizations, we sort of eliminated all these people of faith and all these organizations that have faith as a component of their mission or their vision or their program and left it to a very rather narrow category. We, in 1996, on the Senate floor, with President Clinton signing it, said we would stop that discrimination against people of faith who wanted to act based on their faith to help their fellow man, as long as they didn't do certain things such as use it for faith worship or proselytizing, things that are not delivery of service. We expanded greatly the range of faith organizations and nonfaith organizations. We expanded greatly those who can participate in government funds. When you do that, you run into some problems, some questions. We have seen tremendous success and very few cases where problems have arisen, but in the areas where they have, there have been questions as to what government statutes apply, what provisions or regulations apply to faith organizations as opposed to nonfaith organizations. One of the principal questions has to do with people's religious liberties and their ability to practice their faith bumping up against other rights. The one that the House of Representatives dealt with and the Senator from Illinois referred to had to do with the issue of employment and whether religious organizations which are provided with government funds can say that someone cannot work for that organization or they can refuse to hire someone who works for that organization who doesn't share that organization's values with respect to tenets and teaching of the faith which is expressed through their program. One of the things I believe is essential to a lot of faith organizations, one of the reasons that faith organizations should be and need to be included in providing social services, is that a lot of these faith-based organizations don't just treat the symptom. They don't just treat the hunger, if it is someone who comes in for food assistance, or they don't just treat the dependency on drugs or alcohol, if someone comes in for addiction treatment. It doesn't just treat the problem of a lack of a GED or education, if someone comes in for education and training. What they do, because of their mission, they treat the mind. They treat the spirit and they treat the emotional well-being of this person. They treat the whole person. That is one of the keys to success in trying to truly turn people's lives around in a way that brings them back into productive life in America. The key to these faith organizations is having people who have this mission they share out there teaching and bringing people in based on a certain core value structure. My argument is, we should not discriminate against people who have programs that are value laden-- those values may be based on Scripture, the Old or New Testament or some other book--as opposed to saying we are going to discriminate against you because the values you have are based upon a religious belief, as opposed to an organization that is secular and its values are not based on a religious belief. I don't understand the reason for the discrimination. I don't believe it should exist. I have had this discussion in brief, and we can talk more about it. I am sure we will. But having said all that, none of that is in this bill. We decided not to have this issue before us today because the need of getting resources out to the charitable organizations meeting human service and educational and other needs is, frankly, too urgent. While we will debate this--and I am sure others will want to debate this issue--the true debate will wait for another day. That will be when the welfare reauthorization comes up. That is where this whole conversation of charitable choice and allowing faith-based providers to participate in government grants came about, back in 1996. And it is where we should continue that debate. I pledge to you that whether we get that bill or have that amendment in committee, or whether we bring it to the floor, this will be a topic of discussion and one I encourage all Members to think about and participate in. But the charitable crisis is real, and that is why I agreed--and my colleagues in the House have been more than cooperative in putting together, hopefully, a compromise we can quickly get to the President's desk. We understand the crisis is real. Adjusted for inflation, charitable giving 2 years ago, in 2001, was 2.3 percent lower than in 2000. You have to remember at the end of 2001, unfortunately, we had to deal with the aftermath of 9/11, where there was a tremendous outpouring of giving. Even with that outpouring of giving, because of the sluggish economy, charitable giving fell again last year. Corporate giving fell again between 2000 and 2001 by 14.5 percent. Again, we don't have the final numbers for 2002, but it was supposed to be off again last year. We saw the American Red Cross--I'll give a couple of examples. Their contributions declined anywhere from 20 to 60 percent; Salvation Army, off 5 to 10 percent; United Way, off 4 to 5 percent. We can go on and on. Colleges and universities saw a decline in the amount of charitable giving to their organizations, too. So what we are doing is trying to respond in a comprehensive way. When I say that, I mean if you look at this bill, it is carefully crafted to provide incentives for all different types of givers-- corporate, foundations, and individuals who don't itemize on their tax forms. By the way, if those with IRA rollovers want to give money to charitable organizations, they can do so without having to pay taxes under this legislation. So whether it is the small giver to, hopefully, the retiree, or someone who has a large IRA, or corporations who may want to give more money--all the way down the line to food donations, which is another area where the Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar, has a provision in this legislation that I think is very important, we have a provision that will encourage literally billions of dollars of additional food donations over the next several years by providing a tax incentive for corporations; but for the first time, partnerships, individual proprietors, and S corporations will be able to take the fair market value of their donation as a deduction--it is up to twice the cost of the basis of that food item--as a deduction for giving to charitable purposes. We have about a billion pounds of food donated right now to people in America to help feed the hungry in America. It feeds about 26 million people. There are 96 billion pounds of food wasted in America. That is just an enormous amount. It is almost incomprehensible that we are talking about that amount. When you consider the fact that roughly 1 billion pounds of food donated helps feed 26 million, can you imagine, if we just increase it by a very small percentage, the amount of donated food there could be and how many people we could feed in America? Senator Lugar's legislation is included. We believe it will make a dramatic impact on hunger in America. There are a lot of other provisions. I see my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Bayh. I will be on the floor for a while. I want to give him the opportunity to share with us some of the things he has been active with. He has a provision in the legislation he has shepherded through the process. I will have him talk about that. He has also been a champion and strong supporter of this legislation and the entire package from day one. I thank him for his support, and I appreciate him coming to the floor to talk about this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his kind remarks with respect to the compromise that Senator Lieberman and I have engaged in to move this legislation forward. I appreciate his support of this legislation, as I do that of all of my colleagues. As he stated, and he is correct, I do take issue with his perspective on the issue of charitable choice and the funding--allowing of government funds to be used by organizations that have some element of faith within their structure, whether it has been the guiding principles of the organization or with the programs that they administer. I do not believe it violates the ``separation of church and state.'' I do believe organizations of faith should not be discriminated against. We should not be in the business of just funding a set of organizations that have no faith component in them at the expense of those that do--for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is there is a lot of evidence out there, most of which is anecdotal I understand, but a growing body of evidence that organizations of faith are much more effective in dealing with problems, particularly the more systemic problems that we have. But I object to the underlying premise of this argument that somehow or another we are violating the Founding Fathers' understanding of the separation of church and state. I talk at a lot of schools. I ask kids: What words are in the Constitution, ``the free exercise of religion'' or ``separation of church and state''? Usually about 75 to 80 percent of the kids say, ``separation of church and state'' is in the Constitution, which of course it is not. The Senator from Rhode Island talked about the genesis of that in referring to one of the Founding Fathers, referring to the establishment clause as erecting a wall of separation between church and state. But what were they talking about? They were talking about certainly the country from which they came, which was England, which had an established church. The Government funded the church, as many European countries did historically, for long periods of time. Certainly prior to the Reformation, the Catholic Church was intertwined very much so with the state. After the Reformation, each reform church had its own country and was funded in many cases. People came to this country for religious freedom. They did not want an established religion. But even at the time in America there were certain colonies that had affinities for different religions. Maryland, for example--neighboring Maryland was considered more of a Catholic colony. Pennsylvania was home to the Quakers--on down the line. There was a concern that that could come over here to this country, so they put in this clause that we should not have an established religion. The difference is between the constitutional provisions that allow for the free exercise of religion and the prohibition against the establishment of religion. But this is really about freedom of religion; in other words, to practice whatever religious tenets you want and for the government not to get in your way in doing so. What some are really arguing is freedom from religion, which I can tell you is completely antithetical to what our Founding Fathers believed. We will have this debate. I am looking forward to it because I think it is important for the Senate, arguably the greatest deliberative body in the world, to talk about these important issues. The role of faith in our society is central. It is central to the success of America. One of the reasons we are a successful country is because we are a faith-filled country. One of the reasons we are a faith-filled country is because we have a tremendous marketplace of ideas, whether it is the street-corner preacher or the old church down the street that has been there for centuries. We have a marketplace of ideas of faith and that is what makes us: People out preaching the Word, talking about the values that faith imparts and the messages that faith imparts and its relevance to people's lives. Here is a statistic I just marvel over. There are more people who go to church in America over a weekend, church and synagogue and temple, than to all the sporting events throughout the entire year in America. On one weekend, more people go to their places of worship than to all the sporting events that are held in America over the course of a year. That is remarkable. It is a great thing about America. It is what makes us unique. It is because we have not established religion. But it is not because we are saying people need to be free from religion. I think that is one of the concerns I have with the tack that the Senator from Rhode Island was taking. Let me mention a couple of issues. Again, this is the beginning of a debate that is not about this bill. I repeat, we have taken everything having to do with the concept of equal treatment out of this legislation. We will save that debate for another day. But there are some things in this legislation I would like to address very briefly. I see the Senator from New Jersey. I will not keep him long. One of the items I am most excited about in this legislation is a provision called individual development accounts. Senator Lieberman and I and Senator Feinstein and many others, who have been advocates of this legislation for quite some time, are very excited about it being part of this initiative. Individual development accounts are a matched savings account for low-income and low- to moderate-income individuals who will have an opportunity to put up to $500 a year into a savings account and have that matched, dollar for dollar, up to $500. So it will be $1,000 total. It is an exciting opportunity for these individuals to be able to put money aside. For what? So they can put it aside for three reasons: to buy a home, to get education, higher education, or, in some cases, technical training, vocational training, as well as start a small business, start a business. So it is a way for people to save for events in their lives that can transform their future economically: better education; a home, a place where they can save, invest, and build equity. As everybody knows in this Chamber, the place where most people have the bulk of their savings is in their home, in the equity they have in their home. So the opportunity for home ownership, and having that money for a downpayment, is so important. And IDAs create that opportunity. And finally, for starting that small business, being that entrepreneur--that spirit really drives America and really is the ladder of success so many people in America have access to--we want to create a nest egg for people to be able to buy that first piece of equipment. If you want to start a landscaping service, you can buy that lawn mower, you can buy the other tools you need to do that job, or a variety of other interests people get engaged in as their first business. So we, Senator Lieberman and I, are very excited about this opportunity. We think it builds not just the opportunity for access to the home or to the education or to that small business, but it builds the virtue of deferred gratification. That is a virtue we sometimes do not practice very much in America, but it is a virtue of delaying the expenditure of that dollar, to put it aside, to save it for something that is more important than what you immediately have before you. And when I am talking about gratification, I am not talking about luxuries. I am talking about maybe simple things, maybe very minor things in the lives of people who are low to moderate income. But deferring that to something that may be transformational in their lives is really something we should create incentives to do because, again, it helps people move up that ladder of success in America. I see a couple of my colleagues are in the Chamber. I am happy to yield the floor for their input.

Mr. SANTORUM. Reserving the right to object, I may have a Senator on the way down to the Chamber who is trying to fit in here. How long is the Senator from New Jersey going to speak?

Mr. SANTORUM. I have no objection.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana for his overly kind words with respect to my participation in this legislation. The Senator from Indiana has been truly one of the people out front and has been very supportive. I cannot count the number of press conferences I have asked the Senator from Indiana to be at trying to keep this ball rolling, and at times with a very busy schedule. He has always found time to associate himself with this cause and to continue to make sure it was on track in a bipartisan way. That is how we get things done around here. I am very happy to have him as one of the prime cosponsors of this legislation. I again appreciate very much his kind words, but even more so appreciate his tremendous effort on making this legislation a reality. I see the Senator from Rhode Island. If he is on a time schedule, I will be happy to yield the floor to provide him an opportunity to speak.