Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SANTORUM. Isn't the difference the Senator from New York suggested about your comment about Judge Barkett and the situation with Miguel Estrada that Judge Barkett had an extensive record to analyze and you concluded by that record there was judicial activism? Is there any record that would lead any Member on the other side to suggest that Miguel Estrada would be a judicial activist?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield for a question?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, has any Member of the Senate questioned the nominee's intelligence?

Mr. SANTORUM. Has any Member of the Senate questioned his temperament?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for an additional question.

Mr. SANTORUM. And has any person questioned his temperament?

Mr. SANTORUM. What I understand the Senator from Utah is saying is that on every quality by which judicial nominees are judged traditionally here in the Senate, on every single one of those qualities, he has either had no argument from the other side that he does not meet those standards or, in many cases, he has exceeded those standards, except in one case with respect to judicial temperament. In that case, we have the person who makes those claims having written contemporaneous reports that rebut his own later testimony, and the supervisor rebutting that testimony. So other than that one case, on all of the other qualities by which we are to judge a candidate here, there is no argument about his qualifications?

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for an additional question, I would just ask that to be clarified. Has the other side produced any evidence that, in the history of this nominee as a lawyer, he has produced any information or any information has been produced that shows that his principles or ideology are outside of the mainstream? Has any evidence been produced to that effect?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. That is correct, including, I believe, six other Solicitor Generals who have said it would threaten the viability of the Solicitor General's office if this information were discoverable through this nomination process.

Mr. SANTORUM. I suggest it went further. We were accused, if we voted against any minority--they would single out any negative vote against any minority member--it was the equivalent of having some sort of antiracial agenda; that somehow we harbored ill feelings toward whatever particular race or gender happened to be the subject of that nominee.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Kentucky for his excellent remarks. He said much of what I wanted to say, outlining the extraordinary qualifications of Miguel Estrada. He very clearly laid out the case that there is no legitimate reason to filibuster his nomination, but that appears to be the tactic that is being contemplated and maybe even being engaged in by many on the other side of the aisle, certainly not all on the other side of the aisle. We are certainly grateful for Members who are discerning enough to understand, as has been quoted many times--the Washington Post has suggested that filibustering this nomination would be unjustifiable, I think is their term, and certainly beneath the standards in the Senate. The standard is that we do not filibuster judges for the circuit courts, that it would be an unprecedented move to filibuster a judge. In the 220-odd-year history of the Senate, what makes this judge so unique? And that is what it would be, it would be unique because it is the first time in the history of this country a filibuster would be conducted on a circuit court nominee. What makes this nominee so unique to warrant--and I am not using this term in a pejorative sense but in a factual context--an extreme reaction, extreme by the definition that it is the first time in almost 230 years of American history that this would occur, that this would be an extreme reaction because it has never been done before. What has this nominee done, or what about this nominee causes such an overreaction, or extreme reaction, that raises the bar to this high level? Let's look at this nominee. The Senator from Kentucky noted he is intellectually clearly qualified. He got into colleges I was not able to get into, I can say that. As the Senator from Kentucky said, he is a man who was raised in Honduras. English was not his first language. He was able to perform at the highest levels at some of the most rigorous universities in the country, Columbia and then Harvard Law School. He was on Law Review, it is my understanding, at Harvard Law School. These are truly lofty attainments and a demonstration of not only a powerful intellect but a rigorous attitude toward his studies and a commitment to excellence. He clerked for the appellate court, which is a high honor very rarely bestowed upon graduates of law school, and even a more rare honor is to clerk for a Supreme Court Justice. He obviously has the intellectual capability, even at a young age; that was established. He has gone on with a distinguished career in law, public service, and in the private sector. He has argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court, which, frankly, standing up before a panel of Supreme Court Justices is hard enough but, in all candor, standing up when you have a speech impediment has to be a thoroughly paralyzing experience. To have the courage to persuasively make arguments, nonetheless, and deal with the bench under this context is a testament not only to his intellectual capability and to the hard work he puts into his job but to the personal courage and determination this man has. So we have in this nominee someone who has overcome adversity in language, adversity in disability, and performed at the highest levels of the legal profession in this country. As the Senator from Kentucky mentioned, he has a unanimous well- qualified rating. I am sure this has been repeated many times, but the other side has said this is the gold standard, this is the stamp of approval, getting a qualified rating from the American Bar Association. This was not a qualified rating. This was not a well-qualified rating. This was a unanimously well-qualified rating. So what is it? What could it possibly be that this nominee has done in his life to potentially warrant the first ever filibuster of a circuit court judge in the history of the Senate? What has he done? What are the arguments on the other side? One of the arguments on the other side is he does not have sufficient experience. Well, I am a lawyer, and I can say I do not have near the experience Miguel Estrada has. I have not performed nearly in the arena of the law he has. His experience is abundant. He has never been a judge. He is being nominated for a position on a court where there are eight judges right now. Five of the eight confirmed by this Senate had no prior judicial experience. So if judicial experience was so important for this court, then why do over half the members on this court have no prior judicial experience? One could make that argument, but the cup the water is being held in is as empty as the top. It flows straight through. It does not hold any water. He has refused to disclose his judicial philosophy. Since when do we expect people who are applying for judicial nominations to tell us how they would rule on future cases? That would truly be an extreme view, an unprecedented view, for the consideration of judges in the Senate. We do not require people to prejudge cases. In fact, part of the canons is one does not prejudge cases. So to ask a judge-nominee how he would rule or what his feeling is on these matters is inappropriate and that is why most judges, if not--well, maybe some give opinions, but most nominees who come before the Senate for confirmation do not answer that question. They can talk general judicial philosophy, but to go through and talk about how they would rule on certain cases is something that is an inappropriate question, in my mind, and should not be answered. The other side is saying he did not turn over his work papers. Now, I did practice a little bit of law, and there is a privileged work product of lawyers that is not available to the other side in a case. Generally speaking, it is not available for discovery. Why? Because when you are working on a case--having worked in my capacity for a senior partner in most cases, as is the case here, because Miguel Estrada was an Assistant Solicitor; he was not the Solicitor General; he was working for someone in the capacity of the Solicitor's office-- you are preparing the case and trying to share his opinions, his candid opinions about what his boss should do. His boss may make a different decision, but his boss needs, as my senior partner needed, my candid opinion about what I thought of the merits of our argument or the facts in the case or whatever the case may be. He needed my candid assessment. Why? Because I understood the issue better than he or she did. That work product was essential for coming to the decisionmaking with all the best information that decisionmaker needed to make the property assessment of the case and to move forward.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield.

Mr. SANTORUM. That is correct.

Mr. SANTORUM. That is correct.

Mr. SANTORUM. I find that incongruous. I find, frankly, all of the arguments to be specious, at best. What is confounding is that such an extreme measure appears to be in the offing, which is a filibuster, on such a pathetically weak case against this nominee. So one has to step back and ask, Why? What is going on here? Why is this nominee being singled out? What is it about this nominee that is unusual, that has raised the fear or the ire of so many in this Chamber?

Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield.

Mr. SANTORUM. I know when you try to bully someone into doing something and they don't do it, it can be pretty frustrating. But that is no reason to go to such an extreme unprecedented measure of filibustering an obviously competent, well-qualified--unanimously supported by the American Bar Association--nominee for the circuit court. I would just say this in closing. It is my intention as a Senator to see this nominee through to a vote. I think this nominee deserves a vote. There has been no reason, no legitimate judicial reason why this nominee should not be given an opportunity to be voted on. So I will make this statement. It is this Senator's intention to do everything I can do to keep the Senate on this issue for as long as it takes for a vote to occur. When I say ``as long as it takes,'' let me underscore what I mean: As long as it takes. If the other side likes to stand up and criticize Miguel Estrada and wants to filibuster his nomination, let me assure you, we will provide you plenty of opportunity and time to do that if that is what you want to do. If you want to make the next days, weeks, months, years an opportunity to talk about Judge Estrada's qualifications for this job, it is this Senator's intention to give you the opportunity to do that. He deserves, through his outstanding record of accomplishment, overcoming language, disability, and prejudice heretofore and potentially now, to get this vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield.

Mr. SANTORUM. I stand here, as the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Utah, and ask the question, Why this nominee? The Senator may have--I hope he has not--may have uncovered what may be the underlying cause of this obstruction. We have passed and considered judges who, through their nominating process, have disclosed their conservative ideology equal to Miguel Estrada. It is accepted that Miguel Estrada is conservative in answering his questions and how he interprets the law. It seems to be consistent with, frankly, most if not all of President Bush's nominees. President Bush believes in commonsense judges who take the Constitution for what it says and who follow the law. As Miguel Estrada has said in his testimony, he would follow the law. The Supreme Court says this is the law; he will follow the law. That is all this President wants. That is all most Members, certainly on our side, would like to see--which is, judges who are not Supreme Court Judges now, because they are making more law than following law--judges on the district court and appellate courts and their responsibility to follow the higher court. Miguel Estrada said, without question, he will do so. It is not that he will not follow precedent. The objection must be philosophy. If it is philosophy, look at all the nominees of this President. They are overwhelmingly almost universally more conservative than they are liberal. I don't know how you measure conservatism, but certainly they are almost all generally right around where Miguel Estrada is as far as his philosophy is concerned of government and of jurisprudence. Yet none of them have been filibustered on the floor of the Senate. So, again, you come back: What is different about Miguel Estrada than all the other conservative district court judges, appellate court judges, who have been confirmed by the Senate? They have been given a vote. I won't even go to confirmed. They have just been given the opportunity for a vote. I can speak from personal experience, one I know very well. We had probably the most contentious nominee to hit the floor the last session of Congress, a judge from Pennsylvania, Judge Brooks Smith. He was from the western district of Pennsylvania. Judge Brooks Smith is a conservative judge, very much in the mainstream of ideology on the court and America. But he tracks more conservatively in his opinions than those more activist in nature, or more liberal. Did they oppose him on that? No, they found a few issues having to do with him being involved with a club, years ago, that excluded women. So they began to make this case that he was antiwoman. So that was the reason for this whole thing, even though we had the local chapter of NOW in his own county come out and suggest this is a good guy. It didn't matter. They had a hook. So they stuck the hook in. But they gave him a vote. They reported him out of committee and we gave him a vote on the Senate floor and he passed with 60-plus votes here on the floor of the Senate. I know Judge Smith well and have tremendous respect for him. But I suggest Judge Smith and Miguel Estrada, when it comes to judicial philosophy, are pretty much two peas in a pod. It's pretty hard to tell the difference between how they would approach the issues. Judge Smith got a vote, even though, arguably--even though I think it was a red herring--he had some other issue out there that could have been used to discolor or discredit him. What issue does Miguel Estrada have that could potentially disqualify him? What has he done in his legal career that could be used against him? I have not heard anything that, through his experience or education or actions, has disqualified him from this position. I haven't heard of any clubs he belonged to. He is a minority, so it's hard to belong to a club that excluded minorities, if he was one, so we can't run into that problem. Maybe that is the problem. Maybe that is the problem, that we have someone who is a conservative and a minority. Is that the combination that is lethal?

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to express support on behalf of The Charity Aid, Recovery and Empowerment, CARE, Act of 2003, which I am introducing today with Senator Lieberman, Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, Senator Bayh, Majority Leader Frist and other bipartisan cosponsors with the support of President Bush. The CARE Act was introduced in the last Congress and was considered by the Senate Finance Committee but was never debated on the floor of the Senate because of repeated objections to unanimous consent requests to bring up the bill. The time has come to move this important resources package forward to help those in need and to assist those charitable organizations walking alongside them to restore families and communities. The CARE Act reflects America's renewed spirit of unity, community and responsibility in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the new challenges that have faced us since then. It is an important legislative package to encourage giving, saving, and fairness which builds on the President's Faith-Based and Community Initiative. This bipartisan consensus bill seeks to harness the potential of charitable organizations in order to better serve the most needy members of our society in partnership with government efforts. A coalition of more than 1,600 national and grassroots charitable organizations helping those in need endorsed nearly similar legislation last year. The bill offers incentives to individuals and corporations to increase charitable giving, rewards low-income citizens who choose to save, and insists on fairness for faith-based organizations by leveling the playing field so that non-governmental organizations involved in charitable activities may compete for government funds to provide social service delivery. Throughout our country many social entrepreneurs and community healers are making a difference in the lives of those who are struggling and in the neighborhoods and communities seeking to revive themselves in the face of poverty, crime, failing schools, and unemployment. Many of these heroic individuals and organizations are also motivated by faith. For example, more than 75 percent of the food banks across our Nation have a religious affiliation. The CARE Act attempts to help with the current challenges that charitable organizations are facing and expand the base of private and governmental resources well into the future to better help those in need such as the hungry, the homeless, the addicted, the sick, at-risk children, and the elderly through a variety of tools and resources. The tremendous outpouring of generosity by Americans after September 11 is to be celebrated. Yet the reality is that many needs remain unmet throughout the country as some charitable giving has been redirected and other human needs have increased. Unfortunately, as a result of the tragic events of September 11, a struggling stock market, and the recent recession, numerous charitable organizations have suffered financial losses, in some cases, up to 20 percent or more. The bill seeks to expand the capacity of the voluntary and charitable sectors in this country which is one of the greatest strengths and traditions of our country. The CARE Act seeks to address these needs through a number of expanded tax incentives. The bill restores a charitable tax deduction for the 84 million Americans who do not itemize for a maximum deduction of up to $250 for individual taxpayers and $500 for couples for charitable giving beyond a base level of $250 for individuals and $500 couples. To encourage larger donations, IRA holders will also be allowed to make charitable contributions without tax penalties. Corporations and farmers will be offered tax deductions for their donations of food to charity, amounting to $1 billion dollars over 10 years in order to provide more food to the needy rather than letting it go to waste. A deduction is also provided for contributions of books to schools. The CARE Act also attempts to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. Through Individual Development Accounts, IDAs, low-income Americans are encouraged to save and build assets and provided training in financial education. These special savings accounts offer matching contributions from the sponsoring bank or community organization reimbursed through a Federal tax credit, on the condition that the proceeds go to buying a home, starting a business or paying for post- secondary education. Low-income Americans are now being given the possibility of sharing in the American dream. The provision would provide for a phased-in 300,000 savings accounts for a national demonstration. The CARE Act helps small faith and community-based organizations. Through the Compassion Capital Fund, it provides these community healers with additional resources for technical assistance such as enabling incorporation, grant writing and accounting skills. It also allows social service agencies with experience in administering government contracts to play an intermediate role between government agencies and smaller charities. These provisions will help smaller faith-based charities to survive and to grow into viable charitable organizations. The legislation also expands resources through significant increases in the Social Services Block Grant, SSBG, funds of more than $1.2 billion. Despite the positive advantages of the CARE Act, some are wary of the impact of its provisions. Some critics on the left argue that the provisions violate the Constitution by fusing church and state because preferential treatment is given to religious groups. This is false. Instead, the CARE Act gives religious charitable organizations the opportunity to compete with secular organizations for Federal funding by strengthening the principle of nondiscrimination against faith-based organizations through the codification of basic and commonsense equal treatment protections. The proposed legislation creates a more level playing field for faith-based charities by ensuring that they cannot be discriminated against in applying for government funds because of their religious nature by ensuring the right to maintain religious icons, religious names, religious governance criteria, and religious references in founding documents. The provision also makes clear that the mere fact that a faith-based provider has not previously received government funding does not disqualify them from consideration. On the other hand, some critics on the right argue that the CARE Act will undermine the religious nature of faith-based organizations by restricting their abilities to promote religious values and by controlling the hiring process. But the moral integrity of faith-based organizations is protected by the Act. Though the question of hiring is not addressed in the bill, current laws will continue to apply, the equal treatment for non-governmental organizations provision in the bill assures that organizations which seek federal funds are not required to remove religious symbols, change their names, or change their governing structures to qualify. Hence, faith-based organizations can still adhere to the values and beliefs that motivate, make them unique, and reflect the diversity of America as they serve those in need. The initiative does not require faith-based organizations to participate with government funds in their efforts to serve those in need, it merely gives them the option if they feel that doing so is consistent with their mission and prevents the government for excluding qualified social services providers merely because they are faith-based in character. The CARE Act is supported by both Democrats and Republicans. The time has come to get this legislation on the President's desk as he has repeatedly called for. The Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, wrote shortly after the bill's introduction last year that ``the CARE Act is not a Republican or Democratic plan. it is a bipartisan proposal that strikes the right balance between harnessing the best forces of faith in our public life without infringing on the First Amendment . . . I look forward to working with President Bush and my congressional colleagues to get this proposal signed into law.'' The time has come for the Senate to pass this important legislation. The Senate Finance Committee will take an important step next week when the legislation is considered in committee. The CARE Act advances our common interest in turning the immense spirit of volunteerism and civic duty in our country toward building strong communities. The Act's ultimate goal is to help those most in need in our society, the poor, the hopeless and the destitute. I thank my colleagues for their support and the many generous Americans working to transform lives and improve communities for the difference that they make each day.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Please.

Mr. SANTORUM. Yes. The term I use over and over again is that these are inspectors, not investigators. These are not detectives. This concept that inspectors will find a smoking gun is absurd. It is absurd. They will not because they are not looking for a smoking gun. It is not their mission to find a smoking gun. They are there, as the Senator from Arizona quoted our people at the Defense Department--Paul Wolfowitz--they are there to determine whether Saddam is telling us the truth in the information he has given us. Since he has not given us any information as to what he has done with his weapons of mass destruction, it is very difficult for them to determine whether he is telling the truth. So this whole concept, No. 1, that the burden of proof is on the United States of America or on the United Nations or on these weapons inspectors to find what Saddam has is false. And the expectation that there is some smoking gun we must show Members of the Senate, people in America, or people around the world, as some countries have indicated, is absurd on its face. Certainly, the countries that are involved in this action and have been involved in these negotiations at the United Nations know it. They know these inspectors are not there to find a smoking gun, are not there to find weapons of mass destruction. That is not what they are there to do. They happened to stumble onto 16 warheads that could use chemicals, that could contain chemical and biological weapons. They stumbled onto them. It just tells you how many of these things are probably lying around where even inspectors who are not looking for them can stumble onto them. So the basic point I am trying to make is nothing has fundamentally changed, except two things: No. 1, more of the same; more of the same; Saddam Hussein is not disarming and he is not cooperating, which he is required to do under the United Nations resolution. That has not changed. And the threat to the United States as a result has not changed. That was a threat when we debated this in September. It is a threat today. So those things have not changed. One thing has changed: We have begun, along with our coalition partners, to begin to deploy force in the region with the express purpose of giving Saddam every opportunity to understand the seriousness of our commitment. We should not at this time back down from that commitment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SANTORUM. The fact of the matter is, nothing has changed from the inspections that occurred prior to the debate here in the Senate back in September. So I really question what the motivation is of having this debate again when, on a substantive basis, nothing has changed, other than continued and maybe even more explicit deception on the part of Saddam Hussein in hiding these weapons of mass destruction. What has changed, I would argue, is the United States and our coalition partners have moved forward in a plan of deployment to convince Saddam we are serious, that if he does not comply, and comply quickly and completely, there will be action taken. As we had this debate on the floor--and one of the reasons many Members here supported this resolution--it was to make sure Saddam knew we were serious, we were going to follow through with what we said we would do, and the President had the support of the American public, thereby making it a credible threat, giving--I heard this over and over--giving peace the best chance by letting Saddam know the certainty of his noncompliance.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to express support on behalf of The Charity Aid, Recovery and Empowerment, CARE, Act of 2003, which I am introducing today with Senator Lieberman, Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, Senator Bayh, Majority Leader Frist and other bipartisan cosponsors with the support of President Bush. The CARE Act was introduced in the last Congress and was considered by the Senate Finance Committee but was never debated on the floor of the Senate because of repeated objections to unanimous consent requests to bring up the bill. The time has come to move this important resources package forward to help those in need and to assist those charitable organizations walking alongside them to restore families and communities. The CARE Act reflects America's renewed spirit of unity, community and responsibility in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the new challenges that have faced us since then. It is an important legislative package to encourage giving, saving, and fairness which builds on the President's Faith-Based and Community Initiative. This bipartisan consensus bill seeks to harness the potential of charitable organizations in order to better serve the most needy members of our society in partnership with government efforts. A coalition of more than 1,600 national and grassroots charitable organizations helping those in need endorsed nearly similar legislation last year. The bill offers incentives to individuals and corporations to increase charitable giving, rewards low-income citizens who choose to save, and insists on fairness for faith-based organizations by leveling the playing field so that non-governmental organizations involved in charitable activities may compete for government funds to provide social service delivery. Throughout our country many social entrepreneurs and community healers are making a difference in the lives of those who are struggling and in the neighborhoods and communities seeking to revive themselves in the face of poverty, crime, failing schools, and unemployment. Many of these heroic individuals and organizations are also motivated by faith. For example, more than 75 percent of the food banks across our Nation have a religious affiliation. The CARE Act attempts to help with the current challenges that charitable organizations are facing and expand the base of private and governmental resources well into the future to better help those in need such as the hungry, the homeless, the addicted, the sick, at-risk children, and the elderly through a variety of tools and resources. The tremendous outpouring of generosity by Americans after September 11 is to be celebrated. Yet the reality is that many needs remain unmet throughout the country as some charitable giving has been redirected and other human needs have increased. Unfortunately, as a result of the tragic events of September 11, a struggling stock market, and the recent recession, numerous charitable organizations have suffered financial losses, in some cases, up to 20 percent or more. The bill seeks to expand the capacity of the voluntary and charitable sectors in this country which is one of the greatest strengths and traditions of our country. The CARE Act seeks to address these needs through a number of expanded tax incentives. The bill restores a charitable tax deduction for the 84 million Americans who do not itemize for a maximum deduction of up to $250 for individual taxpayers and $500 for couples for charitable giving beyond a base level of $250 for individuals and $500 couples. To encourage larger donations, IRA holders will also be allowed to make charitable contributions without tax penalties. Corporations and farmers will be offered tax deductions for their donations of food to charity, amounting to $1 billion dollars over 10 years in order to provide more food to the needy rather than letting it go to waste. A deduction is also provided for contributions of books to schools. The CARE Act also attempts to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. Through Individual Development Accounts, IDAs, low-income Americans are encouraged to save and build assets and provided training in financial education. These special savings accounts offer matching contributions from the sponsoring bank or community organization reimbursed through a Federal tax credit, on the condition that the proceeds go to buying a home, starting a business or paying for post- secondary education. Low-income Americans are now being given the possibility of sharing in the American dream. The provision would provide for a phased-in 300,000 savings accounts for a national demonstration. The CARE Act helps small faith and community-based organizations. Through the Compassion Capital Fund, it provides these community healers with additional resources for technical assistance such as enabling incorporation, grant writing and accounting skills. It also allows social service agencies with experience in administering government contracts to play an intermediate role between government agencies and smaller charities. These provisions will help smaller faith-based charities to survive and to grow into viable charitable organizations. The legislation also expands resources through significant increases in the Social Services Block Grant, SSBG, funds of more than $1.2 billion. Despite the positive advantages of the CARE Act, some are wary of the impact of its provisions. Some critics on the left argue that the provisions violate the Constitution by fusing church and state because preferential treatment is given to religious groups. This is false. Instead, the CARE Act gives religious charitable organizations the opportunity to compete with secular organizations for Federal funding by strengthening the principle of nondiscrimination against faith-based organizations through the codification of basic and commonsense equal treatment protections. The proposed legislation creates a more level playing field for faith-based charities by ensuring that they cannot be discriminated against in applying for government funds because of their religious nature by ensuring the right to maintain religious icons, religious names, religious governance criteria, and religious references in founding documents. The provision also makes clear that the mere fact that a faith-based provider has not previously received government funding does not disqualify them from consideration. On the other hand, some critics on the right argue that the CARE Act will undermine the religious nature of faith-based organizations by restricting their abilities to promote religious values and by controlling the hiring process. But the moral integrity of faith-based organizations is protected by the Act. Though the question of hiring is not addressed in the bill, current laws will continue to apply, the equal treatment for non-governmental organizations provision in the bill assures that organizations which seek federal funds are not required to remove religious symbols, change their names, or change their governing structures to qualify. Hence, faith-based organizations can still adhere to the values and beliefs that motivate, make them unique, and reflect the diversity of America as they serve those in need. The initiative does not require faith-based organizations to participate with government funds in their efforts to serve those in need, it merely gives them the option if they feel that doing so is consistent with their mission and prevents the government for excluding qualified social services providers merely because they are faith-based in character. The CARE Act is supported by both Democrats and Republicans. The time has come to get this legislation on the President's desk as he has repeatedly called for. The Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, wrote shortly after the bill's introduction last year that ``the CARE Act is not a Republican or Democratic plan. it is a bipartisan proposal that strikes the right balance between harnessing the best forces of faith in our public life without infringing on the First Amendment . . . I look forward to working with President Bush and my congressional colleagues to get this proposal signed into law.'' The time has come for the Senate to pass this important legislation. The Senate Finance Committee will take an important step next week when the legislation is considered in committee. The CARE Act advances our common interest in turning the immense spirit of volunteerism and civic duty in our country toward building strong communities. The Act's ultimate goal is to help those most in need in our society, the poor, the hopeless and the destitute. I thank my colleagues for their support and the many generous Americans working to transform lives and improve communities for the difference that they make each day.