John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, my amendment is very straightforward. It creates a budget point of order against any legislation that would raise revenue from a reduction in the tax deduction for charitable donations. What the Senator from North Dakota is going to say is that it is not included in his budget. As we know, this is a long process, and we also know the President, in his budget, included a proposal that would reduce the amount people could claim as a tax benefit for a charitable donation. Again, we don't know what is going to happen from this point forward in the budget process. This could go into conference, and a provision like this could be added. Again, this places a point of order against any legislation that would raise revenue from the tax deduction for charitable giving. Americans gave $300 billion in 2007 to charitable causes, which is equal to 2 percent of our GDP. A Washington Post article said this: Diana Aviv, [president of Independent Sector, a national membership organization of charities] said any decrease in charitable giving caused by Obama's proposal, no matter how small, would be `seen as a stake in the heart.' ''--``With all other means of income down, the idea that there will be another potential cut to the income of those nonprofit organizations feels catastrophic,'' Aviv said. ``It is utterly unacceptable.'' I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as much as I appreciate the generosity of the Senator in offering me that opportunity, I think this is an important issue. I think the Senate needs to be on record. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would like to speak to an amendment I laid down yesterday on which there has been a side-by-side amendment offered by the Senator from California. In response to the comments of my colleague from Illinois, there aren't any Republicans who aren't prepared to debate the issue of climate change or energy policy. We just think it ought to be debated in regular order; that when the Senate does take on big consequential items such as this, it ought to be handled in the normal routine, in the way the Senate deals with big consequential issues such as the issue of climate change because it would have a profound impact on the American economy and on American households and families. There isn't any resistance on this side to that. All we are saying is, it should not be used as a part of the budget process where you expedite this and sort of circumvent the normal rules and procedures of the Senate that would apply to big pieces of legislation. We want to debate that. Frankly, there are lots of Republicans who are happy to have the debate on climate change, on cap and trade, but also want to make a part of the debate the cost. It is very easy to talk about throwing out different solutions to this issue or talking about the general issue of climate change, but when you start reducing the argument on cap and trade, it has profound economic consequences on the American economy. That is a part of the debate. If we look at the question of whether climate change is occurring, if one answers that yes, and if human activity is contributing to it, and one answers that yes, we still have to get to the question, if those two points are true: What do we do about it and at what cost? We think that ought to be part of the debate. The Senator from California has offered a side-by-side amendment to mine. I assume she concedes the point that it would increase electricity and gasoline prices. She adds to that the language ``or increasing the overall burden on consumers through the use of revenues and policies provided in such legislation,'' suggesting there would be some offsets that families who are affected by higher energy costs would benefit from. If there are going to be additional revenues, they are coming from somewhere. This isn't an imaginary world. This stuff just doesn't appear. We are talking about real costs, real revenues. I want to point out what the President himself said over a year ago about his cap-and-trade plan: Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. We cannot assume for a minute that there are not going to be enormous costs associated with the proposal of the Senator from California and the cap-and-trade proposal she put forward in the last Congress, of which the President was a cosponsor. She referred earlier to MIT. Researchers there scored it at $366 billion a year or a cost of $3,128 to the average household. This has an economic cost. It has an impact on our broader economy, an impact specifically on American families and households and American small businesses. I used data yesterday I had received from utility companies in my State about how this would affect their cost of doing business with regard to residential customers, small business customers, and large industrial users. We would see costs go up as much as 65 percent in some cases. They used a typical school district. It would on an annual basis double their cost for electricity. These things have costs. That needs to be part of the debate because the American people deserve to know these things have costs. We need to have a debate about climate change, but we ought to do it in a way that is in regular order, that allows committees to do their work and that contemplates what the costs and consequences of these policies are going to entail for the average person. This is an amendment provided to give something for the Senator from California and Members on the other side to vote for. The fact is, a cap-and-trade policy will increase electricity and gasoline prices. Nobody disputes that. The question is how much. I happen to believe--as do many others--that the President understates it in his budget, $646 billion in revenue. There are those who believe it would be two or three times that amount. The President himself has said: Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. His OMB Director, Peter Orszag, has said this would all be passed on to consumers. Utility companies will not bear the cost. Corporate America will not. It will be passed on to customers in places such as South Dakota where a higher energy cost is the thing they can least afford these days when we have a bad economy to start with. I hope when Senators come to vote on these amendments, they will bear in mind these votes have consequences. If they vote against my amendment, they are essentially saying that we are open to, and OK with, a reserve fund created under the budget, a climate change reserve fund that would lead to a lot higher electricity and gasoline prices. All my amendment says is, those gas and electricity prices cannot go up under a cap-and-trade proposal that might be adopted by the Congress and might be included in some reconciliation instruction that comes from a conference committee with the House.

Mr. THUNE. I say to the Senator from North Dakota that the Senator from California has offered a side-by-side amendment to the amendment I laid down yesterday. She spoke to that this morning. I wish to at least make some remarks with regard to my amendment. So 5 or 10 minutes would be what I would need to do that.

Mr. THUNE. If I might ask the Chair how much time do we have before we break?

Mr. THUNE. If I could have 5 minutes?

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the observation that was made about the purpose of reconciliation and the Rules Committee in the House. The House very clearly has the power to regulate what comes to the floor and what amendments are made in order. Reconciliation instructions in the House bill are clearly directed at a House-Senate conference and reserving the opportunity--the option--to actually do something with respect to these other issues. I wish to point out, too--and I wish to ask a question of the Senator from Alabama regarding the conference committee--even though I believe the best intentions of the Senator from North Dakota and I believe he is sincere when he says he doesn't want to use reconciliation to do cap and trade and to do other types of policy through the budget process-- there is a statement from the majority leader talking about the novel proposal for redoing the Nation's health care system, suggesting that using $646 billion that would be collected under a controversial Obama proposal to auction off greenhouse gas pollution allowances. The exact quote is: ``That's exactly how much we need for the first phase of health care reform.'' My question to my colleague from Alabama is: If, in fact, you get into a conference setting and you want to do health care reform--which clearly they have indicated they would like to do through reconciliation--it has to be paid for somehow, does it not? It is suggested here, I think from at least the majority leader, that the revenues available through cap and trade might, in fact, be used for that. Would it not be possible in a conference committee setting--despite the best intentions of the Senator from North Dakota--for the members of that conference to decide to use that reconciliation process to create revenues through a cap-and-trade program that might be used to accomplish the financing of health care reform through that bill?

Mr. THUNE. Would the Senator from Alabama yield for a further question?

Mr. THUNE. That would be fine.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, is the Senator from Alabama aware that the President's Director of the Office of Management and Budget admitted the same thing last year when he was the Director of the Congressional Budget Office? Peter Orszag said: Under a cap-and-trade program, firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs . . . but instead would pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices . . . price increases would be essential to the success of a cap- and-trade program.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield for a further question?

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if you honestly believe the trillions of dollars that are going to come in from a cap-and-trade proposal--what is essentially a national energy sales tax--that those revenues are going to be distributed back to the American people, then voting for the Boxer amendment was the correct vote. If you believe, as I do, that the trillions of dollars that come in through a cap-and-trade proposal are, in fact, not going to be rebated to the American people, that they are going to fund programs in Washington, DC, then you should vote for my amendment because my amendment prevents any program that is created--a cap-and-trade program--from increasing electricity rates or gasoline prices for American consumers. This is a national energy tax on the American people, on American consumers. If you want to vote against that, then voting for my amendment is the correct vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I say to my friend from California that when gas prices were going up last summer, many of us were trying to put together a plan that would increase production in this country. We had a simple strategy: find more and use less. Many of us were working constructively to try to come up with an energy solution that would increase domestic supply so we can drive down the cost of energy. I was engaged in that with a number of colleagues from the other side of the aisle. But that has nothing to do with this debate. This deals strictly with a cap-and-trade proposal--a national energy tax proposal that is being contemplated in this budget. My amendment also was straightforward and simple. It says any reserve funds created as a result of this budget that would call for climate change legislation cannot raise electricity rates or gasoline prices for American consumers. That is a tax on American consumers when they need it the least. I hope my colleagues will support my amendment and reject the Boxer amendment.

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

Mr. THUNE. How much time do we have equally divided right now?

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we are going to have a vote in just a few minutes on an amendment I offered yesterday, and now there is a side- by-side offered by the Senator from California which tries to modify my amendment in a way that gives folks who want to be able to vote for something, something to vote for when, in fact, my amendment is the one that is very simple and straightforward. That is, if we have a reserve fund created for climate change, the revenues coming into that fund obviously are going to be significant: $646 billion, if the President's budget is accurate, and much more than that by many other analyses that have been done. It simply says that cannot be used to increase electricity rates or gasoline taxes on the American consumer. So what I would hope that my colleagues will bear in mind when we vote is that any cap-and-trade system that is put in place is going to have a significant increase in energy costs in this country. You can call it what you want--a lightbulb tax, a national energy tax--but it is pretty clear that is going to be the case. The President, a year ago, even made the same argument: ``Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' That is a direct quote. All of the studies that have been done have suggested that this could cost anywhere from, as CBO said, $50 billion a year to $300 billion a year; MIT said $366 billion a year. An enormous amount of money is going to come into the Federal Treasury by any form of cap-and-trade bill that is passed here in the Congress. It just depends on how rigid or how restrictive the caps are as to what that cost is going to be, and there are several other bills that are out there. What I wish to point out, however, is that the Senator from California--her bill, S. 309 from the last session of Congress, actually designates seven different funds that the revenue would go into. What her amendment would say is that a lot of these revenues would go back in the form of some assistance to consumers in this country, but, in fact, if you look at her legislation, there are seven different funds that it goes into. Essentially, what her bill would do is take all of these revenues that are going to come into the Federal Treasury and distribute them through Government agencies to all of these different areas, including the climate change worker training fund; the adaptation fund, whatever that is; the climate change and national security fund; the Bureau of Land Management emergency firefighting fund; the Forest Service emergency firefighting fund; and the Climate Security Act management fund. Those are six of the funds that are listed in her bill as uses of revenues that would be derived from a cap-and-trade and national energy tax that would be imposed upon the American consumers. Again, I point out that MIT, in their analysis of her bill, said it would cost the average household in this country an additional $3,128 annually in energy costs. The President himself has said: ``Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' Nobody disputes the fact that rates are going to go up. What we are saying is that shouldn't happen; we can't do that, particularly now at a time when the American economy is struggling and most Americans are having to tighten their belts already. To impose a huge national energy sales tax on American consumers would be very ill-timed. Frankly, I don't believe for a minute that any of the revenues that come in as a result of the imposition of that national energy tax are going to be used to refund the American consumers. There is a $400 and $800 tax credit the President has put in place, but that is a fraction--a fraction--of the amount of the revenue that is going to come in. So I hope my colleagues will support my amendment and vote against the side-by-side that is being offered by my colleague from California. I don't think there is any question but this is going to raise taxes, energy taxes in the form of a national sales tax on energy for consumers in this country. My amendment would make it very clear that cannot be the case. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Probably 15 minutes.

Mr. THUNE. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for yielding. I call up an amendment I have filed at the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be made pending.

Mr. THUNE. The Senate is in the process of an important fiscal debate which will set the Federal budget for the next 5 years. The budget process is particularly important as our Nation faces a prolonged recession and an ongoing financial crisis. I think there are two primary questions facing the Congress at this time. One is, how do we help the middle class cope with the current recession. Secondly, how do we create jobs and investments that will lead us out of this recession? The Democratically led Congress, I believe, missed a major opportunity to address the economic recession during the debate of the stimulus bill. Rather than providing significant tax relief for middle- class families and small businesses, Congress poured billions of taxpayer dollars into Government programs and pet projects. The middle class was largely left behind in the stimulus bill. In return for an $800 billion stimulus bill, the average taxpayer gets a temporary tax break of roughly $8 per week, not even enough, in most places, to buy a cup of coffee each day. Unfortunately, the administration's budget proposal is another missed opportunity to address the fundamental issues that are plaguing our economy. Not only does the administration's budget increase taxes on families and small business owners, it calls for a massive national sales tax on energy as well. This sales tax, which is implemented in the name of global warming, will dramatically increase energy costs for all consumers. I wish to point out something that President Obama said with regard to that energy cap-and-trade plan. He said: Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. This regressive national sales tax on energy will hit lower and middle-income households at a time when they can least afford it. Now, incidentally, the architect of the President's budget, Peter Orszag, who is the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, agrees that the President's energy tax will have a significant impact on energy prices, and lower income families will bear a greater burden on account of this tax. Orszag testified before Congress that a cap-and-trade program would increase energy costs which will immediately be passed on to the consumer. During a House of Representatives Budget Committee hearing in 2007, Mr. Orszag stated: Under a cap-and-trade program, firms would not ultimately bear most of the cost of the allowances, but instead would pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Orszag is also on record saying: The higher prices caused by the cap would lower real wages and real returns on capital, which would be equivalent to raising marginal tax rates on those sources of income. In September of 2008, Mr. Orszag testified before the House Committee on Ways and Means. The rise in prices for energy and energy-intensive goods and services would impose a larger burden relative to income on low-income households than on high-income households. Both Mr. Orszag and President Obama, they are not the only ones who believe higher energy prices on account of climate change legislation will have a greater negative impact on low-income families. I quote from the Wall Street Journal on March 9 of this year: Cap-and-trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth, but in a very curious way. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street ``green-tech'' investors who know how to leverage the political class. I would also quote from Warren Buffet. That tax [the cap-and-trade tax] is probably going to be pretty regressive. If you put a cost on putting carbon into the atmosphere . . . it's going to be borne by customers. And it's a tax like anything else. Now is not the right time to place another burden on families who are struggling to make ends meet during the current recession. Many two- income families are now reduced to one. One-income families are trying to make do with reduced wages or fewer hours. Mortgage payments have become a burden too great for millions of families. In light of the unprecedented challenges that are facing the middle class, I find it unconscionable that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress want to place an indirect tax on these families through increased energy costs. In April of 2007, MIT conducted an economic study of the Sanders- Boxer climate change bill. Interestingly enough, at that time, 2007, then-Senator Obama was a cosponsor of that bill. The proposal he has put in front of us very closely resembles that proposal. MIT concluded in their analysis of that particular piece of legislation that the Federal Government would take in an additional $366 billion in revenue each year, which is equivalent to over $3,128 per household. That is in the year 2015. Having said that, if you think about $366 billion coming in in additional revenue to the Federal Government, that means someone in this country is paying that tax. As I mentioned earlier, many have concluded it is not going to be the utilities, those taxes are going to be passed on and borne by power consumers, electric, fuel consumers in this country. If the MIT study is correct, that would be equivalent to over $3,100 per household. So I think it is important to note that President Obama's cap-and-trade tax is even more stringent than the Sanders-Boxer climate change bill, which I alluded to, which the MIT study makes reference to, which would only increase the national sales tax on energy prices. In other words, President Obama's cap-and-trade proposal is even more stringent than the one that was analyzed by researchers at MIT who concluded, again, it would cost the average household in this country over $3,100 per year. President Obama wants to take some of the proceeds from the carbon tax revenue and give it back to families through the Making Work Pay tax credit. The Making Work Pay tax credit totals about $400 per individual and about $800 per married couple. This credit barely covers a fourth of the household costs of the energy cap-and-trade tax of $3,100 per household. The President's message to the middle class is: Don't worry about paying the additional $3,100 each year in higher energy costs because the Government is going to refund $800 of that total in the form of the making-work-pay tax credit. That comes out to about a quarter of what the tax is going to be, the energy tax that each family will be faced with, if this particular proposal were to become law. Additionally, a significant number of individuals and married couples making less than $250,000 a year are not going to be eligible for the making-work-pay tax credit and are still going to be hit by the national sales tax on energy. The national energy sales tax is a direct contradiction to President Obama's campaign pledge not to increase taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year. The making-work-pay tax credit does not apply to a lot of people who make under that amount. The energy tax will apply to all of the people in this country to the tune of about $3,100 a year, according to the MIT analysis. According to a recent Washington Times article, the Obama cap-and- trade proposal could be far more costly than the estimated figures in the Obama budget blueprint. According to this article, President Obama's climate plan could cost close to $2 trillion, which would inevitably be passed on to consumers in the form of higher electricity, gas, and heating oil, as well as higher prices for other goods and services affected by higher energy costs. That is a bad deal for hard- working, taxpaying Americans, and it is the wrong solution to our economic problems. Like many Midwest States, South Dakota is heavily dependent upon coal power to meet our energy needs. One public power utility in South Dakota analyzed what little details are available on the President's national sales tax on energy and determined that their power costs would increase by $107 million per year by 2015. That represents a 65- percent increase in annual power costs. One of the largest municipal power customers would see their annual costs go up by $13 million for a rural community of just over 20,000 residents. That community is Watertown, SD. One of the largest industrial customers of a municipal power provider would see their electric bill increase by $2 million per year. Like many other States, South Dakota is trying to deal with the economic recession and is looking for ways to create jobs and help businesses grow. The President's proposal to tax energy will result in a new annual tax of $2 million on just one business in my State. It will kill jobs and stifle economic growth, and it should not be included in the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution. In the words of the CEO of this South Dakota-based power public power provider: In plain English, [the President's climate change proposal] represents a perpetual tax increase on our electric consumers. I want to show another power company in South Dakota, Black Hills Corporation, a diversified energy company serving customers in South Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa. They have provided some generic examples of how a cap-and-trade proposal would impact the monthly electric bills of various types of customers. The first chart is at $50 per ton of carbon dioxide, a monthly residential bill increases from $94 to $154. That is your average residential bill. A small commercial customer would see their monthly bill increase from $4,500 to $7,500 per month. You probably can't see, because this is fairly small print, that increase, but if you look at what the estimate is, the current cost being $4,500 for a small commercial customer bill, under the proposed climate change tax, if enacted, that would go up to about $7,500 per month. So we are looking at about a 67-percent increase per month. When you start multiplying that out, it becomes a staggering amount of money on an annual basis. A school customer would see their electric bill--this is the same power company, same statistics that apply to this, about $50 per ton of carbon dioxide--if they had a typical bill today of $15,000, under this particular plan they could see that electric bill go from $15,000 a month to $30,000 a month. Again, you probably can't see the small print, but essentially what it is telling us is that a current $15,000- per-month cost for electricity for a typical school in South Dakota would virtually double on a monthly basis. If you annualized that, that is $180,000 a year additional cost for a school in South Dakota which, in most cases, is struggling to provide school supplies and pay teachers fair salaries. Finally, take a look at a large industrial customer bill, the current monthly cost for power. With the energy tax that is under consideration in the President's proposal, that would go up to about $234,000 per month under the cap-and-trade proposal. I guess my point is, when you start looking at the kinds of costs this imposes on industries--and I used these examples from my State and information that was furnished to us by utility companies there--if you take a large industrial customer who is going to see their energy costs increase by $110,000 each month and you annualize that, you are looking at an additional $1.4 million each year on account of this proposal. The bottom line is, the amendment I have offered would amend the reserve fund included in a future climate cap-and-trade proposal. I know several of my colleagues, Republican colleagues, will be offering amendments to strike or lessen the impact of the President's national sales tax on energy as part of the budget process. What my amendment does is ensure that any cap-and-trade proposal drafted under this deficit-neutral reserve fund would not increase gasoline prices or electricity rates for consumers. I believe this amendment is the very least we can do for consumers dealing with the economic downturn and businesses struggling to make it through a prolonged recession. I encourage colleagues to support the amendment. I hope we will not include, in any budget resolution or reconciliation instructions coming back from the House or wherever that might occur, any language that would in any way implement the cap-and-trade proposal. This amendment ensures that doesn't happen in a way that would increase gasoline and electricity rates for customers. I ask that when we get to the vote, my colleagues will support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to pay honor to Deputy Sheriff Chad Mechels of Madison, SD, who was killed in the line of duty on Sunday, March 15, 2009, at the age of 32. He is survived by his wife Jamie Mechels and two children, Avery, age 7, and Thomas, age 3. Chad dedicated his life to a career in law enforcement. He graduated from the South Dakota Law Enforcement Academy in 2005. After graduation, Chad worked with several law enforcement agencies including the Lake County and Kingsbury County Sheriff's Departments. He was currently serving with the Turner County Sheriff's Department when his life was tragically taken. The sacrifice made by this brave officer is something we should always remember. Everyday heroes, like Chad, are those who keep us all safe. We should all be thankful to our community law enforcement officers who respond to protect the safety of others while sometimes jeopardizing their own. Deputy Sheriff Chad Mechels paid the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty, and for that we owe him a debt that can never be repaid. Let us honor Chad and so many other heroes that have made this country great.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, my amendment simply expresses the sense of the Senate that we maintain present law with regard to the deductibility of charitable contributions, that we allow or maintain the current tax treatment practice with regard to charitable contributions, and that is to allow full deductibility. The amendment we just voted on by the Senator from Montana opens the door to something less than full deductibility. I think it is important for the Senate to be on record, particularly in light of the challenges being faced by many charitable organizations these days to keep up with giving. There was a story in the New York Times this morning that says only 12 percent of charitable organizations expect to end the year with an operating surplus. Dianne Aviv, president of Independent Sector, a national membership organization of charities, said any decrease in charitable giving caused by Obama's proposal, no matter how small, would be ``seen as a stake in the heart.'' With all other means of income down, the idea that there will be another potential cut to the income of those nonprofit organizations feels catastrophic. It is utterly unacceptable. We have an opportunity to make a statement here expressing the view of the Senate confirming the current tax treatment for charitable contributions, full deductibility.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, if I might, I will speak to the amendment I have filed, which is pending and to which the Senator has now offered a side-by-side. I want to point out, in terms of the way charitable giving works in the country today, how the deduction applies, if you are in, say, a 35- percent tax bracket, a high-income-tax payer, and if you give $10,000 to a charity, it is actually only costing you $6,500. You are getting a 35-percent tax break. What the administration's proposed budget would do is reduce the favorable tax treatment an individual who gives to a charitable organization would get in the 35-percent tax bracket down to 28 percent. In other words, if somebody gives $10,000 to a charity--say a religious organization or some university--the benefit they would derive, in terms of tax treatment, would go from $3,500 to $2,800. In other words, instead of costing them $6,500 for that charitable contribution of $10,000, it would cost them $7,200. So you would see an increase of 10.8 percent in the amount it would cost someone to make a $10,000 contribution. After the tax treatment is applied, it would cost them $7,200 under the proposed budget we have seen from the administration. What my amendment simply does is say we ought to keep current law in place with regard to the tax treatment that is applied to charitable contributions. Here is why it is important--particularly now. We have an economy that is struggling. We have lots of charitable organizations that are noticing a dropoff in their contributions because of the economy. People are seeing a reduction in the values of many of the assets they have had, and people are losing jobs. There are a lot of reasons charitable giving is dropping off, and many of the organizations are faced now with a very difficult challenge in order to be able to keep up and meet the needs they are meeting out there across this great country. We rely, as a nation, significantly on the good-heartedness of the American people when it comes to contributing to many of these fine organizations that are doing good work. I think we ought to keep that same incentive in place--particularly now more than ever. The timing is critical because you are talking about taking away a tax benefit from people who give to charitable organizations at a time when those organizations are already suffering from a drop off in giving. So my argument would be--and there is a substantial body of evidence out there that suggests this--that when you reduce the tax benefits for charitable giving, say, by about 10 percent, you get about a 10-percent dropoff in giving. In other words, if you did take the 35 percent that currently would apply--if somebody is in the 30-percent tax bracket and makes a $10,000 contribution and deducts that on their income taxes, they get a 35-percent benefit on that, which means a $3,500 savings or, in other words, the actual $10,000 is only costing them $6,500. But if you change the tax treatment, as is being proposed by the administration, and make that a 28-percent tax benefit, you then increase the amount the $10,000 contribution is costing the giver, the contributor, to $7,200, which is a 10.8-percent increase in the actual cost of that contribution. As I said, if the data that is out there is accurate--and I believe it is because I think it is substantial--when you reduce that tax benefit by 10 percent, you also get a 10-percent reduction in the amount that individual would give. I think that is significant, particularly now when you look at the amount the American public gives to charitable organizations. You are talking about anywhere from $8 billion to $16 billion a year in reduced charitable giving in this country. Multiplied over a long period of time--5 to 10 years--you are talking about $160 billion, and potentially over 10, that would not be going into these charitable organizations that are serving great purposes across this country. I think it is fitting right now to have this discussion. People say: Why don't you do this next week on the budget? We probably will because this is a part of the budget proposal. It is also important to talk about this now because we are talking about expanding programs that the government runs right now, which are designed to do good things out there, and to hire volunteers to do charitable work and perform tasks that are contributing to the greater good. Since that debate is focused on what the government can do, I think it is fitting to talk about what people in this country are already doing in the private sector-- individuals who have been blessed by this country and are willing to give something back. I think we ought to encourage more of that not take away from the incentive to do that today. As I said yesterday in my remarks when I offered this amendment, I don't believe anybody makes a charitable contribution simply because of tax policy. I think people give because they want to give. I do, however, believe tax policy influences the amount of giving an individual makes. The statistics bear that out. If you have a 10-percent reduction in a tax benefit accorded to somebody who is making a charitable contribution, you are going to see about a 10-percent reduction in the amount of their contribution. That could cost charities significantly all across the country. That is why so many of them have weighed in and suggested that they think it would be a very bad time to go ahead and make this change in tax policy. My amendment expresses the sense of the Senate--nothing more or less--that puts this body on record saying we ought to keep the full deductibility of charitable contributions as a matter of tax policy in this country. I think that is a debate that, again, hopefully we will have next week as we debate the President's budget. But I think the President's goal in this is to try to find ways to generate revenue to do other things in their budget. I think this is a bad place to get it. I do not think the savings you are achieving as a result of taking away this tax benefit to charitable giving in the long run is going to in any way offset the decrease we are going to see from people across this country who might otherwise make charitable contributions who, because you take away that tax benefit, are going to see the actual cost of those contributions go up and therefore affect the amount they might otherwise give. I hope the Senate will go on record. The side-by-side offered by my colleague from Montana affirms the deductibility of charitable contributions from income tax but takes out the word ``full.'' What my amendment does is retains what we have today in terms of tax law, tax policy in its treatment of charitable giving, charitable contributions, and retains the full deductibility of those charitable contributions. It is important that the sense-of-the-Senate amendment I offered that expresses the view of this body about the deductibility of charitable contributions be the one that we vote on and that we reject the side- by-side that is being offered by the Senator from Montana because it does take away the word ``full,'' which opens the door for changes that will occur in the budget that is going to be offered next week and would reduce the amount--the tax benefit that is accorded to those who make charitable contributions. I hope when we get to the vote--it does not sound as if it is going to occur until later this afternoon--the Senate will support the Thune amendment, the sense of the Senate affirming support of the Senate for the full deductibility of charitable contributions, and reject the side-by-side offered by the Senator from Montana which does not include the affirmation of full deductibility of that tax benefit. Bear in mind, this is a sense of the Senate. It is not binding, it is not law, but I do think it puts the Senate on record in terms of our full support of full deductibility of charitable contributions. As I mentioned, timing is important. Right now, with what is happening in the economy and how it is impacting charitable giving to charitable organizations, this is the absolute worst time to be talking about taking away the tax benefit that has produced so much giving and added to the giving people might otherwise do by providing favorable tax treatment. It is an incentive that has worked. It has worked in spades if you look at the amount of giving that occurred in this country in 2007. The number I used in the amendment is $300 billion--2 percent of the GDP--American people contributed to causes greater than themselves. We ought to encourage it, not discourage it. Adopting my sense-of-the- Senate amendment would do that. I hope my colleagues will support it. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. THUNE

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