Good Samaritan Tax Act

Mr. Speaker, first let me compliment the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the sponsor of this legislation, and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) for reaching, I think, a fair compromise on some very controversial issues so that we really do have a chance to enact a bill this year that can help our faith-based institutions, our nonprofit institutions in carrying out their very important responsibility. Major compromises were reached along with Senator Lieberman and Senator Santorum in the Senate that would provide our sponsors in the House to eliminate from the bill a very controversial provision dealing with employment discrimination. I know that many of our Members have been concerned about that. Those provisions are not included in this legislation, and I want to compliment all involved who were responsible for the removal of that provision.

I also want to compliment the architects of this legislation for working out a fair compromise as it relates to a foundation's administrative costs. We have a fair compromise on that issue that puts some Federal controls on administrative costs but also allows the foundations to be able to do their business in the most cost-effective way.

In my view, this legislation is a positive help to faith-based institutions, nonprofit institutions and is consistent with the tradition of our country to maintain the church-state separation. There is help here for those who want to privately give, whether they be individuals or corporations, to our nonprofit community through the use of direct contributions or their IRAs.

Mr. Speaker, let me also agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) in regards to the provisions relating to housing.

I think this bill is a positive bill. I agree with the distinguished Republican whip that this bill has moved in a bipartisan way through this body and through the other body and we therefore have a good bill before us. I would urge my good friend to continue that process and let Members vote their convictions on the amendment that I will be offering a little bit later.

It includes two more provisions. It builds on the underlying bill but adds two more provisions that has strong bipartisan support not only in this body but also the other body. It provides an extra $1.1 billion for the social services block grant program. In 1996, we were financing the social services block grant program at $2.8 billion a year. We cut it in the welfare bill to $2.38 billion a year but we made a commitment in that legislation that we would restore that cut in 2003. That is exactly what the Cardin amendment will do. And it has strong bipartisan support. Many Members on the Republican side of the Committee on Ways and Means support that change. I hope they will vote that way today. It is vitally important to our faith-based institutions.

Let me just give my colleagues one example. Catholic Charities relies upon public programs for 62 percent of their support. The social services block grant program is a very important part of that. It provides day care for low-income families, offers counseling services to at-risk youth, provides nutritional assistance to the elderly and provides community-based care to the disabled. This is their number one priority as far as help in order to be able to carry out their very important mission.

The second change is that the bill is fully paid for by closing corporate loopholes through tax shelters. I know that a document was sent out that says this is extremely controversial. If it is extremely controversial, why did 95 members of the other body vote in favor of it? It passed 95 to 3 or 4 in the Senate. It is not controversial. It is controversial to add $13 billion more to the national debt and not pay for it. So this amendment pays for the cost of the bill through a provision that is good tax policy.

Our deficit this year is projected to grow by over $500 billion. That does not even include the $87 billion that the President has asked us to pass by a supplemental appropriation to prosecute the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. What my amendment will do is close tax shelters by codifying the practice of the courts that will bring in moneys from activities that have no economic value. It is what the other body did to pay for it.

There is one more thing I might add. We are in the closing days of this first session of this Congress. Major differences between the House and Senate will have difficult times being reconciled in conference. The adoption of my amendment gives us a much better chance to get this bill to the President this year. I urge my colleagues not only to support the underlying bill, support the Cardin amendment so that we can get a bill to the President and that we can also accomplish two more important factors that I think are supported on a bipartisan basis. I urge support for the amendment that will be offered later and I hope that we can continue to work in a bipartisan way to get this bill to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment adds two important provisions to the underlying legislation. As I mentioned during general debate, I support the underlying bill. I think a good compromise has been reached on some very important issues, including the elimination of the employment discrimination provisions and a compromise in regards to foundations' administrative costs. I think this bill will help nonprofit, faith- based organizations consistent with our tradition of church and State.

The two additions that my amendment adds are very important to this legislation. The Republican whip pointed out that this legislation has been developed among Democrats and Republicans in a bipartisan way and in cooperation with the other body, particularly Senator Lieberman and Senator Santorum. All I ask is that the Members consider this amendment and vote on it by their convictions. Both provisions have bipartisan support.

The first provision adds an additional $1.1 billion to the next fiscal year for the social services block grant, taking it from $1.7 billion to $2.8 billion. This is not a novel concept. I see the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) here who was very instrumental in the social services block grant program and in the welfare reform legislation. When we passed welfare reform in 1996, we reduced the social services block grant from $2.8 billion to $2.38 billion, but we also included in that legislation a commitment to our States that in 2003 we would reinstate the level at $2.8 billion. That is exactly what this amendment would do.

Number two, this amendment is consistent with the other body. They have already put the money in their reported bill. It puts us together with the other body at $2.8 billion for next year.

Now, what is the social services block grant? Why is it so relevant to the legislation that is before us? If we ask the faith-based groups as to what is the most important funding source for them to be able to do their work, they will tell us it is the social services block grant program. It provides funding for day care for low-income families, for offering counseling services to at-risk children, nutritional assistance to the elderly, and providing community-based care to the disabled.

I need not tell my colleagues the fiscal restraints that our States are currently confronting, with record deficits, and they are forced to cut these very programs that the social services block grant program helps them to fund. For my own State of Maryland, this amendment will mean $20 million; for the State of California, $132 million; for the State of Texas, $81 million; New York, $73 million; Florida, $63 million. If we take a look at our major faith-based institutions such as Catholic Charities, United Jewish Community, Lutheran Services, Salvation Army, in each one of those cases they rely in large part on government assistance to fund these community-based programs. For Catholic Charities it is over 650 percent; 62 percent of their support comes from governmental grants. The social services block grant program is key. This amendment allows us to live

up to our commitment that we made in 1996 to restore the level to what it was in 1996.

The second part of this amendment is for fiscal responsibility. I think there is not a person in this body who has not lamented the fact that we now have over $500 billion annual deficit that we are adding to the national debt, and that does not include the $87 billion the President has requested for Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a fiscal responsibility as legislators to make sure we do not add more to that national debt. That is why the other body reached out to find a revenue offset to the bill that they reported.

My amendment is not original. We have taken basically the provisions that were included in the other body to say that if you are doing a tax shelter you should not get the benefit. The courts are already doing that, and the revenues that it will generate will offset the revenues that are lost under this bill so that we do not add to the deficit.

Now, I have gotten some material this morning and I have listened to the debate as to why this would not be a good idea. I have heard that there was a sheet put out that said this was extremely controversial. I then listened to why it was extremely controversial, considering it received 95 votes in the other body. The first reason that my colleague said is that it would be administratively difficult. Well, this is currently being done by the courts on a case-by-case basis. We have a responsibility as the legislature to clarify this law. We should not be doing tax policy in our courts. That is our responsibility.

I have not heard one complaint against the fact that tax shelters should be outlawed and there should be penalties for tax shelters. This bill deals with it in a responsible way.

The second point I have heard is that it is retroactive. Now, let me tell my colleagues, the date in this bill is what we have done by tradition in this body since I have been here and well before that. When a bill is noted by a committee, they use that as the effective date, and that is exactly what is in the bill that was reported by the other body. We incorporate that same date. Now, if that is retroactivity, the other side has been guilty of it many, many times. So let us be at least straightforward in the debate. Let people vote their convictions. We should pay for the bill and we should provide help to the faith-based organizations in our States through the social services block grant that many of us have supported in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I believe I control the time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) getting time from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) to respond.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

To clarify some of the points that my chairman made, when he referred to the States having all this TANF money that is left over, let me point out that the States are currently spending more money every year in TANF funds than they currently receive and that they have obligated almost all of their money. The 10 percent transfer authority has been approved every year. That is nothing new. So when he mentions these issues I think we need to clarify that. And on the effective dates we are following the tradition of this House under Republican leadership. There is really nothing new this year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just point out to my friend from Connecticut that the transfer authority will have no impact on her State since her State's obligated all of their TANF funds.

Let me point out to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), if we want to do something for the military, the bill is sitting at the desk from the other body. We could take it up and get it done before we leave here this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am curious why my friend from California points out that the Social Services Block Grant is not part of this legislation, even though all the faith-based nonprofit groups say it is very important to them, why the underlying bill provides transfer authority to the Social Services Block Grant from TANF if it is not relevant to this legislation. Maybe the gentleman from California will try to answer that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time that remains?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, first let me reiterate what I said earlier. I support the underlying bill. I think the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) have done an excellent job in bringing forth an excellent bill, and I compliment them for that.

I noticed that many of the speakers on the opposition side of my amendment were speaking in support of the underlying bill which I support and which is incorporated in the amendment that I offer. I want to make it clear if Members support the underlying bill, they can certainly support this amendment, as the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) supports this amendment.

So let me deal with the points which have been made in opposition to this amendment. I hope Members will take this into consideration when voting on the amendment.

First, the issue of relevancy has been waged as to why the social services block grant is included in this underlying bill. As pointed out, the underlying bill includes the TANF legislation giving authorization for the transfer of social services block grants. If it is relevant for the body of the bill, it is certainly relevant for our amendment.

Secondly, if we ask the charitable groups as to what will help them the most in carrying out the social functions that we want them to do, they all support the increasing of the social services block grant. The next issue which has been raised is do the States really need this and are the funds really necessary? After all, we have TANF reserves.

As I pointed out, the States are spending more every year in TANF funds than they are receiving from the Federal Government. They are running deficits right now.

In regards to the multiyear authorization, almost all those funds have been committed. If you look at the deficits our States are currently confronting in their budgets, it is just intuitive that we know they need the money. Lastly, this was a commitment we made when we passed welfare reform, that we would restore the social services block grant funds in 2003. Congress should live up to its commitment. They should adopt that amendment.

Then I hear criticisms about the offset. I hear that it is going to be hard to enforce. It is our responsibility to clarify the law. Currently it is being implemented by the court on a case-by-case basis. That is certainly not in the best interest of tax policy. It is our responsibility to do that. The way that we have drafted this in regards to effective dates, et cetera, is consistent with the prior policy of this body in passing tax legislation. We frequently note dates and that is exactly what the other body did. This is very consistent.

Then lastly, Mr. Speaker, I have heard just about every Member lament the fact that we are adding to the national debt and we have to do something about it, that we have to exercise fiscal restraint. When are we going to do it? Here is an easy one, my colleagues. This is an easy one. Closing a loophole that if you ask any tax accountant or tax attorney, they will tell you it is the right thing to do. Shelters do not help our economy. That is why the courts are taking it on when we should be taking it on and that is why the other body passed it in their legislation. It is time for us to stand up to our responsibility, to do the right thing. This is a bipartisan bill. Both of these recommendations have been brought forward with bipartisan support, both the increase in the social services block grant and the funding mechanism. It passed the other body by a vote of 95 to 5.

The last point I make, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a lot of work to do between now and adjournment. The more work we put in conference, the less likely it is going to come out of conference. Here is our chance to really make it likely that we could enact a bill that is going to help our charitable groups by moving closer to the other body consistent with the policy of this

body, consistent with both Democrats and Republicans. I urge my colleagues to continue the tradition of this legislation which has moved in a bipartisan manner and look at this amendment objectively. I hope you will vote with me. Vote your conscience. Vote in support of the Cardin amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here to talk about this bill. This is a tax bill. It is a tax bill that really is an important step toward what we do for charities in this country. It is an important step in the President's faith-based agenda; but certainly as a tax bill that encourages charitable giving, all that giving is not necessarily done to faith-based institutions. This has broad bipartisan support. I am pleased with the way the Committee on Ways and Means dealt with this bill and brought this bill to the floor without any dissenting votes on Tuesday of last week.

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), a cosponsor of the bill, worked hard on this bill; and we have over 80 bipartisan House cosponsors working with us on this bill.

The truth is our charities need some encouragement. They have faced some difficult times. 2001 was the first year that charitable giving in this country was lower than the year before. Giving in 2002 seems to continue to reflect that trend. Corporate giving fell by almost 15 percent between 2000 and 2001.

As we look towards what this does for charities generally, we can also look at what it does for faith-based charities which are so important in providing services in the country. Seventy-five percent of the food pantries in America are run by religious organizations, 71 percent of the food kitchens are faith based, 43 percent of the shelters are run by the faith-based community.

This act really allows those who give to charity more ways to give and encourages them to give in new ways. This is a change in the Tax Code that has impact. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimate of the impact of this bill would indicate that $45 to $50 billion more will be given to charities over the next 10 years if this bill becomes law than would be given to charities if this bill does not become law.

There are many things, particularly as charities reach out to individuals in need, food kitchens, shelters, food pantries, where the charity has proved to be such a compassionate way to deal with this problem with the most impact. Clearly the family unit intact is the best way to provide services to people. After that I think we could have a debate that my side would win advocating that when charities step in, they are almost always more compassionate, quicker, more cost effective, and get out more of the money available to them, and get help sooner and quicker and more effectively than any other way to do this. Of course, where both the family has failed, where individuals through the church and community have not been able to do the job, there is a place for government programs. But there is a clear place for charities.

Let me talk about two or three things in this bill that make a difference in terms of how millions of Americans are affected. Eighty- six million Americans do not itemize their taxes, but of those 86 million Americans, many give money every week, every month, every year to a church or charity. The bill of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) and my bill changes the Tax Code in a way that lets those people who give to church and charity have credit for some of the giving that they do to church and charity. Just like people who itemize their taxes, they have to demonstrate that they did make that gift, but this treats them differently from the people who do not itemize their taxes and do not give. This really does reward giving for individuals and couples.

The second big area of impact of the bill, I believe, will be the changes we make in those resources and how we deal with those resources that people have in IRAs. There are $2.5 trillion in the country today in IRAs. Many people, as they begin to utilize their IRAs, suddenly realize they do not have enough money in their IRAs to do all of the things that they would like to do; but many people realize through some good fortune in investing, an extraordinary commitment to funding their IRA, through that and the other things they have done providing for their retirement, their IRA is a big resource of money that they do not need or are not likely to need all of.

Today, the tax consequences of gifting IRAs are such that almost none of that money is given to charity or

faith-based charities. The change in this bill removes the tax obstacle from giving that money. After people reach the age of 70\1/2\ and begin to evaluate their resources and the need for those resources, suddenly that $2.5 trillion out there in IRAs is available for gifting potential.

If we talk to our friends who raise money for their local college or university, for the Red Cross, for the blood center, for whatever it would be, they would say that this portion of the bill is the portion that they look to which has the greatest opportunity to change giving in the future.

We raise the cap on corporate charitable contributions over the next 10 years from 10 percent that could be gifted of profits to 20 percent of profits. We extend current incentives for food donations to apply to even more farmers, more restaurants, more retailers, more wholesalers. We allow value added to those products to have a greater value in gifting than it has today.

This bill reauthorizes a program which allows low-income working Americans the opportunity to build assets through matching savings accounts, known as IDAs, which can be used to purchase a home, expand educational opportunity, or to start a small business.

This bill provides $150 million a year for a compassion capital fund to assist small community and faith-based organizations who want to start a charitable outreach to do that, to set up their organization or to expand their capacity to serve. This encourages conservation by private landowners by requiring certain Federal grant money for conservation be treated as tax free.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/3\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) to respond to one statement made by the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland's work on getting this bill out of committee unanimously and the fact that it is totally included in his substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), the former Speaker of the House of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

I would just remind the Members in the debate that this is about not $12 billion; it is really about $50 billion, $50 billion that the American people decide they want to give to charities to help their fellow citizens, and certainly that makes a difference in the character of the country. Anytime we individually reach out, frankly, that is more character developing than seeing the Government reach out. It does not mean there is not a place for the Government to reach out, but to suggest that it is a bad thing in any way to encourage people to reach out or to suggest that people who give money to church and charity every month will lie about whether they gave that money is inappropriate.

I want to say how much I have appreciated the opportunity to work with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), my good friend. We came to Congress at the same time. We developed a bill here that has broad bipartisan support. That was voted unanimously out of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the next speaker, have done such a good job to get this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say as I yield myself the remainder of my time that I appreciate the character of the debate, I appreciate the opportunity to work with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) and the members of the Committee on Ways and Means in bringing this bill to the floor. We look forward to passage today and a quick effort to work with our friends in the other body and see this bill on the President's desk become law and make a difference in the way people are encouraged to do things for others in their community and in our country and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Cardin

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the underlying parts of the Cardin substitute is of course the bill that we have on the floor today. The bill is provided for in the budget document we voted on some time ago. This is well within the amount that we had set aside for tax reduction. But this tax reduction multiplies many times the good things that are done for people with the money spent and the good things are done for society when you encourage people to give their money to others, to help others.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman knows we sent that legislation to the Senate already.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mrs. JOHNSON from Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

This is a very important bill that we are considering today. It allows people to contribute more to their local United Way agencies, their local YWCAs, their local church programs, that it can be very effectively focused on serving the families and individuals, meeting the needs of people in their own community. That is what is so wonderful about charitable giving. So this is an important bill that we need to move forward.

I am a very strong advocate of the social services block grant. I am glad in this bill we do reaffirm by law that States will have the right to transfer 10 percent of their TANF money to other purposes. Now, in the appropriations bill earlier this year, we dropped that to 5 percent. So it is significant that we beef that back up in this law and the States do routinely use this transfer capability to better fund whatever programs they think are important to them. And for many States this is the way they use all of their TANF money and for many States they actually do not use all of their TANF money.

There are some that use all of their TANF money and this social services block grant expansion is extremely important for that reason. On the other hand, the Senate bill does have an expansion in it and in conference we will be able to work on that. The problem with this bill is that it moves forward on an issue that we need to move forward in conference on, but it does it by adopting a pay-for that is real an unwise pay-for.

The provisions in this bill that try to deal with tax shelters would put forward a whole new concept as one of its tests, the concept of a risk-free rate of return. Now, we have had trouble implementing the tax shelter law. The States at first interpreted some of the provisions of that law in varied ways. They are now moving toward consistent interpretation. We are now moving toward consistency in the courts, and so this is a particularly bad time to now change the law, putting in a concept that has had no judicial interpretation and is not in and of itself clear; that is, the concept of a risk-free rate of return.

In addition, our own Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Pam Olson, has stated that codifying the economic substance doctrine could be counterproductive and would drive tax shelters further underground.

We have a solution to this problem in the American Jobs Creation Act, H.R. 2896, and I urge the body to solve this problem at that time and oppose the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), my colleague and assistant whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a leader on this issue.

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me say, as we look at this substitute again, that this is a substitute that really encompasses the bill and that suggests we add other things to the bill that I think can be better handled in other pieces of legislation.

The effort to work with the Treasury Department and the administration on tax shelters is in a bill which should be before the committee at any time.

The social services block grant, I think, better fits another bill.

This is a bill about charitable giving. It is a tax bill. We specifically eliminated the things about program delivery from a similar bill that the House passed last year because we wanted to focus on charitable giving. We did not want to focus on other programs. We

wanted our focus to be on those things that changed the character of our communities because they encouraged people to assist others in their community.

The House passed bills that really give the States $20 billion already, $10 billion is for Medicare costs, and $10 billion is totally flexible to the States. There is another $9 billion that is available to the States because of unspent TANF funds and welfare reform funds. That is $19 billion States could spend for these purposes.

This bill is well within the amount of money we set aside this year in the budget, which I think all of the proponents of the substitute probably also oppose the budget; but the budget did pass, and it set aside money for tax relief. This is tax relief that does not just cost the Federal Government money, but it truly does encourage people to invest their money in the things they care about, in the charities they care about, in the communities they care about, in the individuals and families they care about that are assisted there. That is what this bill is about.

This bill is not about trying to codify some very technical tax policy retroactive or not that, as I understand it, not being a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, as I understand the tax policy, would suggest that it is interpreted differently in almost every circuit of the country, you cannot invest money or spend money if you are a business that you would not invest in if the Tax Code did not exist.

Most businesses wish the Tax Code did not exist, but it does exist and it does affect the bottom line. It does affect decisionmaking. How many Americans would buy a home if there was no Tax Code incentive to buy that home?

Do we want to say we cannot make any decisions in the country, make it illegal to make any decisions in the country based on tax policy? How many decisions are made by Americans every single day based upon the tax policy of the country? This is a very complicated thing. It does not belong on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), and that as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, he may control that time.

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) for yielding me this time and for being here to represent the committee on this bill. I want to thank the committee for voting the bill out of committee unanimously and my chief cosponsor the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) and all of the other bipartisan cosponsors that have gotten behind this bill. This will make a difference in the charitable community. I am confident that our commitment to this bill will be so great today that we will be able to move quickly to a conference, quickly to the President's desk and begin to see the impact of this bill right away. Certainly I urge my colleagues to reject the substitute, reject any further efforts to delay this measure. Let us get this bill passed today, get it headed toward a final conclusion and toward the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 370, I call up the bill (H.R. 7) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for charitable contributions by individuals and businesses, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I want to compliment the cosponsors of the bill, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford). The fact that they decided on a bipartisan approach, I think set the tone for the changes that result in the bill we have before us.

The President had indicated that one of his top priorities, as he said, to rally the armies of compassion, to help the underprivileged in the United States is, in fact, to a certain extent a uniquely American structure dealing with the creation of foundations, charitable trusts and other structures to assist those in need in a private plan from those who have wealth.

These plans, approaches and foundations are governed, especially in terms of a privileged position, under the tax code as those who, when they conduct these activities, are exempt from various taxable consequences. Periodically, we really do need to review the structure, the relationships and the way in which these foundations and other structures relate to the tax code.

In addition to that, there is nothing wrong with this society, through the tax code, influencing in a positive way a people's willingness to carry on contributions and charitable acts. That really is the core of H.R. 7, and I am pleased to say, notwithstanding the fact that the minority will offer a substitute for the bill, those portions that I have just discussed are identical between H.R. 7 and the substitute that will be offered.

The difference is about other actions, other money, other funding arguments. Those will be examined in terms of the substitute versus the underlying bill, but I want to underscore, this bill came out of the Committee on Ways and Means by a voice vote. What that means is that, basically, it was supported by all of the Members. The compromise that was achieved that produced this result is an excellent example of people who are going to be governed working with those people who are empowered to do the governing and resolving differences.

I do believe the core portion of H.R. 7 is not controversial and should be passed.

Mr. Speaker, last week H.R. 7, the Charitable Giving Act of 2003 passed the Committee on Ways and Means, as amended, by voice vote.

The Charitable Giving Act is one of President Bush's top priorities, and will--as he has said--``rally the armies of compassion'' to help the underprivileged in the United States. The bill encourages charitable contributions by individuals, businesses and foundations, while improving the effectiveness and efficacy of the government's delivery program for these important donations. The tax incentives in H.R. 7 will encourage and promote philanthropic donations by removing barriers that restrict giving.

H.R. 7 allows those taxpayers who do not itemize, which accounts for roughly two-thirds of returns, the opportunity to deduct a portion of their charitable contributions.

The bill provides an exclusion from gross income for otherwise taxable withdrawals from traditional or Roth IRAs that are made for charitable purposes. IRAs represent a major untapped source of charitable contributions, and it is estimated that Americans have used these plans to save roughly $2.3 trillion. By allowing taxpayers who have reached age 70\1/2\ to make tax-free transfers of IRA assets for charitable purposes, this provision represents a key source of increased charitable giving while also providing safeguards to ensure that IRA owners have ample assets for retirement.

H.R. 7 increases incentives that encourage benevolent contributions by corporations and other business. The bill increases the cap on corporate charitable contributions from 10 to 20 percent of modified taxable income and allows all businesses, rather than just C corporations, to take advantage of an extension of enhanced deductions for donations of food inventory. In addition, H.R. 7 better allows corporations to donate scientific property, computer technology and equipment to enhance research, and allows a shareholder in an S corporation to receive the benefit of a full charitable deduction for charitable contributions made by the S corporation.

In addition, this bill includes legislation to authorize a new compassion capital fund to support propitious social programs while extending and strengthening current efforts that urge low-income families to save in hopes to pay for school, start a business, or purchase a home. Furthermore, the enhanced State flexibility outlined in H.R. 7 allows States to transfer 10 percent of annual Federal cash welfare funds to the Social Services Block Grant in order to better help low-income families.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very important for two reasons: (1) it will help Americans help those who need it the most--whether it is through initiatives to end substance abuse and gang related violence, or to improve the health of the neediest; and (2) it will ensure uniformity exists in how charitable foundations operate. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 7.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and ask unanimous consent that he control the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should address the gentleman from Maryland's last point first. This is not about the date of enactment. Pick any date one wants. What normally happens is that if we now say something that was legitimate is no longer legitimate, we do it on what we say is a prospective basis. From now on, you are put on notice; you cannot do this any more. That is not what his amendment, or his substitute, says.

What his substitute says is that it is applicable to taxable years beginning before, on, or after the date of enactment. It is not the date of enactment that we are concerned about; it is the fact that if this language is adopted in the substitute it means that when it does become effective, behavior that has already taken place, which was legitimate at the time that it took place, is now no longer allowed. That is called retroactive. As a matter of fact, if it were in the area of criminal law, it would be unconstitutional. But since it is in the area of civil law, it may be immoral, it may be unfair, it may be wrong, but the government can do that.

I personally think in the area of tax law, we should never have a retroactive procedure. It is one of the primary reasons I voted against the 1986 tax bill. It had a number of retroactive provisions.

How in the world are citizens supposed to trust the actions of government if when they conduct perhaps an irrevocable decision of a financial nature under the Tax Code, the time at which it was carried out was legal, several years later the Congress says it is no longer permissible, and we can go back and deal with it retroactively? How more fundamentally unfair can government be than that?

That is what is in here. It is not over the date; it is over what happens when the date becomes effective. Prospectively, we can go to the substance of what the amendment contains, which is unacceptable, but the fact that it can reach back and deal negatively with behavior which was acceptable at the time that it was carried out on its face should be rejected.

In addition to that, there is much discussion about how we need to make sure that these various lifesavers are available to the States in carrying out very useful and needed purposes dealing with those individuals who are in need. So if we are talking about lifesavers, the question is this: are we talking about lifesavers or are we talking about orange lifesavers, or perhaps cherry lifesavers, or perhaps lime lifesavers? I think we have to really visit what we have done in this year alone.

In the tax bill, we have already passed at the insistence of the Senate a tax bill which contains $20 billion of gifts distributed to the States. Half of it, $10 billion, was to go to Medicaid. The other half, $10 billion, was totally flexible. It is available for social services block grants or any other services that States might want to use it for within their jurisdiction. They got $5 billion of it in July, they are getting another $5 billion this month.

But in addition to that, earlier money that we had provided, almost $6 billion, is still unspent in Federal TANF money that is available for welfare, child care, other social services. And to make sure that it would be available and could be used, we did not limit ourselves to the modest percentage under the appropriations bill, we passed a welfare bill that said you get the full 10 percent. The welfare bill may hit rocky shoals in the Senate; we are providing it here again. Not a 4 percent, not a 5 percent, but a full 10 percent transfer capability. If, in fact, what we are now doing is not arguing that the States need lifesavers, they want a particular flavor of lifesaver; Members have to ask themselves is it really something that we need to do when there is more than enough money in the system, transferability is not a question; it is just that they want a particular flavor of lifesaver their way. And, if, in fact, they are going to fund it under a structure which reaches back and penalizes taxpayers when at the time they conducted the behavior it was legal, I would say, boy, that is overreaching, especially when the underlying bill, the key part that we are looking at, not welfare payments or social services block grants, but the charitable giving which is at the heart of the bill, is the same in both bills.

The stuff they are adding is really beyond the narrow focus of what this bill is all about and that is charitable giving.

So for all those reasons, I would urge Members, notwithstanding the appeals that are going to be made to tell you that there is more than enough money in the system, underscoring more than $6 billion in TANF money that still has not been spent by the States available to be transferred for the very purposes, they argue they want to force more money on the States.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of the time, and I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time be controlled by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the cosponsor of the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman referring to the effective date on page 76 of his substitute?

Might I respond or was the gentleman simply making a statement while the gentleman from California stood? The gentleman indicated in his opening statement that he would yield time for colloquy.

I tell the gentleman that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) rose and said he would yield to me on his time. That tells you about the way they operate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts for structuring this motion to recommit actually as a motion to recommit, rather than one which cannot be honored. So what we do is we look at the content of the motion to recommit, rather than the key words that determine whether or not he is serious. The gentleman from Massachusetts, by the way he has structured his motion to recommit, is serious.

If in fact the House is judged on what we do, rather than what we say, all you have to do is go back to last March when this House passed the provisions which deal directly with this issue. Way before hurricane season, the House of Representatives said a child credit should be $1,000 and it should stay at $1,000 for the rest of the decade. If the Senate bill is better, why does the Senate bill contain a snap-back to $700 in December of 2004, right after the election?

If the Senate bill is better, the House bill said marriage penalty, now, for the rest of the decade. The Senate bill says marriage penalty eliminated in 2010. They say, therefore, helping the military. The bill we passed last March offers more help dollar-wise and substance-wise to the military than the one they are proposing now.

So I think it is fairly ironic that they are asking us to do what we have done.

The argument that the conference on this bill has not met should not be directed to the House; it should be directed to the other body, because the other body chairs that conference. No call has been made.

What we need to do for the rest of the afternoon is simple: vote ``no'' for 15 minutes, vote ``yes'' for 5 minutes, and we can beat the hurricane home.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) for their leadership on this bill. It is something that I have long waited to see, an actual change in our Tax Code to give more incentive to charitable giving.

It is unfortunate that partisan politics has been, again, injected into this. Because as we have been holding a series of faith-based hearings around the country, one thing that we recently heard in Texas in San Antonio from the most effective faith-based drug addict rescue group in the State of Texas, and, really, in America, said, where do you think the financial support of our ministry comes from? The people who have come through the front door of that home.

This bill will give those people a chance to get a tax break, many who have very little funds who have been ignored because of the way our Tax Code is structured in charitable giving. This is one small step, and I hope we can expand it in the future, but an important step and the most important step.

We have been on the floor arguing over charitable choice. I said from the beginning that the Tax Code was the most important and the second most was the Compassion Capital Fund, which is also in this bill to help these little usually urban or rural organizations get an ability to do a 501(c)(3) corporation. And this bill also covers that. I am thrilled with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, for several years now we have been having the discussion on how best to help faith-based organizations. Very few clear answers have emerged. Today we are here to discuss H.R. 7, the Charitable Giving Act, which addresses the two areas where I believe the government can best assist faith-based and community organizations in their work.

A few months ago I initiated a series of field hearings to talk directly to the faith-based providers of social services. We've put the cart before the horse in this debate, and what we're trying to do with these hearings is to take a step back, and ask the providers what qualities they possess that makes them unique. Time and time again, they are telling me that it is their faith that drives them to do the work that they do, often in undesirable conditions for little or no recognitnition. Our second hearing was held in San Antonio, where Freddie Garcia has built a very successful drug treatment program that is not only faith-base, but faith-saturated. Jack Willome is a San Antonio businessman who volunteers his time to help Victory Fellowship with financial planning. During his testimony at our hearing he recounted a conversation he had had with a friend prior to his involvement with Victory Fellowship. His friend counseled him, ``Jack, when you're giving money away, your first objective should be to try to do no harm.''

When we as the Congress are debating how we can best support the scores of faith-based organizations working in our neighborhoods, we need to heed that same advice. Do no harm. We know that organizations like Victory Fellowship, Lutheran Social Services, Prison Fellowship, Chicago's Emmaus Ministries and T.E.A.M. III in my hometown of Fort Wayne, Indiana, are helping people every day, and they do not apologize for the role faith plays in their programs. As we start attaching restrictions and qualifications to the money government is wiling to give faith-based organizations, we put ourselves in the position of asking those charities to drain their programs of the very qualities that make them effective providers of social services.

So how can we best help these organizations without asking them to dilute or eliminate their religious character? The Charitable Giving Act, is a good step in the right direction. Research shows that individuals who receive a tax deduction for charitable giving contribute more than individuals who do not receive such tax benefits. By allowing the 86 million Americans who currently do not itemize on their tax returns an opportunity to deduct a portion of their charitable contributions, we are recognizing that the best way to help the private

sector is to encourage more charitable giving by individuals. We know that there are limits on how much money the government is able to spend on social services. Unfortunately, the demand for social services far exceeds the money government is able to spend. It doesn't matter who is in office, the dollars just aren't there.

So, we need to turn to the neighborhood organizations that are providing services, with or without government aid. Americans know which organizations in their communities are making a difference. By encouraging individuals to increase their charitable giving, we improve the likelihood that the dollars are going to go to the organizations that will produce the best results. Jack Willome also testified about the fundraising and fiscal accountability of Victory Fellowship. He said that that 90 percent of Victory Fellowship's budget comes from the giving of people who have benefited from the ministry. As he testified,

It's the only project I have ever been involved in as a

donor where I have total confidence that the organization has

the ability to sustain the operations in the new facility,

and I don't have to worry about that because of their track

record. The financial support of the ministry, guess where it

comes from? The people who have come through the front door

of that home after--as their characters are being transformed

and they become involved in Victory Temple Church and they

give financially to the work of the church.''

It makes no difference if the government is involved with a faith-based organization or not. Those charities will be accountable, first and foremost, to their clients and to their donors. The support of the community is perhaps our best indicator of how successful an organization is at improving the lives of their clients.

I believe that the best way we can help the faith-based community is to encourage private sector philanthropy for all individuals who contribute to charitable organizations, not just those who itemize. Approximately two-thirds of tax returns filed do not claim itemized deductions; therefore those taxpayers are not eligible to deduct their charitable contributions. The majority of non-itemizers are low- and middle-income taxpayers--the very taxpayers who would benefit from this piece of legislation.

Here are a few examples of who would benefit from this bill. A non- itemizing, single taxpayer with a taxable income of $45,000 owes about $8,060 in federal income taxes. This legislation would reduce the individual's taxes owed by $62.50 if he or she donated $500 to a charity of his or her choice. Likewise, a family of four with a taxable income of $65,000 would save $125 in taxes for a donation of $1,000 to a local charity. While the savings may seem small, it is certainly better than the current tax policy of providing no benefit to non- itemizers. It is my hope that Congress will revisit this issue in the future to further expand tax relief for individuals and families who contribute financially to the valuable work of faith-based organizations.

The second thing we can do to help the countless faith-based and community organizations serve their communities is to provide these organizations with the training and technical assistance they need in order to serve their clients more effectively. Mark Terrell, CEO of Lifeline Youth and Family Services in Fort Wayne, a program that provides prevention, intervention, and aftercare service for families and children in the Fort Wayne community testified at our Chicago field hearing that

there needs to be a system put in place that will help both

small and large agencies meet the financial reporting

requirements that are necessary when using public funds. The

desire and ability of these organizations to do great work

within a community that desperately needs their help can be

undermined or undone when they don't have the skills or

resources necessary to meet high-maintenance reporting

requirements.

The authorization of a Compassion Capital Fund recognizes the unique contributions of faith-based and community organizations to the provision of social services by providing the resources necessary for these smaller organizations to improve and expand their services. Last year, the Department of Health and Human Services created a Compassion Capital Fund funded with $30 million appropriated by Congress. HHS then took $24.8 million of that appropriation and awarded it in grants to 21 intermediary organizations whose purpose was to help smaller organizations operate and manage their programs more effectively, train staff, and expand the types and scope of the social services they provide to their communities.

Two years ago I stood in this Chamber and told you about Pastor Jesse Beasley. Pastor Beasley was trying to start a youth program for kids to protect them from the drug problem and high murder rate affecting Fort Wayne. Now, two years later, that desire to help improve the lives of his neighbors has led Pastor Jesse Beasley along with several other Fort Wayne clergy to begin a program called T.E.A.M. III, which is an acronym for Touching and Equipping All Mankind. T.E.A.M. III now provides mentoring, a summer feeding program, a workforce development program and other social services. As T.E.A.M. III is working to provide services, they would benefit from the training that a Compassion Capital Fund would provide. They know where the need is, they have the faith to tackle any problem that comes their way, but they may need additional assistance if they desire to apply for a federal grant. There are a lot of small faith-based and community organizations in this country that have the heart for service but lack the finances to hire a CPA or attorney on their staff.

I commend the Ways and Means Committee for including a $150 million Compassion Capital grant fund in this bill. This authorization level will enable the Health and Human Services Department to expand their technical assistance services to greater numbers of faith-based organizations.

The Charitable Giving Act of 2003 is the culmination of several years of hard work, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important bill. It contains, in large part, what I believe are the most effective ways the federal government can lend its support to faith-based organizations. As Jack Willome said, it does no harm. It encourages individuals and businesses to make private contributions to organizations that are truly transforming people's lives--not just through assisting people with their physical needs, but also their spiritual needs.

While government can be helpful in alleviating some of the problems our society faces today, it will never have the answers for some of our country's neediest people--people who need more than their physical needs met. They need help spiritually; they need God to fill the void in their lives. Community and faith-based organizations are critical to the stability and health of our country, and they rely on the support of private donations, not government aid. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this legislation. The return on the dollar from private donations resulting from this legislation will be immeasurable. Not only will individual lives be changed, but our entire society will change as crime rates do down, unwed pregnancies decrease, drug rates and suicides diminish and, in time, those same people begin to give back to their communities as others once helped them.

Mr. Speaker, on January 29, 2002, President Bush stood at this podium, and he told this Congress and the Nation ``our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term.'' He had hardly gotten out of the room before the deficit began soaring, soaring so much that this year, we have the largest deficit in the history of the United States. Soaring so much that over the course of this year and next year, we will probably exceed $1 trillion in additional national debt. Any honest projection shows that these deficits will continue rising throughout this decade. We have the largest fiscal reversal in the history of the United States, if not the history of the world, moving from the surplus the Bush Administration inherited to the unending debt with which we are now being burdened.

We begin to understand why they call this a ``faith-based'' initiative because despite this devastating fiscal record, they ask us to have faith that somehow their speeches will balance the budget even while they continue depleting the national treasury with one good cause and some not so good causes after another, taking out $10 billion here, $20 billion there, $50 billion some other place.

If you have faith in the bill that you are advancing today, have the good faith to deal straight with the American people instead of just giving them another IOU. And I commend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) for having the courage to support the substitute paying for this chartible giving initiative to which I know he is so committed. The Republican sponsor in the last Congress of this measure (Mr. Watts) was willing to do the same until he found out paying for it requires more than a speech.

We can pay for this initiative today, and then some, by correcting a considerable inequity in our tax system. The Founding Fathers believed that there should be no ``taxation without representation,'' and certainly we all agree. But some taxpayers, as a result of the inaction of the House Committee on Ways and Means and the leadership of this House, are today turning that on its head. They believe that we should have no ``taxation through misrepresentation.'' Too many corporations have misrepresented to their shareholders, their investors, to the tax collector the true nature of their income. They give new meaning to Leona Helmsley's claim that ``only the little people pay taxes.'' And today my colleagues talk about charity. Charity is when Congress ignores $10 billion a year, according to some estimates, in losses due to sham corporate tax shelters--shelters that are abuses of our current legal system. Charity is when the Republican leadership persists turning a blind eye to that abuse.

Since 1999, we have had a way to solve this problem. We have been asking for approval of a tax shelter measure that has had broad support in this body and is so ``controversial'' that almost every Republican Member of the United States Senate has voted for it. It passed 95 to 5 as a part not of some other bill, but of this very chartible giving bill. So what happens when it gets to the House Committee on Ways and Means? The same people that have been protecting these corporate tax abusers all this time have again offered them a little ``charity'' by removing all of the tax shelter language.

They stripped out the ``pay-for'' in this bill, a ``pay-for'' that brings equity to our tax system, that ensures that these corporate tax abusers get a little fair treatment. When such tax evaders dodge their taxes, guess who has to pay for national security and homeland security? All of the small businesses and large businesses and taxpayers large and small, who are already doing their fair share, already paying their fair portion of taxes.

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today through the Democratic alternative to end this abuse of corporate tax shelters and at the same time pay for this charitable bill giving instead of incurring more public debt.

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt there are many good features of this proposal. That is why so many people support it. Perhaps the benefits are a bit exaggerated in the suggestion there will be $40 billion or $50 billion in additional money motivated by tax considerations instead of the heart. That probably overstates the case. But the important argument in favor of the Democratic substitute is that this proposal is presented as just another free lunch, like so many other allegedly pain free measures that keep rolling through this House.

As proposed, this bill will add to the burden of our children and our grandchildren billions of dollars that could and should be paid for now. That is why one of the cosponsors, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), has said he supports the substitute. He is ready to pay for his bill, he has that much confidence in it. The only argument against paying for it was the unusual suggestion of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) that it would be ``difficult.''

I agree, it has proven very difficult for the Committee on Ways and Means to do anything about corporate tax cheats. They have known about this problem since at least 1999, and they have chosen to sit on their hands.

Most people have heard about something called Enron, a Texas corporation. The Committee on Ways and Means was afraid though to look under the rock for all the Enron dirty tax secrets, about how much it avoided paying of its fair share of taxes, for fear of what Republicans might find, and they have still not, until this very day, found it possible to overcome what they call the ``difficulties'' of dealing with the Enron tax transgressions, nor those of any other corporation.

Pay for this bill. The Democratic substitute does.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the gentleman for purposes of a colloquy on my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman intended no deceit of the House in complaining of one of the 16 effective dates listed in the bill, the only one of the 16 that has a date that is retroactive; isn't that correct?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

There are effective dates throughout the bill. There is one effective date that applies on February 13 of this year. They are all specific dates on transactions this year with the exception of the last one, which is totally retroactive. The very last one on page 121 is totally retroactive and copies, as I understand it, verbatim language that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) introduced last year in his international tax bill. It was not, apparently, ``fundamentally unfair'' last year when you introduced it.

There is one thing that is consistent because whether it is retroactive, prospective, past, present or future, the indifference of the Committee on Ways and Means to corporate tax abuse is consistent.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

I believe there are three very important issues in this debate. First, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has proposed a bipartisan initiative to complement the good intention of the sponsors of this measure to help children, especially abused children, in the

State of Texas. This proposal was good enough for every one of our Republican colleagues across the Capitol to support as a part of this bill. It was in the bill when it came from the Senate, and it is being stripped out today in a way that I think is indifferent to the needs of many children and many others who the sponsors of this bill say they want to help.

The second issue is: is the bill good enough to be paid for? When this bill arrived from the Senate it was paid for. It was a fiscally- responsible bill, and that responsibility has also now been stripped from the bill. How will our children and our grandchildren pay for the debt to which this bill contributes, piled upon, more debt atop even more debt? Our Nation is headed in the direction of the economic disaster of Argentina. We are mortgaging our prosperity--leaving our children and our grandchildren the hope of holding out a tin cup and begging for charity themselves to pay off this National debt unless we pay now for proposals like this.

Mr. Speaker, that is why the bipartisan sponsor of this measure, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), says he is ready to pay for it. That is why Mr. J.C. Watts, the Republican sponsor of this measure in the last Congress, told our committee he was willing to pay for it. Why do today's Republican sponsors of this bill not put their money where their mouth is? If they are so concerned about charity, how about financing this bill instead of shifting more of the burden to future generations?

And the third equally important issue: we can pay for this and at the same time correct a gross injustice in our tax system.

In 1999 an Austin constituent drew my attention to Forbes magazine. It prouldly bears the title proudly ``The Capitalist Tool,'' and it published this cover story, ``Tax Shelter Hustlers, Respectable Accountants Are Peddling Dicey Tax Loopholes.''

In 1999 after I introduced legislation and we had a hearing great sympathy was expressed by the Republican members of the Committee on Ways and Means, but no action. Absolutely nothing was done about a problem that one Texas multinational told my office was receiving at one point a cold call every day trying to con them into these abusive corporate tax shelters. It had become an industry for major accounting firms like Arthur Andersen to engage in promoting these corporate tax shelters.

With the passage of several additional years and one corporate scandal after another, still no remedial action in the House, there has been some hope that this problem might be addressed because this year, not in a Democratic bill, but in the tax bill that President Bush offered, the Republican Members of the Senate added essentially the same tax shelter language that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and I are offering today in that tax bill. The Republican Senate passed it overwhelmingly. Yet it was stripped out by the same House Committee on Ways and Means that has consistenly turned a blind eye to this abuse since at least 1999.

So the Senate put it in again in this charitable giving bill to pay for it--to be fiscally responsible. They sent legislative language over here similar to that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and I are proposing, and today we hear Republican colleagues in the House tell us that although it was good enough for all of the Senate Republicans it is not good enough for us. ``We think it is difficult.'' ``We think it is challenging.'' ``We think it is confusing.''

Well, it is not ``confusing'' to anyone other than to those who are the so-called respectable accountants, who choose to use challenging, confusing tax gimmicks so their well-healed clients can avoid paying their fair share of taxes. This unfairly doged ``fair share of taxes'' is believed to run as high as $10 billion a year. When one of those corporations does not pay its fair share, the rest of us have to pay the difference and this is wrong. We can correct this abuse today in the same way that the Republican Senate corrected it, and on behalf of all honest taxpayers, I hope we will.