Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, thousands of men and women from Montana are currently stationed overseas, be it in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Southeast Asia or in other supporting missions throughout the United States and the rest of the world.

These brave and dedicated soldiers have chosen to join the Armed Forces and protect our country, which is one of the highest forms of service there is. They are putting their lives on the line to protect the freedom and security of the United States. I take my hat off to them.

To date, Montana has sent almost 700 Reserve forces into Active Duty. Malmstrom Air Force Base has 105 airmen deployed overseas, including 50 members of the 819th Red Horse Squadron. Earlier this month 114 members of the Red Horse Squadron came home after being deployed in southwest Asia for five and a half months. The airmen are supporting six different operations around the world in southwest Asia, supporting no- fly zones in Iraq or in Afghanistan.

About 390 Army Reservists from Montana have been deployed. From Great Falls, the 889th Quartermaster Company unit--with 119 members--recently received mobilization orders along with 100 members of the 4225th U.S. Army Hospital.

From Missoula, 58 soldiers from the 279th Engineer Battalion and 16 soldiers from the 823rd Transportation Detachment have been activated. And out of Billings, 161 members of the 592nd Ordnance Company recently received their orders. Most of these army Reservists will take part in Operation Enduring Freedom.

Montana's Air National Guard has also contributed significant human resources. 210 members of the 120th Fighter Wind have been activated flying in the no-fly zone over Iraq.

Montana's Army National Guard has contributed about 125 Army Guard members, many of which are at other bases throughout the United States taking part in Homeland Security measures.

Thirty-five members of the 443rd Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants Supply Company have been mobilized to assist

with base security at the 120th Fighter Wing unit on Gore Hill outside of Great Falls, MT. Forty-five soldiers from the 495th Transportation Battalion are taking part in Operation Enduring Freedom. Eight ground- air liaison teams are in Fort Sill, OK, and 2 UH60 Helicopter pilots are in Fort Benning, GA.

Most certainly, I do not want to forget the thousands of Active Duty Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from Montana stationed elsewhere throughout the Nation and overseas.

These soldiers are sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers. And like you and I, they have families to take care of and worry about. They have personal lives to attend to, bills to pay and tax forms to fill out. As they are stationed far away, they are worried about how their children are doing in school and how their husbands or wives are coping with the distance. It is not easy.

Every day they are putting their lives back here on hold and instead putting their lives on the line to protect the rights we hold so dear.

With all of the worries they are facing, I am urging for passage of the military tax bill so we can take one, or two, burden off of their minds.

These men and women should not have to worry about whether or not their deployment changes their residency for tax purposes. They should not have to worry about whether or not they can afford their weekend training, nor should they ever have to worry about whether their death could result in an undue tax burden to their family.

One of the best ways we can support our troops is by doing everything we can to ensure that they and their families are taken care of. As a tribute to our Armed Forces, I cannot think of a better way to support them than by passing the military tax bill and allowing them to focus on their mission rather than their finances.

I encourage my colleagues to show their support for our troops today by voting in favor of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act.

I share the sentiments of Chairman Grassley. I would support tax treatment for our Guardsmen and Reservists like that proposed by Senators Landrieu, DeWine, and Allen. S. 351 is not the appropriate venue, but the reconciliation package should achieve the goals of S. 442. The junior Senator from Louisiana is correct that the $350 billion tax package should contain both tax cuts to promote growth and benefit the quality of life for the men and women in the United States Armed Forces.

Mr. President, earlier I paid tribute to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. There is a provision in the legislation we are considering which was very near and dear to the heart of Senator Moynihan, and that is the expatriation provision contained in this bill. It was actually developed by Senator Moynihan and Senator Roth several years ago. That is the genesis of this provision.

As we know, there are many men and women overseas fighting for our country. For example, there are currently about 300,000 in Iraq. At the same time, there are individuals who attempt to escape their patriotic duty. While we have 300,000 men and women over in Iraq, other individuals are attempting to escape their patriotic duty. They relinquish their U.S. citizenship. Why? One basic reason: In order to avoid supporting the United States through taxes.

Between 1991 and 2002, approximately 6,500 U.S. citizens have expatriated; that is, they gave up their U.S. citizenship. In 1966, as part of the Foreign Investors Tax Act, Congress created an alternative tax regime for U.S. citizens who expatriated in order to avoid paying taxes. The alternative tax regime taxes a former citizen on U.S. property for 10 years after expatriation.

These tax rules were strengthened in 1996 following press reports and congressional hearings indicating that very wealthy individuals expatriated while maintaining significant contacts with the United States.

Unfortunately, these changes to the law have not deterred citizens from expatriating to avoid paying U.S. taxes. The changes simply never worked as Congress intended.

This year, the Joint Committee on Taxation published a study on individual expatriation. According to the Joint Committee, there is virtually no enforcement of the special tax and immigration rules applicable to tax-motivated citizenship relinquishment and residency termination.

The Joint Committee also said that present law has been highly ineffective. Present law continues to provide tax incentives for individuals to expatriate. It also is difficult to collect U.S. taxes on former citizens who are no longer physically present in the United States.

Additionally, a study conducted by the General Accounting Office concluded that the IRS did not have a systematic compliance effort. That means that we are not even enforcing the alternative tax regime that is on the books.

That means a former citizen could avoid the alternative tax regime by holding foreign assets--which are not taxed. Or by waiting until the 10-year period expires before disposing of U.S. property.

The Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act includes a new system to address tax-motivated expatriation. Under this legislation, any U.S. citizen or long-term resident who relinquishes their U.S. citizenship or residency will be subject to an exit tax on the gains attributable to property owned during their U.S. citizenship.

Under this proposal, if the gain exceeds $600,000, then a former citizen will be taxed on the net unrealized gain on property--as if it were sold at fair market value 1 day prior to expatriation. The Treasury Department believes that this new system will greatly improve the administrability of the tax on expatriates. The new system imposes the tax at the time the individual leaves the U.S. jurisdiction.

Additionally, by including foreign assets within the regime, this eliminates a significant incentive for tax-motivated expatriation.

This expatriation provision will raise $700 million. The military bill uses that $700 million to provide tax benefits to military personnel.

In contrast, the House version of the military bill is simply a modification of the current alternative tax regime. It raises $328 million. The House version will not go far enough. It simply adds more provisions for the IRS to enforce. This strikes me as odd considering none of the current provisions is being enforced.

Sometimes the laws just do not work the way Congress intended. So, we must change the laws to ensure they are effective and administered as Congress intended.

The current system to tax expatriates does not work. We have had nearly 40 years to make the system work. We should not wait any longer to collect taxes on those who do not value the freedoms our nation provides.

The new proposal does not seek to tax expatriates on income earned after expatriation. It just says they have to

pay tax on the income earned while they were a U.S. citizen. While our military protected them.

I thank former Senator Bill Roth and the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who developed this proposal several years ago. And I thank Senator Harkin and others who have continued to work on this in the 107th Congress and this year.

Amendment No. 433

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

On behalf of Senator Grassley and myself, I call up amendment numbered 433.

I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I yield whatever time the Senator from Arkansas desires.

Mr. President, that is a very important statement and request that the Senator from Arkansas has made. I can speak on behalf of myself, and I am sure Senator Grassley, that we would be more than honored to join with the Senator from Arkansas in making that request. It is a very timely request. It is one that is very important. Frankly, I am a little bit surprised none of us made that same request that he has made because it is so important, and it is going to give us a lot better idea of the financial condition of our armed services. It is a good idea.

Mr. President, when the space program began in 1959 there were only seven astronauts in the entire country. They all were or had been in the Armed Forces.

That was only 44 years ago and since then, much has changed. Today, astronauts are comprised of Americans from every race, creed, color and gender.

While many still come from the military, the astronaut corps now includes civilian doctors, scientists, and engineers. They are our best and our brightest. They risk their lives to advance our knowledge and understanding of the world.

On February 1, 2003, seven men and women aboard the space shuttle Columbia lost their lives. LTC Michael P. Anderson, U.S. Navy CAPT David Brown, U.S. Navy CDR Laurel Clark, Dr. Kalpana Chawla, U.S. Air Force COL Rick Husband, Naval CDR William McCool, and Israeli Air Force COL Ilan Ramon will be remembered forever.

Five of the six Columbia crew members, from the United States, had military backgrounds. They were national heroes who are deeply missed by their family and friends. Through their dedication to space exploration, they lived their lives to the fullest and made long lasting contributions.

In honor of their sacrifice, I along with 13 of my Senate colleagues, introduced S. 298, the Assistance for Families of Space Shuttle Columbia Heroes Act.

I am pleased that the legislation was included by the Senate Finance Committee as part of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003.

Under the legislation, the families of the Columbia heroes would receive the same benefits as families of military personnel who die in the line of duty.

The provisions are similar to legislation passed in 2001 that provided relief to victims of the September 11, anthrax and the Oklahoma City attacks.

Specifically, the bill expands the class of those eligible for these benefits to include astronauts killed in the line of duty.

The legislation provides income tax relief. Current law generally excludes from tax income received in the year of death or in a previous year for soldiers killed in combat zones, and victims of September 11, anthrax and Oklahoma City.

The legislation expands this benefit to apply to astronauts who die in the line of duty.

The legislation provides death benefit relief. Current law excludes from income any death benefit paid by the U.S. Government to a soldier killed in a combat zone or paid by an employer to the families of the victims of September 11, the anthrax attacks, or the Oklahoma City bombing.

The legislation expands this benefit to apply to death benefits paid to the families of astronauts killed in the line of duty.

The legislation provides for estate tax relief. Current law provides estate tax relief that effectively lowers the estate tax rate to 20 percent for the estates of soldiers killed in combat zones, the victims of September 11, the anthrax attacks or the Oklahoma City bombing.

The legislation expands this benefit to apply to the estates of any astronaut killed in the line of duty.

The best way to honor Columbia's fallen heroes is to promptly pass this legislation and pledge that the goals and missions of NASA will live on in the years to come.

I urge my colleagues to support the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003 which includes tax relief for the families of the Space Shuttle Columbia heroes.

Mr. President, since September 11, significant progress has been made to disrupt and dismantle the financial components of terrorist organizations.

Special agents from the IRS and other law enforcement agencies have successfully investigated numerous terrorist related entities-- including tax exempt organizations that have engaged in terrorist fundraising.

The Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003 contains a provision that would suspend the tax-exempt status of any organization designated by U.S. authorities as a terrorist organization or supporter of terrorism.

There is no procedure under present law for the IRS to suspend the tax-exempt status of an organization.

The IRS can revoke an organization's tax-exempt status only after conducting an examination of the organization.

Even then, the IRS must issue a letter proposing revocation and allow the organization to exhaust its administrative appeals rights.

The provision in this legislation is simply common sense. It is an important weapon in our war on terrorist financing.

An organization that has been designated by the Federal Government as a terrorist organization should not be exempt from Federal income tax. Moreover, contributions to such organizations should not be tax deductible.

Once the Federal Government determines that an entity is a terrorist organization pursuant to certain authority--for example, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act--a separate investigation by the IRS is not necessary.

Further, because a terrorist organization may challenge the Federal government's designation under the law authorizing the designation, recourse to the declaratory judgment procedures of the Tax Code is not appropriate.

If a tax-exempt organization's suspension is determined to be erroneous, the provision would allow tax refunds for any overpayments.

Lastly, the IRS will be required to update its listings of tax-exempt organizations to take into account organizations that have had their exemption suspended. This will give notice to taxpayers that contributions to these organizations are no longer deductible.

I urge my colleagues to support the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003.

Mr. President, this bill includes many important changes in the tax treatment of income and benefits received by members of our armed forces. One provision is particularly important for members that face the dual challenge of serving their nation while raising a family. The bill explicitly states that child care subsidies that members of the military receive shall not be subject to income tax.

In 1986, we passed a law which stated that military benefits should not be included in income for tax purposes. The statute lists a number of benefits received by members of the military--

housing allowances, medical benefits, education assistance, and many others. But child care subsidies do not appear on the list.

When we passed this law, the Department of Defense did have a program to assist members of the military in caring for their children. But the importance of this program has increased as the demographics of the members of the military have changed.

There was a time when our forces were primarily young single men. However, times have changed. Twelve percent of the forces are women. Over half of the active duty members are married. Two-thirds of military spouses work outside the home. Six percent of members are married to another member of the military. And 6 percent are single parents.

Young single soldiers are no longer the norm. Recognizing these changes, the Department of Defense has placed a reinforced importance on assisting military families.

The Department of Defense recognizes the additional challenges faced by military families as they raise children. The average military family moves every two and a half years, making it difficult for them to find quality child care, or friends and neighbors to look to for help with child care responsibilities. And with work schedules that are often long and unpredictable, help is often necessary. In addition, members of the military face the possibility of deployment anywhere in the world at any time.

They now operate over 800 child care centers in the U.S. and abroad. These include child development centers for young children, after- school centers for older children, and other family care programs. They provide night and weekend services as well, to accommodate the often hectic schedules that military families face. All in all, these programs provide care for over 200,000 children every day.

The cost of these programs varies depending on the income of the parents--on average, it is about $7,700 per child. This cost is shared by the military parents and the government, with each paying about half the cost.

The law is unclear about whether these benefits are subject to income tax. A provision in this bill ends that confusion. It states that these child care subsidies, shall not be included in income, for tax purposes.

As the demographics of the members of the military have changed, so has the policy of the Department of Defense. Now it is time that we follow with these changes to the tax code.

I compliment Senator Landrieu of Louisiana, who developed this proposal, and insisted on its inclusion in this military tax bill.

It is one more reason the Senate should pass this legislation today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 270 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 270.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 270 is a customary rule relating to the consideration of an amendment to the Senate amendments to H.R. 1308, the Tax Relief, Simplification, and Equity Act of 2003. The rule allows the House to proceed with consideration of legislation providing tax relief to millions of American workers and families.

Upon adoption of this resolution, the House will have agreed to the disposition of the Senate amendments.

Mr. Speaker, when I return to my district each week, my constituents tell me they want me to do two things: create jobs and cut taxes. Thanks to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act and the Jobs Growth Tax Relief Act, Congress is doing just that, and taxpayers in my district and all across America now have greater control over more of their hard-earned dollars, providing greater incentive for savings and investment and expanding job opportunities.

Today's legislation is another important step in our ongoing efforts to create greater fairness in the Tax Code for working families. In fact, upon adoption, it will be retitled the All-American Tax Relief Act in recognition of the fact that it puts even more money back into the hands of more Americans.

Mr. Speaker, much of what we are debating today we have debated and supported before. Many of the important measures in H.R. 1308 have passed this body or the other body over the last few years. For instance, the House passed its version of H.R. 1308 by voice vote under suspension in March of this year.

Last week the Senate took up H.R. 1308 with revised and added provisions, including an accelerated increase in the refundability of the child tax credit currently scheduled to take place in 2005.

While the House language contains the same provision, it has the added benefit of ensuring that the child tax credit remains at $1,000 through 2010, unlike the Senate amendment that offers only the $1,000 tax credit during taxable years 2003 and 2004. Simply put, the House language provides more and longer-lasting benefits for families at all income levels. And it does not take it away in just a couple of years.

This bill will eliminate the marriage penalty and the child tax credit even sooner, by raising the phaseout for married couples from $110,000 to $150,000. This is a fundamental issue of fairness. Working men and women should not face a higher tax burden simply because they choose to get married and raise a family.

The House bill is more responsive to more Americans than the other body's version in other ways. It honors the men and women of our Armed Forces with over $800 million in tax relief over 11 years. This includes capital gains tax relief on home sales, tax-free death gratuity payments, and tax-free dependent care assistance for members of the military. Our men and women in uniform protect our country and ensure our security every day and deserve sensible tax relief for their hard work and sacrifice.

Also, the bill will suspend the tax-exempt status of terrorist organizations, a provision that passed both the House and the other body in 2002. In short, Mr. Speaker, this bill will achieve even greater parity and fairness in the Tax Code. That is something I know my constituents and working Americans all over the country want, need, and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I expect that in the course of this debate, we will hear a great deal about procedural terminology, but this vote is actually quite simple. A ``yes'' vote means greater fairness in the Tax Code and more tax relief for American workers, families, and children. A ``no'' vote stops that relief from moving forward and hurts the very people I know many of my colleagues eagerly want to assist.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the resolution.

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

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

In listening to the ranking member's remarks, I would first say, to my recollection of the law, no Member of Congress would be eligible for this program. Number two, I want at least the voters of my district and the people of New York to know that while we have listened to class warfare and tax cuts, I know those New Yorkers that make $100,000 in their income, or even as much as $150,000, if you are a fireman or you are a cop, you are a teacher, you are a salesman and work in a store, I know you are not rich. I know you are middle America. And I know that as we look at fair tax relief, it is not just helping the poor or the class warfare message of the rich. We are trying to make sure we take care of the middle class, and we know that $150,000 combined income could be a middle-class income.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), my friend.

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

Sometimes we get lost here a little bit about the result of the 2003 tax cuts. In 2003, 91 million taxpayers will receive on average a tax cut of $1,126 under the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003. Sixty-eight million women will see their taxes decline on average by $1,338. Forty- five million married couples will receive an average tax cut of $1,786. Thirty-four million families with children will benefit from an average tax cut of $1,549, and 6 million single women with children will receive an average tax cut of $558. Twelve million elderly taxpayers will receive an average tax cut of $1,401. Twenty-three million small business owners will receive tax cuts averaging $2,209, and 3 million individuals and families will have their income tax liability completely eliminated by this act.

Now, today, we are going to do even more, because unlike some of the debate here, let us not kid ourselves, the other body sent a bill that does something for us from now until next election. That is 2004. That is when the child tax credit ends.

This bill today, when we vote it up or down, it is going to go to 2010. A $1,000 child tax credit is scheduled to sunset in 2005. It will gradually increase back to $1,000 in 2010. In this bill, it puts it up right up front, now to 2010, a $1,000 tax credit. It eliminates the marriage penalty on the child credit. It accelerates the increase to the refundable child credit. It provides tax relief and enhances tax fairness for members of the Armed Forces. It suspends the tax-exempt status of designated terrorist organizations. It provides tax relief for astronauts who die in space missions.

We are getting the job done, Mr. Speaker. America knows it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I were not here when some of the tax- and-spend left kept spending us through an oblivion of deficits. We were here after 9-11 when we faced terrible tragedy in our country which has caused us to address the war on terrorism, to rebuild our cities, to address some of the complications of an economy that has slowed down.

I do not mind that the debate that America hears is whether we have a bigger central government that spends more of their money on programs that the government figures out; or whether the economy began moving because middle America and the poor of America had more money in their pockets to make their decisions what they wanted to do with that money, whether they wanted to pay off a consumer loan, whether they wanted to pay tuition, whether they wanted to use it just to help have some opportunity for their child, their mother, or father.

The decision that voters are going to make down the road is whether they want a smaller government that allows people to make more decisions on their hard-earned money, money out of their pocket; or whether they need more money in the downtown central government in Washington, D.C., or some government bureaucrat trying to figure out some way to help them out.

I am going to tell the Members, we have started on a tax cut. I read earlier the millions of Americans who are going to benefit across the board. We are now in a situation where we are going to watch.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had every nay and say

about what is going to happen with the economy. I do not know, they do not know. But by 2004, in that fourth quarter, we are going to find out whether the economy of consumer goods began moving, confidence of investors began moving, and whether America started to see a resolve from a terrible tragedy of 9-11; to see, as the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) said, in the third and fourth quarters of 2000 when it slowed down, if it moved.

If it does move, there are going to be more Republicans on this side of the aisle; if it does not, maybe there will be a little less. But the conviction of the majority is, people have an opportunity and a right to have more money in their pockets for them to decide how to spend it, not Washington.

The only proven way to restrict government spending is to reduce revenues. Tightening the purse strings but providing much-needed tax relief is the only way to get money back in the hands of hardworking Americans and out of Washington.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, only a week ago I do not think the gentleman was advocating any tax cuts. But I just want to remind our colleagues that are both here and throughout the offices that in fiscal year 2004, in the adopted budget resolution, language was included for the first time limiting the amount of revenue reductions in the Senate to a deficit impact of $350 billion.

The House articulated its clear reservations to this maneuver because all revenue measures must originate in the House; we retained our right to develop more measures to reduce the tax burden on the American people.

So the options for the Committee on Rules, they could, one, accept the Senate proposals as a whole imposing offset requirements; two, call up an entirely new House bill, starting the process anew, with likely substitutes, in essence dragging out the process that would take the ability to move, and I am not sure whether the gentleman knows for sure we have a quorum tomorrow; and, three, we could stipulate the House prerogative to provide tax relief with a comprehensive proposal that has broad policy support.

Why should the House impose offsets when our own budget made room for a proposal just like this, the one I have outlined that does so much for working families across the country?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are any rubber stamps in that package.

Mr. Speaker, in this short time, it is 4:34, daylight, we will have an opportunity to have our colleagues come in, and they are going to vote yes and they will do a tax cut that varies on the All-American Tax Relief Act of 2003, or they will vote no and say all those press releases I put out last week wanting to move expeditiously on this, they do not really matter because now it is before us.

Well, it is here. And I must say both the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and others from the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Rules found a solution to meet what seemed to be Republican and Democrats wanting to expedite this bill. And so we took the House resolution with a Senate amendment. The Senate amendment we have disposed with, the House coming back quickly with the amendments to go to the other body. And it is going to be done today. It is not going to be done tomorrow. It is not going to be done next week. We have an opportunity to do it right now.

And while we are listening to all of this, some of them on procedure, I just want to remind the esteemed whip that I think we have been debating the merits of this bill for an hour; and some agree, some do not. Pretty soon we will put it up, 4:35, and take a look at how it ends. But I want to remind my colleagues that this bill, as amended, and sent back to the Senate will increase the child credit for $1,000 for an eligible child through 2010; not for some slick promise of 2003 and 2004, and then it slides back after the next election. It is straightforward, straight up, right until 2010. It eliminates the marriage penalty on child credit. It accelerates the increase in the refundable child credit. It provides tax relief and enhances tax fairness for members of the Armed Forces. It suspends the tax-exempt status of designated terrorist organizations and provides tax relief for astronauts who die on space missions.

Those pieces of legislation, as they were before us or the other body, have been dealt with in the last several months and years by this body or the other body. So when we get done here with this debate, we are going to have an opportunity, yes or no. If you vote yes, you are going to give America that tax cut. If not, you are going to find some way to wrangle out of it with a press release. But what I heard was everybody wanted to get underway and make this happen. The Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Rules is giving this honorable body that action today.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the ranking member would consider, I have one speaker to close. And if he would like to close, then I will do that and yield to the majority leader. If he has more speakers, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, am I to be recognized?

Mr. Speaker, I want to know if I can be recognized.

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

As I listened here, I kind of got the same confusion of when I listened to some of my colleagues on the debate when we just did some tax relief not long ago. Class warfare, this is all for the rich. I reminded my colleagues that I come from kind of a small town in upstate New York, and the debate occurred with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) from Harlem, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules from Grand Prairie. None of them are really rich communities, and I cited that the tax bill the House Republicans moved forward on the floor after the adoption of the rule and then later passed took a family of four to make 40,000 bucks in my district and took their tax relief from $1,785 they had to pay down to about $40. I think that is real tax relief. I do not think $40,000 is rich.

When I look at the legislation, I watch the press releases all over America say let us get on with it. We are on with it. Today we are either going to vote ``yes,'' and I think it is going to be bipartisan, we are going to vote ``yes'' and send it to the Senate, or we are going to vote ``no.''

But I want to remind some of my colleagues when we get the light of day on this tax bill that was sent to us by the Senate there a couple of things we might have made an improvement on as House Republicans because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might argue that the Republican tax

relief plans rob Peter to pay Paul, in other words, tax cuts for the rich. However, the Senate proposed offsets, Customs user fee extensions. I would argue this is robbing Peter to pay Paul because if you are raising taxes on those who actually pay them in order to subsidize tax refunds for those who share in no income tax liability whatsoever, it is fiscally and fundamentally unsound.

The only proven way to restrict government spending is to reduce revenues. Tightening the purse strings by providing much needed tax relief is the only way to get money back to hardworking Americans, no matter how wealthy or poor they are. Get it out of Washington and back in the pockets of American taxpayers.

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

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

This vote is actually quite simple. A ``yes'' vote means greater fairness in the Tax Code and a mere tax relief for American workers families and children. A ``no'' vote stops that relief from moving forward and hurts the very people I know many of my colleagues eagerly want to assist.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on this resolution at the end of the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, while this bill purports to give low-income people a tax break, it also gives Members of Congress a tax break. We see that there is an additional tax break for people who earn $150,000 a year. Who earns $150,000 a year? Members of the United States Congress. It is very generous of them in the majority to do that.

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what is at stake on the House floor today. At the conclusion of this debate, there will be an important procedural vote known as the previous question. If we defeat it, then the child tax credit bill and the Armed Forces tax assistance bill can become law tomorrow, and military and working families will get immediate relief. Those two bills are here, at the Speaker's table, already passed by the Senate and ready to be signed by the President, but only if Republicans will stand up to their leadership. On the other hand, if Republicans vote for the previous question, then those bills will not become law anytime soon, if at all, and millions of military and working families will not receive immediate tax relief.

To quote President Kennedy: ``To govern is to choose.'' When Republicans vote on the previous question today, Americans will know whether they choose tax relief for working and military families or party loyalty to the House Republican leadership that is blocking it.

Mr. Speaker, since George W. Bush took office, Republicans have successfully enacted their economic plan. It consists of not just one, but two budget-busting tax giveaways for the richest few. I call these bills part I and part II of the Bush Pioneers Enrichment Act because they shower expensive tax breaks on the wealthiest few, people like that small, elite group of rich Bush Pioneers who funded the 2000 Bush campaign.

But where is the country after these Republican tax giveaways? Some 3 million Americans have lost their jobs. And just today the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office increased this year's deficit projection to $400 billion, the largest single-year deficit in this Nation's history. All in all, Americans are still suffering from the second Bush recession and the third Republican recession in the last 20 years. So I suspect that we will hear a lot of clever Republican rhetoric today. We will hear them swear that this latest Republican tax bill will finally boost the economy. They will claim that they are simply trying to improve on the bipartisan bill which the Senate passed overwhelmingly last week. But as John Adams once said, Mr. Speaker, facts are stubborn things. Even poll-tested Republican rhetoric cannot change those facts.

And the facts today are straightforward. House Republicans are the sole remaining obstacle to immediate tax relief for millions of working and military families who pay taxes. Unless House Republicans stand up to the Republican leadership today, then the families of 12 million children, 1 million of whom live in military families, will not get the immediate tax relief they need and they deserve.

Here is why, Mr. Speaker. When Republicans wrote part II of the Pioneers Enrichment Act last month, they denied the child tax credit to these hardworking, tax-paying families. The reason was simple: so that they could spend even more on tax breaks for the wealthiest few. As a result, millionaires got a tax break of $93,500, which

is just shy of the $100,000 in campaign contributions necessary to qualify as a Bush Pioneer, while millions of military and working families got stiffed. Republicans gave $100,000 in tax breaks to those making $1 million a year, but they call it welfare when Democrats try to give $150 in tax relief to the military families who need it most to feed and clothe their children. This is shameful, Mr. Speaker. And if Republicans are not ashamed, then I am ashamed for them.

Fortunately, the Senate has overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan, fiscally responsible bill to fix this one especially shameful feature of the Bush Pioneers Enrichment Act. And the White House says the President wants to sign it immediately. But many Republicans do not believe these working and military families deserve immediate tax relief, despite the fact that they work hard and pay taxes. So the Republican leadership is using their power to stop the full House from voting on the bipartisan Senate-passed bill which could become law tomorrow.

Specifically, they have brought up their plan as a motion to concur in the Senate amendments with a House amendment, a very boring title. In plain English, that means they are using a parliamentary maneuver to rig the rules to prevent Democrats from offering an alternative, or the motion to recommit that is guaranteed in the House rules. The Republican leadership's rule is so restrictive that it does not allow the House any general debate on the Republicans' $82 billion tax plan. But make no mistake, the Republican leadership's actions on the House floor today will have a very real consequence.

Simply put, they are holding hostage immediate tax relief for 6.5 million working families. They are using this bill to give high-income families a new tax break that is worth nearly six times as much as the tax credit for low-income families. They are taking a $3.5 billion problem that they created and they are using it to spend $82 billion of the Social Security trust fund to drive America even deeper into debt, raising the debt tax on all Americans. All of this, Mr. Speaker, means that this spendthrift House Republican plan will not pass the Senate and everybody knows it. Let me say that again. What we are voting on today will not pass the Senate and everyone knows it. So this is a meaningless gesture that will simply delay for days and weeks and maybe even months the tax relief that the Republicans claim that they want to offer to working families. If the Republican leadership wins today, then millions of working and military families will lose because they will not get the immediate tax relief that they desperately need.

As a result, there is just one question on the floor today: Do you want to give to military and working families at least a fraction of the tax cuts that Republicans have given the millionaires, the Bush Pioneers and others of the wealthy? If the answer is ``no,'' then proudly explain why these hardworking, tax-paying families do not deserve tax relief. But if the answer is ``yes,'' then there is only one way to do it. Stand up to the House Republican leadership and vote against the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, then I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow the House to pass both the bipartisan child tax credit bill and the Armed Forces tax fairness bill, both of which are here at the Speaker's table and both of which have already passed the Senate.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, those are the facts; and that is the choice House Republicans face today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), one of the most conservative Members on the Democratic side.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, what rule are you stating?

Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be kind enough to read the provision, because I have never heard of this ruling given from the Chair before. I would be very grateful if the Chair could read it to the House.

Do we have the rules book handy?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear. So what the gentleman is saying is the Members who are standing in the well right now----

The ones who are in the well with 914878724867, they are out of order for advising the country what the size of the debt is?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. I have to ask, because I am a little confused, I will not refer directly to the Members at this point, but I am confused, Mr. Speaker, because the rule, I have my rule book, it says, ``The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and in the case of disturbances or disorderly conduct in the galleries or in the lobby, may cause the same to be cleared.''

This seems to relate to decorum in the galleries or in the lobby. I do not read the rule to relate to matters on the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), one of our very respected new members.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any additional time, but I wish I had time to question the last speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker and then I will close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, does the gentleman----

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans face a choice. They can do the right thing by passing the Senate bill, giving 12 million children and their working families immediate tax relief, or they can do the wrong thing by continuing to explode the deficit with a bill that the other body will never accept.

I urge Members to do the right thing and vote ``no'' on the previous question. Do the right thing for working families. Do the right thing for military families. It is not hard. Just do the right thing. If the Republicans tried it, Mr. Speaker, they might find they actually liked it. Come on in, Democrats say, the water is just fine; the water is warm.

If the previous question is defeated, we will immediately take from the Speaker's table H.R. 1307 and H.R. 1308, the Senate-passed version of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness bill and the child tax credit. This House will pass them unanimously and send them to the President for his signature. This is it. No games, no delay. Just immediate tax relief for working and military families that is completely paid for.

Mr. Speaker, these bills are at the Speaker's table. What is the choice? Do Republicans want to pass the bills, or do they want to kill the bills? Will they ever choose the right thing? Democrats await their answers. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. President, we are now awaiting the arrival of the chairman of the committee. Pending his arrival, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003. On February 5, 2003, the Finance Committee favorably reported the bill by unanimous voice vote.

As the conflict in Iraq continues, our thoughts are with the men and women who are leading America's response and serving our country. Whether it be the Marines deployed in Iraq, the National Guard supporting our troops, or the Foreign Service Officers serving in dangerous diplomatic posts.

I think in particular of the many men and women in Montana. These men and women have been called to service to defend our Nation. In fact, on September 11 of 2002, the members of the 120th Fighter Wing of the Montana Air National Guard were called on to secure the skies of the no-fly zone over Iraq.

For these dedicated public servants, we are considering the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. This bill will not only correct inequities in the current Tax Code that our military men and women are subject to but it will also provide incentives for our dedicated forces to continue their service to America.

These are the men and women who put their lives on the line for our freedom on a daily basis. We need to ensure that the tax laws we pass do not negatively impact them.

It is with these principles in mind that I have moved forward with the introduction of this military tax package and that the Finance Committee favorably reported the bill.

I would now like to describe the provisions included in this critical piece of legislation:

Why is the death gratuity payments provision so important? Under current law, death gratuity benefits are excludable from income only to the extent that they were as of September 9, 1986. In 1986, the death gratuity benefit was $3,000.

In 1991, the benefit was increased to $6,000 but the Tax Code was never adjusted to exclude the additional $3,000 from income. Because of this oversight, the U.S. government has been taxing families for the death of a family member who died in combat.

Just 2 weeks ago, one of our soldiers from Montana, PFC Stryder Stoutenburg, was killed during a Blackhawk helicopter crash. A native of Missoula, Private First Class Stoutenburg was only 18.

His mother will receive the death benefit payment, but will be taxed on half of it. She has already lost so much. It is unfair to also take away part of the small compensation she is receiving.

In 1997, Congress passed legislation revising the taxation of capital gains on the sale of a person's principal residence.

The new law provides that up to $250,000 or $500,000 for a married couple is excluded on the sale of a principal residence if the individual has lived in the house for at least two of the previous five years.

However, when enacted, Congress failed to provide a special rule for military and foreign service personnel who are required to move either within the U.S. or abroad.

Our proposal would permit service personnel and members of the foreign service to suspend the 5-year period while away on assignment. That means that those years would not count toward either the two years or the five year periods.

Senators McCain, Graham, and Lincoln proposed a bill in the last session to correct this.

The Department of Defense provides payments to members of the Armed Services to offset diminution in housing values due to military base realignment or closure.

For example, if a house near a base was worth $140,000 prior to the base closure and $100,000 after the base closure, DoD may provide the owner with a payment to offset some, but not all, of the $40,000 diminution in value. Under current law, those amounts are taxable as compensation.

We should ensure that those men and women losing value in their homes due to a federal government decision are not adversely affected financially.

The proposal would provide that payments for lost value are not includible into income.

Under current law, military personnel in a combat zone are afforded an extended period for filing tax returns.

However, this does not apply to contingency operations. This proposal would extend the same benefits to military personnel assigned to contingency operations.

It cannot be easy trying to figure out our complicated tax system while you are overseas and protecting our nation's freedom. Those men and women who are sent to uphold democracy and freedom in other countries are confronted with the same filing complications as combat zone personnel.

Contingency operations are just as demanding as combat zone deployment, although not always in the same manner. For example, in our current war on terrorism, this proposal would help members of our Special Forces in the Philippines supporting Operation Enduring Freedom who are just as focused on accomplishing their critical mission as our troops in the Iraqi combat zone.

Some reservists who travel one weekend per month and two weeks in the summer for reserve duty incur significant travel and lodging expenses.

For the most part, these expenses are not reimbursed. Under current law, these are deductible as itemized deductions but must exceed 2 percent of adjusted gross income.

For lower income reservists, this deduction does not provide a benefit, because they do not itemize. For higher income reservists, the 2 percent floor

limits the amount of the benefit of the deductions.

In my home state of Montana, we have approximately 3,500 reservists, 800 of whom travel each month across the state for their training. These 800 reservists pay travel and lodging expenses out of their own pocket.

Montana ranks 48th in the nation for per capita personal income. So, that $200 expense for reserve duty every month means a lot to the Montana reservist. Yet, they continue selflessly to provide their services to our country at their own expense. For those reservists who travel out of state for their training, this expense is even higher.

This proposal would provide an above the line deduction for overnight travel costs and would be available for all reservists and members of the National Guard.

Currently, qualified veterans' organizations under section 501(c)(19) of the tax code are tax-exempt. In addition contributions to the organization are tax-deductible.

In order to qualify under 501(c)(19), the organization must meet several tests, including 75 percent of the members must be current or former military, and substantially all of the other members must be either spouses, widows, or widowers of current or former military.

The proposal would permit lineal descendants and ancestors to qualify for the ``substantially all'' test.

It is important that our veterans' organizations continue the good work that they do. But, as the organizations age, they are in danger of losing their tax-exempt status. This bill helps ensure the vitality of these organizations.

I want to ensure that parents in the military can continue their dedicated service once they enter parenthood, with the knowledge that their children are being well taken care of.

The military provides extensive childcare benefits to its employees. Employees at DoD-owned facilities provide childcare services while other areas with non-DoD owned facilities contract out their childcare.

When Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, we included a provision stating that qualified military benefits are excluded from income. It is not absolutely clear whether childcare provisions are covered under this provision.

The proposal would clarify that any childcare benefit provided to military personnel would be excludible from income.

This bill permits penalty-free withdrawals from Coverdell education savings accounts and qualified tuition programs made on account of the attendance of the account holder or beneficiary at any of the service academies. The amount of the funds that can be withdrawn penalty-free is limited to the costs of advanced education in that calendar year.

Under current law there is no procedure for the IRS to suspend the tax-exempt status of an organization.

This proposal would suspend the tax-exempt status of an organization for any period during which the organization is designated or identified by Executive Order as a terrorist organization.

Current law provides for income tax, estate tax and death benefit relief to soldiers who are killed in a combat zone, victims of the September 11th attacks, the Oklahoma City bombing victims, and the victims of the anthrax attacks.

The crew of the Space Shuttle Columbia was heroic in every sense of the word. We have a duty to those who lost their lives for the advancement of science and increasing our knowledge of the world we live in. This legislation makes all of the above benefits available to the families of the Columbia crew.

In addition, this bill includes three revenue offsets. First, we improve the collection of unpaid taxes from people who have renounced their American citizenship in order to avoid U.S. taxes.

Second, we extend certain IRS user fees.

Third, we restore the ability of the IRS to permit partial-pay installment agreements with taxpayers.

The Military bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee fixes some of the inequities in our tax code and, more importantly, acknowledges the men and women who are making sacrifices and risking their lives to defend us all.

I thank all of the Members who have contributed to the development of the bill: Senators Levin and Warner of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Landrieu for the childcare provision, Senator Johnson for the contingency operation provision, Senator DeWine for the above-the-line deduction, and Senator Harkin for the Veterans and Expatriation provisions.

I especially thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, who has once again been a partner in the development of important bipartisan tax legislation.

Mr. President, it is important that we continue to show members of the armed forces our support and solidarity during this time of conflict. The War on Terrorism and the conflict with Iraq have brought to light the essential role the armed services play in upholding freedom throughout the world.

I hope to see this military tax equity bill passed by the Senate today, and signed into law by the President swiftly.

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

Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003, H.R. 1307. This important legislation provides Congress with the opportunity to demonstrate our firm resolve to support the men and women who sacrifice so much in the service of our country. I applaud Chairman Grassley's and ranking member Baucus' efforts, and those of my colleagues who have worked so hard on these initiatives, in some cases, for many years. I want to particularly thank Senator DeWine for his stalwart leadership on the above-the-line deduction for expenses incurred by our National Guard and Reserve service members who have to travel great distances for their duty and training.

This long overdue tax benefit for our true citizen-soldiers is even more important today considering these facts: During each of the past 5 years, Reserve and National Guard service members have performed between 12 and 13.5 million duty days in support of the Active Force. These numbers are in a direct contrast to 1990, when 1 million duty days were performed at a time when there were 25 percent more reservists.

Reservists and National Guardsmen currently comprise more than half of the airlift crews and 85 percent of the sealift personnel that are needed to move troops and equipment in either wartime or peacetime operations. In addition, Reserve medical and construction battalions and other specialists are critical to a wide range of operations. Efforts by the Reserve components to move beyond a traditional wartime backup role and to provide peacetime support to active units are thus desirable. The Naval Reserve and Air Force Reserve components have made particularly impressive progress in this area.

The Reserve components are performing many vital tasks: From direct involvement in military operations to liberate Iraq in the air, on the ground, and on the sea; to guarding nuclear power plants in the United States; to providing support to the war on terrorism through guarding, interrogating, and providing medical service to detainees in Guantanamo Bay Cuba; to rebuilding schools in hurricane-stricken Honduras and fighting fires in our Western States; to overseeing civil affairs in Bosnia; to augmenting aircraft carriers short on Active-Duty sailors with critical skilled enlisted ratings during at-sea exercises as well as periods of deployment.

I believe that the civilian and uniformed leadership of our Armed Forces and the Congress must recognize this involvement. At a minimum, Congress must provide equality in benefits for Reserve component service members

when they put on the uniform and perform their weekend drills or other critical training evolutions. Quality of life is not just an Active- Duty obligation that Congress must provide. Reservists, on duty, who resemble their Active-Duty counterparts during training evolutions and are deployed at times around the world, should be treated equally when the administration and Congress provide for quality of life benefits.

I would like to take a moment to discuss a provision in the bill that I have personally worked on for some time. Section 101 would allow members of the uniformed services, as well as State Department personnel who are away on extended duty overseas, to qualify for the same tax relief on the profit generated when they sell their main residence as other Americans. I am pleased to announce that Secretary of State Colin Powell fully supports this legislation, and this legislation enjoys overwhelming support by the senior uniformed leadership, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, the 31-member associations of the Military Coalition representing 5.5 million veterans, the American Foreign Service Association, and the American Bar Association.

The average American participates in our country's growth through home ownership. Appreciation in the value of a home allows everyday Americans to participate in our country's prosperity. Fortunately, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 recognized this and provided this break to lessen the amount of tax most Americans will pay on the profit they make when they sell their homes. Unfortunately, the 1997 home sale provision unintentionally discourages home ownership among members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services.

Under the 1997 Act the taxpayer must meet two requirements to qualify for this tax relief. The taxpayer must: (1) own the home for at least 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale, and (2) live in the home as their main home for at least 2 years of the last 5 years. The second part of this eligibility test unintentionally and unfairly prohibits many of the women and men who serve this country overseas from qualifying for this beneficial tax relief.

Constant travel across the United States and abroad is inherent in the uniformed and foreign services. Nonetheless, some members of these services choose to purchase a home in our communities, even though they will not live there much of the time. Under current law, if they do not have a spouse who resides in the house during their absence, they will not qualify for the full benefit of the home sales provision, because no one ``lives'' in the home for the required period of time. The law is prejudiced against families that serve our Nation abroad. They would not qualify for the home sales exclusion because neither spouse ``lives'' in the house for enough time to qualify for the exclusion.

Section 101 simply remedies this inequality in there 1997 law. It amends the Internal Revenue Code so that members of the uniformed and foreign services will be considered to be using their house as their main residence for any period that they are assigned overseas in the execution of their duties. In short, they will be deemed to be using their house as their main home, even if they are stationed in Bosnia, the Persian Gulf, in the ``no man's land,'' commonly called the DMZ between North and South Korea, or anywhere else they are assigned.

With Operation Iraqi Freedom, the global war on terrorism, and continuing operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo, our Armed Forces are deployed to an unprecedented number of locations. They are away from their primary homes, protecting and furthering the freedoms we Americans hold so dear. It is wrong to penalize them for doing their duty. Military service entails sacrifice. We must do all that we can to ensure that Congress is not adding to the burdens service men and women bear with an unfair Tax Code. This narrowly tailored remedy will grant equal tax relief to the members of our uniformed and foreign services, and restore fairness and consistency to our increasingly complex Tax Code.

This military tax package is a clear show of support for our men and women in uniform. It is the right thing to do, and I hope that all my colleagues will support this critical measure.