Rick Santorum

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I renew my unanimous consent request that I stated previously.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that is of acute importance to my State, the State of Pennsylvania, and, I argue, to the traveling public throughout the east coast, in particular. That is the situation of US Airways and the problem that US Airways is encountering in reorganizing the company and trying to get the government loan provided here by legislation enacted after September 11. The Air Transportation Stabilization Board has set forth criteria that US Airways must meet in order to secure that loan and continue to operate. They are under a relatively tight timeframe and have to go to court next Thursday, I believe, to get the reorganization plan approved. There are several issues out there, but the most important and major issue is the issue of the pension plan that US Airways has and the expense associated with that, and in particular, the pilots' plan. US Airways has been working now for a better part of a year to work with the union and within its management to find cost savings, money dictated by the Air Transportation Stabilization Board, and they have done an excellent job. I will say that the US Airways unions have done an outstanding job in working with management to try to get the company to be an efficient and lower cost airline to survive in these very difficult times in the airline industry. One of the most important aspects of the reorganization, as I mentioned before, was the rather significant pension liability and, in particular, because of the higher salaries of pilots, the pilot pension program. US Airways has been negotiating with the pilots now for quite some time, and within the last month or so came up with an agreement to restructure the plan--in fact, to terminate the plan and then restart the plan--with a different benefit structure and having the cost of those benefits amortized over a 30-year period. They went to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the government agency that oversees the pension plans and guarantees those plans, and asked for an approval to terminate and restart the plan with a 30-year amortization. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation informed the company and union they believed they had no legal authority. Any time you get two lawyers in a room you have five opinions; but in this case, some lawyers on both sides suggested there was, and some suggesting there was not, legal authority to terminate and restart. I will say, for the purpose of the taxpayers, had the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation decided to accept the US Airways pilots' union plan, there would have been no liability to the PBGC, and no cost associated with it. The airline would have terminated the plan but maintained all the liability and simply amortized that cost over a 30- year period. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation proposed in the alternative that they terminate the plan; PBGC take over the responsibility for that plan; and US Airways move forward without a pilot pension plan. Such a plan, which I think you could make the argument, would be to the financial benefit of US Airways and the management because they would be released of this rather significant, roughly $3 billion, obligation of paying pilot pensions. But, US Airways management, working together with their unions in a great spirit of cooperation, did not want to have their pilot pensions reduced in the area of 75 percent. That would be the result of a takeover by the PBGC. So they have pled with the PBGC to approve their plan which would result in, again, a drastic reduction in the benefits of the pilots, but not as draconian as the PBGC change. Having said all that, they have been back and forth and back and forth and we are now at a point where there does not seem to be any hope for an agreement. We have been working together, myself and Senator Specter from Pennsylvania. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Senator Dole, be added as a cosponsor to S. 119--the bill I will call up in a minute.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am disappointed that we were not able to get unanimous consent. I certainly understand the position of my colleagues from Montana and Iowa. But I just want to reemphasize that the reason we sought to submit this extraordinary act is because of the timing of the judicial submission a week from now. A revenue bill is being generated in the House. As an old House Ways and Means Committee member, I was very jealous of that prerogative and wanted to make sure that we enforced it with regularity if the Senate got out of constitutional control. I thought it could act on these things unilaterally. But, again, I think there is a certain support on the Ways and Means Committee for dealing with this issue. The request of the Senator from Pennsylvania, hopefully, will not only be one communicated to the Finance Committee but also would be communicated to the Ways and Means Committee in the House to seriously look into this. I know many of my colleagues from Pennsylvania and other Congressmen from other states are going to be adversely affected--potentially affected--by what happens next Thursday. I hope a request will be made to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee to take a very significant look at this. I hope they will be moved to act in a way that would be beneficial to this situation, and again other situations around the country of pensions failing. But the point I want to reiterate is if this legislation were passed there would be no cost to the Federal Government by picking up the pensions of the pilots and others in the union of US Airways. Without this legislation, the cost to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and, therefore, to the taxpayers of the United States would be about $3 billion. So this is a measure that will save $3 billion over a set number of years. That is not pocket change, even in Washington, DC. I think there has been an attempt to try to address this issue in a way that does not--as the Senator from Iowa said--create an incentive for companies not to fund their legal obligation. I don't think this narrow provision is an incentive for any other corporation to not do what is required of them under the pension laws. But what we have is an extraordinary case where union and management come together to dramatically reduce the benefits of the pilots. And I underscore the words ``dramatically reduce'' the benefits to the pilots. The pilots signed off on it. They have signed off on this as a way for the company to continue to operate. It will save the taxpayers money, and it will save these airlines and all of the employers--as well as the traveling public in the Northeast and throughout the eastern part of the United States. I think this is a narrow exception. I think this is a special circumstance. Whether we can effectually change something that would allow the kind of flexibility under very stringent rules--I would agree with the Senator from Iowa. It allows the flexibility of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to look at the unique circumstances of these petitions of companies and unions. I just remind everyone, this is not the management going in unilaterally saying: We are going to cut benefits and restructure the program. This is the union and the management saying: This is what we want to do. This is a very rare circumstance, indeed. So I do think we have unique circumstances. Again, I understand the precedent that this sets, but I am hopeful we can work out a change in the law that will give the PBGC the flexibility to look at these unique circumstances, and unique circumstances in the future with respect to other companies, to come up with a solution that is best for the taxpayer as well as best for the companies and unions involved in these very difficult times. Mr. President, with that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SANTORUM

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

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I respond to the comments by the Senator from South Dakota by saying the Senator from Oklahoma laid out clearly why a vote and adoption of such an amendment would be devastating. It would be devastating for the million people we want to cover with the unanimous consent request we have proposed. The House will not accept it. I am not too sure, even if we did pass it here and send it over to the House, the House would not accept it. We will be in conference and the opportunity for us to pass an unemployment extension by Thursday will be lost. I think it is important for us to pass a bill which, I remind everybody in the Chamber, passed when the Senator from South Dakota was the majority leader and the Senator from Montana was the head of the Finance Committee. They passed this unemployment extension. All we are saying is, let's continue the unemployment extension that you proposed and you passed in the last session of Congress. All of a sudden your handiwork is no longer sufficient today. I don't know what happened between what you did then and what we did today. I don't know what possibly changed the dynamic that would now cause what we are proposing to be insufficient, when what you did was sufficient. The fact is, this is exactly what you passed under your leadership and what we should do today. We should stop playing politics out of the box with this very important issue to over 1 million people in this country and get the job done.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, my understanding is this unemployment extension mirrors the unemployment extension we did in the last session of Congress. We extended benefits for 13 weeks. There are some for which the 26 weeks plus the 13 weeks have expired. I assume the million people we are talking about are those people in places where there is not high unemployment, who do not qualify for an additional 13 weeks above the 13 weeks that have already been extended. As you know, under this bill, as under the prior bill, in States where there are high rates of unemployment, people do get 26 weeks, the 13 plus 13. So what you are talking about is a million people, in places where there are lower rates of unemployment, not getting an additional 13 weeks on top of the 13 weeks they now get on top of the 26 weeks which the original unemployment act provided. So when we talk about people being left out, what we are talking about is a change in what the original extension is. I am not too sure that is being left out. Those are people who went through their 26 weeks, went through their 13 weeks, and have still not been able to find a job but are not in States with high unemployment. So what we are doing is extending last year's unemployment benefits to this year. I think that is a fair way to start. It is a way to get things done. If you want to change unemployment extension and turn it into 26 weeks, we can have that debate. But to suggest we are leaving people out, I am not too sure that is really what is factually happening in this situation. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to join the National Bible Association in celebrating one of the most important pieces of literature in human history: the Bible. As Senate co-chair of National Bible Week 2002, it is my honor to participate in a nationwide recognition of the Bible's importance in our daily lives. From November 24 through December 1, communities and churches across America will take part in this tradition by reading and reflecting on the Bible's teachings and how they can help us to lead better lives. This week of Biblical awareness is something that those whose faiths are based in Judeo-Christian belief can appreciate. But National Bible Week is also an opportunity for Americans of all religious backgrounds to experience the benefits of Bible study. Just as America's students read the Constitution of the United States and examine the laws that govern our social behavior, so should everyone read the Bible and consider the traditions and lessons that have come to govern our moral behavior. The ethical guidelines that the Bible provides for us have, in large part, built the moral basis of the Western world and its governments. Furthermore, the notions of right and wrong, of good and bad, and the principles we teach our children are illustrated by the Bible's stories. Through this book, God's word gives us a complete set of simple rules to follow to lead a virtuous life. National Bible Week encourages the country to make time, over the course of 8 days, for returning to the source of their religious beliefs. In this way, a nationwide look at the Bible serves to bring people of different sects and schools together. It allows us to recognize the common text we all share, regardless of denomination or church, and lays down a standard of conduct and piety that applies to everyone without discrimination. As a practicing Catholic, I carry God's word in my heart every day and, for me, the Bible is a source of strength and comfort. In my own behavior, with my family, and in my work, I rely on God's message to guide me. It is my hope that those who may have put the Bible aside will open themselves up to National Bible Week as a chance to reread such an important text, for believers and nonbelievers alike. National Bible Week 2002 will be inaugurated in New York with a kickoff luncheon to raise funds for the National Bible Association, an organization dedicated to promoting daily Bible reading. I congratulate this group's efforts to encourage better Biblical understanding and to draw people of faith towards common ground for a clearer, more universal understanding of the Bible's lessons and God's word.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to join the National Bible Association in celebrating one of the most important pieces of literature in human history: the Bible. As Senate co-chair of National Bible Week 2002, it is my honor to participate in a nationwide recognition of the Bible's importance in our daily lives. From November 24 through December 1, communities and churches across America will take part in this tradition by reading and reflecting on the Bible's teachings and how they can help us to lead better lives. This week of Biblical awareness is something that those whose faiths are based in Judeo-Christian belief can appreciate. But National Bible Week is also an opportunity for Americans of all religious backgrounds to experience the benefits of Bible study. Just as America's students read the Constitution of the United States and examine the laws that govern our social behavior, so should everyone read the Bible and consider the traditions and lessons that have come to govern our moral behavior. The ethical guidelines that the Bible provides for us have, in large part, built the moral basis of the Western world and its governments. Furthermore, the notions of right and wrong, of good and bad, and the principles we teach our children are illustrated by the Bible's stories. Through this book, God's word gives us a complete set of simple rules to follow to lead a virtuous life. National Bible Week encourages the country to make time, over the course of 8 days, for returning to the source of their religious beliefs. In this way, a nationwide look at the Bible serves to bring people of different sects and schools together. It allows us to recognize the common text we all share, regardless of denomination or church, and lays down a standard of conduct and piety that applies to everyone without discrimination. As a practicing Catholic, I carry God's word in my heart every day and, for me, the Bible is a source of strength and comfort. In my own behavior, with my family, and in my work, I rely on God's message to guide me. It is my hope that those who may have put the Bible aside will open themselves up to National Bible Week as a chance to reread such an important text, for believers and nonbelievers alike. National Bible Week 2002 will be inaugurated in New York with a kickoff luncheon to raise funds for the National Bible Association, an organization dedicated to promoting daily Bible reading. I congratulate this group's efforts to encourage better Biblical understanding and to draw people of faith towards common ground for a clearer, more universal understanding of the Bible's lessons and God's word.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of National Veterans Awareness Week, a time to commemorate and appreciate all the men and women who have served in America's Armed Forces. The week of November 10, 2002, is for honoring the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines--some now gone, and some still alive--who have fought to protect our freedoms and liberties. The Nation's veterans have often stood as the last barrier between our country and the terrors of fascism, communism, and anarchy. They have waged war, kept peace, and deterred the threat of the unknown. The work of those in uniform is dangerous and difficult; it requires a personal commitment and sacrifice, as well as the patience and support of their families. Members of the armed services have a brave, admirable responsibility and a privileged perspective of history. It is with deepest respect that I thank them for their courage and their continued dedication to our Nation's security. Pennsylvania is the proud home of more than a million veterans, all of whom have demonstrated their love of country in defending our borders and our way of life. But in remembering and applauding their service, we must also recognize America's next veteran generation: the men and women in uniform today. Our duty as lawmakers is to ensure that our service members' commitment to the Nation is matched by the Government's diligence in preparing them to face our current and future threats. Also important is the quality of life that these service members and their families deserve. It should, therefore, be a priority to improve the salaries, benefits, and facilities that our military men and women, and their families, rely upon. America's troops on the ground, on the sea, and in the air make up the most capable military force in all the world, and their equipment and support systems should be nothing less than first rate. The current war on terrorism and the changing threats of the 21st century demand a new level of readiness from our military that can only be met with better funding and more effective programs. The Nation's Armed Forces need to be prepared for the realities of a new security paradigm and a new kind of combat. Last year's terrorist attacks have changed our understanding of modern warfare and the need to protect our cities and our citizens. And in response to this realization, the Senate has passed legislation to increase spending so that our military can be equipped and trained to counter the world's growing, nontraditional threats. We owe much to our veterans: respect and admiration, in addition to appropriate retirement and healthcare benefits. We can most greatly honor these men and women, however, by focusing on the needs of the current service members who will one day be veterans themselves. We must support their mission today so that we can celebrate their accomplishments tomorrow. I encourage my colleagues and my fellow Americans to join me in paying tribute to the veterans, past, present and future, who are an indispensable part of what makes our country the greatest in the world.

Mr. SANTORUM

Mr. SANTORUM. The second amendment is highly controversial and would be an amendment that would surely sink any possibility of this legislation being passed.

Mr. SANTORUM. I yield.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would certainly be willing on the first amendment to sit down with the Senator to see if there is an unemployment extension that can be agreed to. I think it is something we need to do. I think there is a willingness on our side to have an unemployment extension. I would have no objection to setting aside the unanimous consent request to try to work out a unanimous agreement on the issue of unemployment compensation. There are other issues which are really outside the scope of this, and they are very controversial. I understand the Senator--I know because I have been on the floor many times--from Michigan has attempted to get the initiative aired. I understand his passion on it. I respect how he feels about it. But I think the Senator from Michigan would agree with me that these are hotly contested. In fact, one of the cosponsors of this legislation on the other side of that issue is the Senator from Michigan. I think adding those two amendments that really aren't germane for helping those in need in our society are outside of the scope, and in fact the amendments would sink the entire bill if they were adopted. I can try to meet the Senator halfway. Let us try to work together on unemployment. If we can do that, and if the Senator is willing to set aside the other two amendments, then we can try to move forward with the consent request. I would be happy to work with him.

Mr. SANTORUM. My understanding is that third amendment is not a tax- related amendment and would be appropriate to be offered, for example, if you wanted to, on the homeland security bill or another piece of legislation that is coming through. So there isn't a need to have that amendment attached particularly to a tax vehicle. I understand your second amendment has tax implications and is necessary to offer to a tax bill. But this amendment you could offer, if you wanted to, once we leave this unanimous consent, to homeland security. It probably has a much better chance of being passed and signed by the President in this legislation. So I would say to the Senator, if he wants to do that, I would argue that the better opportunity for him to do it is on homeland security, not this tax bill.

Mr. SANTORUM. I do not know if anybody else has a better understanding than I do. If they do, feel free to chime in. My understanding is they are going to pass a clean extension.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Senator is making the point that he doesn't have another vehicle for an opportunity to offer his amendment. My point is, when this bill comes over, he will have an opportunity to offer an amendment on unemployment extension, and he does not need to use this vehicle. That is the point.

Mr. SANTORUM. I haven't seen the amendment. I do not know.

Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Presiding Officer. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I am prepared to offer a unanimous consent on the CARE Act, which is the act that passed out of the Finance Committee 147 days ago. It is the Charity Aid Recovery and Empowerment Act of 2002. I will let the Members know what the legislation does, and then I will ask unanimous consent to consider the legislation before we leave. This legislation came out of the Finance Committee with 28 bipartisan cosponsors. More than 1,600 small and large charitable organizations support this act because it promotes giving, it promotes savings for low-income individuals, and makes the Tax Code more fair, particularly for the low-income and moderate-income individuals who do not fill out the long form on their tax return. It provides 86 million Americans the opportunity to itemize charitable organizations, which now they cannot do because they do not fill out the long form. It allows 300,000 low-income individuals the opportunity to build assets through something that Senator Lieberman and Senator Feinstein and others on both sides of the aisle have promoted--individual development accounts. It will provide incentives for $1 billion in food donations from farmers, restaurants, and corporations. It will provide $150 million in a compassionate capital fund to provide money for smaller charities. A lot of charities do not participate in government funding programs because they do not have the technical expertise to do so. We are providing money for technical assistance to some of the community grassroots organizations, faith-based organizations, and non-faith- based organizations to participate in providing social services in a very effective and compassionate way. This is the way to do it. It adds something Senator Lieberman was a great advocate of, $1.2 billion in new social service block grant funds to provide social services to those in need in our society. It allows people to give tax-free contributions from their individual retirement accounts. Again, right now if someone wants to give to a charitable organization, and you want to give it out of your IRA, you have to pay taxes and penalties. This allows for a distribution from people who have money in their IRA's who have a desire to give to charitable organizations. We will allow them to do that, liberating hundreds of millions and billions of dollars to faith-based organizations. This is legislation designed in response to 9/11 and the recession we have been going through to try to target resources to these small, charitable organizations; to try to get moderate-or low-income individuals the opportunity to deduct the charitable contributions. One of the ways it is paid for is through corporate inversion. I argue we are nailing corporations that are moving their operations out of the United States and avoiding taxes. We are taking money that could be raised by these corporate inversion provisions and channeling it to those most in need in our society. That is what the legislation does. There is one other provision I make clear. There is equal treatment language in this legislation. Let me state what that does. It is noncontroversial, equal treatment language. It says organizations that receive government funds can display a religious icon, that they can have a religious name. Believe it or not, I have been to many organizations, particularly in the Jewish community, and because they have a Hebrew name, they are automatically left off the list of organizations that can participate in government funds, even though they are not Jewish in nature. They may be Jewish, but they are not in any way affiliated with the Jewish faith. They just happen to be culturally a Jewish organization. Having a religious name like St. John's should not eliminate you from participating in government funds, if you are not religious in nature, or do something unique for a religious purpose. You can have religious language in your chartering documents, you can quote the Bible in your chartering documents, and it should not eliminate you from Federal funds. Again, these are not controversial. You can use on your governing boards, nonprofits, not paid governing boards some sort of religious criteria as to who serves. So if you are the Mormon Church and have a governing board on your social service agencies, you can require they be Mormons. I don't know that necessarily discriminates against anybody in the sense these are not paid positions. They are church-affiliated. We are not discriminating in the hiring. We are talking about oversight of charitable organizations. These are the provisions of this act. I believe if you look just at the four walls of this bill, there is not a lot of controversy in this legislation. What we have attempted to do, Senator Lieberman and myself--we have been working this legislation now for almost 150 days. Obviously this is legislation the President strongly supports. He believes we need to get this money out into communities to try to help those in need in our society. We have been working with Senator Daschle. I thank Senator Daschle and Senator Reid for their good-faith effort to try to move this legislation forward. As many here in the Chamber know, Senator Daschle said publicly over and over, over the past couple of years, he would give the President a vote on this initiative, which is just a piece of the President's faith-based initiative. He has worked diligently to try to make that happen. We have been hotlining a unanimous consent agreement. The unanimous consent agreement would allow for four Democrat amendments on the substance of the legislation, attacking the substance of the legislation, and one Republican amendment. I want to repeat we are allowing the Democrat side four amendments and we have accepted it on our side. We hotlined it this week. There is no objection on our side of the aisle to giving four times as many amendments to the Democrats as we have on this side. I am hopeful that, given the importance of this legislation, given the fact this is going to help those in need at a time of economic distress and uncertainty, we can liberate literally billions of dollars to be targeted to organizations that want to help those in need in our society. I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader--however, no later than the close of business of the Senate--the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 496, H.R. 7, and it be considered under the following limitations: That there be 1 hour for general debate on the bill equally divided between the two managers, the only amendments in order, other than the managers' substitute, be the following: An amendment prohibiting proselytization using public funds, an amendment prohibiting discrimination using public funds, an amendment prohibiting direct funding of religion, an amendment preserving State and local government options--these amendments were provided to us by Senator Daschle, I believe to be offered by Senator Reid--and a Republican amendment, to be offered by Senator Gramm, is an amendment expanding benefits of land conservation provisions to all charities; the amendments be limited to 60 minutes each, to be divided between the proponents and opponents, with no second degrees in order. I ask following the disposition of the amendments and expiration of debate, the bill will be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill with no further intervening action or debate. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, let me address the three amendments. With respect to the first amendment, I agree with the Senator from Michigan. That is something we should do. Even though I believe it is not germane to the package we have before us, it is certainly within-- from the standpoint of what this bill is trying to do, which is help with the financial and economic stress--it certainly meets the overall goal of the legislation. My understanding is that there is a very good chance the House is going to pass an extension today and send that over. In fact, I feel very confident about that. They are going to pass an extension and send it over, which I hope we will be able to act upon and pass. I would say to the Senator from Michigan with respect to this piece of legislation that I think you will have an opportunity to deal with that issue on the bill that certainly will have just as much chance of passing as this bill.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Michigan, the third amendment, from my reading of it, is an amendment that is under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee and not under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee and not a tax-related amendment. There may be revenue implications, but there are lots of revenue implications of things we do here that are in the jurisdiction of other committees having to do with enforcement. But there is no tax implication. Therefore, there is no need to offer it here in this tax legislation. The second one certainly does.

Mr. SANTORUM. I understand the third one, that you are arguing for now, is not necessarily appropriate for this legislation.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am very disappointed that there was an objection. I understand the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Rhode Island have objections to this legislation. As the Senator from Connecticut said very clearly and very articulately in his statement, the objections they have are not with this legislation. They may be with current law, the 1996 Welfare Act and the three other provisions that were signed by President Clinton and passed by this Senate, two of which were passed unanimously, to my recollection. The objections are to underlying law, not to this legislation. This legislation does not deal with any of the issues that are in the amendments the Senator from Illinois has offered. The Senator mentioned that an hour's debate is not enough. I am willing to spend as long--2 hours, 3 hours per amendment. I offered an hour of debate as an accommodation to the leader, to the majority leader, in trying to find a reasonable amount of time to finish. I agree with the Senator from Illinois, this is a very important piece of legislation. But if the problem is that we need more time for debate, I certainly would, and I know the Senator from Connecticut would, be perfectly willing to come here. I think these are important issues, but I would argue they are not issues about this legislation. They are not issues in your amendments having to do with proselytization using public funds. There is nothing in this legislation that permits that--nothing. Nothing even addresses it or comes close to it. These are tax provisions that allow----

Mr. SANTORUM. Reclaiming my time, I will read to you the provisions of this legislation on what the money is expended for. No. 1, it talks about $2.6 billion of this legislation is a nonitemized or charitable deduction. It is not for religious organizations. It allows people who fill out the short form to deduct charitable contributions. No. 2, IRA charitable rollovers. What it says is people who have an IRA can roll over that IRA into a charitable organization, qualified under 501(c)(3) or other, whatever organizations would be eligible, and that is $2.9 billion over the next 10 years--again, nothing to do with faith-based organizations; no direct government dollars to anybody. Third has to do with enhancing charitable deductions for farmers, restaurateurs, and businesses for food donations. Again, it has nothing to do with charitable choice, nothing to do with any kind of government funds going to charitable organizations. Fourth, we have enhanced charitable deductions for book donations-- again, nothing to do with charitable choice. Incentives for S corporations to give more money to charities--again, nothing to do with faith-based organizations. We have an IDA amendment, which is something the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, have championed, and I have worked on our side to allow low- income individuals to have matched savings accounts for purposes of buying a home, going to school, or starting a small business--again, nothing to do with charitable, faith-based organizations. Also, we have the social services block grant fund which I know is wildly popular on the Democratic side of the aisle. That is $1.37 billion over the next 2 years. So if you look at all of these provisions, I understand the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Illinois have serious concerns about the existing charitable choice provisions in law. I accept that. I understand that. I understand the Senators from Rhode Island and from Illinois have problems with the bill the House passed because it did have an expansion of that in the House-passed bill. But the Senator from Connecticut has been very tough at negotiating with the White House and with the Senator from Pennsylvania in leaving every controversial element that could touch on any kind of constitutional infirmity out of this legislation. You can argue that we don't fix the problem that may be in existing law, but there is nothing in this legislation that even comes close to any of those provisions. You have as much argument, in my opinion, to offer the amendments that you have offered to homeland security as you do to this bill because neither of them deal with the subject of your amendments. I understand there is a problem. I understand there is a debate that needs to be had on these issues, but not on this bill because this bill doesn't do what many are suggesting it does.