For more information see our summary of both bills. Tax policy expert Matt Hamill of the Institute for Higher Education Policy has put together a comparison of the charitable giving portions of H.R. 7, CARE Act 2002 and 2003 and the Bush Budget for FY 04. On February 5, the Senate Finance Committee passed a scaled back version of the Charity Aid, Relief and Empowerment Act that has tax incentives for charitable giving, eliminates the distinction between direct and grassroots lobbying, restores funding for the Social Services Block Grant and increases oversight of nonprofits. The bill, S. 256, does not include the provisions on "equal treatment" of faith-based and community organizations applying for federal grants that were in last year's CARE bill. However, Sens. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) have filed another version of CARE, S. 272, that does have the "equal treatment" provisions. It is expected that if the bill moves to the Senate floor the charitable giving and faith-based provisions will be merged. While Santorum said he expects the full Senate to consider the bill in the next few weeks, delays are likely as the debate on conditions for government grants to faith-based groups are added to the debate. The faith-based provisions in S. 272 will likely be offered as an amendment, and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) plans an amendment to prevent faith-based groups from "using federal dollars to force religious views" on people seeking assistance. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) will offer an amendment prohibiting employment discrimination based on religion for government-funded jobs. A major issue in the committee meeting was Sen. Blanche Lincoln's (D-AR) proposal changing rules for corporate foundations holding company stock. Current law allows foundations five years to divest excess holdings, or pay hefty excise taxes. Lincoln's proposal would allow foundations the option of taking up to ten years to divest if they also increase their payout in grants from the required minimum of 5% to 6%, and restrict compensation to certain directors and/or employees. In the mark-up of the CARE Act, Sen. Jeff Bingamon (D-NM) raised questions about the cost and effectiveness of the non-itemizer deduction, noting that it is by far the costliest item in the bill. Last year the Joint Committee on Taxation predicted losses to the Treasury of $204 million in 2003, $1.368 billion in 2004 and $1.218 billion in 2005. Studies by the Congressional Budget Office and Congressional Research Service found it would be unlikely to increase giving by more than 4%. The bill would eliminate several tax shelters that would offset these costs, but only if Congress allows the nonitemizer to sunset at the end of 2004. A part of the bill contains a provision to simplify lobbying reporting by nonprofits. It would allow both grassroots and direct lobbying to be counted as one type of lobbying, using the more generous direct lobbying expenditures limits as the maximum aomount that can be spent. After the vote in committee, Finance Committee Chair Charles Grassely (R-IA) told the press he will push to include unspecified revisions in the manager's amendment when the bill goes to the floor. An amendment increasing authority for nonprofit nursing homes to issue tax-exempt bonds was filed by Sens. Jim Bunning (R-KY); and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) is seeking an amendment changing IRS rules for 501(c)(3) organizations involved in timber conservation. It is also not clear whether the Senate will go forward with a version that House GOP leaders do not support. (They want a bill that allows faith-based organizations to discriminate in hiring for government-funded jobs based on religious beliefs.) For more information see our summary of both bills.