Artist-Museum Partnership Act

Madam President, I think it is important at the outset to know we are including in the CARE bill incentives to help provide charitable contributions for good voluntary purposes, and I think this bill should continue to honor that thrust. The amendment before us does not. The amendment before us essentially is a capital gains tax amendment and applies generally to all property that would be sold. I think this is not the place for that kind of amendment.

The underlying provisions of the bill provide that taxpayers who voluntarily sell land to a qualified conservation organization can exclude 25 percent of the gain on that sale from capital gains tax. The purpose, obviously, is to help people, most of whom are land rich and cash poor and do not have much income from their ranching or farm operations--to help by transferring the property to a conservation organization.

There are many organizations in this country--a lot in my State of Montana--such as the Nature Conservancy, lots of very good, solid organizations which take land and save it for conservation purposes. This is very important because our country is losing a lot of land to development each day, each year. In fact, in the United States about 2 acres of farmland per minute, or about 1 million per year, are lost to development; that is, shopping centers and new homes or what-not that are just taking away some of the natural land that we have in our country and converting it at a very rapid rate to shopping centers and developments.

That is part of America. We need to build shopping centers. We need to also build new homes, housing tracts, and so forth. But we also need to remember there are other values in our country, and those are protecting open space and protecting farms and ranches. A lot of our farms and ranches are under great stress. I know the Presiding Officer knows that is true in her home State as is the case in every State.

We are trying to figure out a balanced way to help those farmers and ranchers donate a portion of their land to a conservation organization. They cannot do that today because they have no income. Because they have no income, they can't take the usual charitable deduction. To help them, we are saying you don't have to worry about the charitable deduction; you can still

get a little bit of benefit because we will exclude 25 percent of the gain. It is extremely important.

I might point out, this is actually a little less generous than provisions suggested by the President. The President, in his budget, suggested an appreciably larger exclusion for this very purpose.

The amendment before us, though, is not geared at all toward conservation. Essentially, it provides the same benefit, a 25-percent exclusion that would be available to anyone who sells property for any purpose. It does not have to be conservation. It would be pretty expensive, I might add, too--about a $1.4 billion additional cost to the Treasury.

I understand the concerns the Senator has, but this is just not the time or place for capital gains tax reform. This is, rather, a CARE bill, a bill that is encouraging conservation, encouraging charitable giving. I urge my colleagues to not accept the amendment because I do not think it is properly placed in this bill.

I reserve my time.

Madam President, I believe the Senator from Connecticut would like the floor. I yield to him such time as he wishes to consume.

Madam President, the CARE Act is an important piece of legislation that will help those organizations that are always there to help us. On balance, I believe the bill will encourage more charitable giving. And this is particularly important now, when demand on these organizations is out-pacing resources.

This legislation would not have been possible without the contributions of many.

First, I would like to thank the Finance Committee staff for their expert counsel and hard work. They spent many long hours perfecting this legislation. They are role models for those in public service.

I appreciate the cooperation we received from the Republican staff members including Kolan Davis, Mark Prater, Dean Zerbe, Elizabeth Paris, Christy Mistr, and Ed McClellan.

I want to especially thank my staff, including Jeff Forbes, John Angell, Russ Sullivan, Patrick Heck, and Jonathan Selib. I also want to mention our hardworking interns, Shawn White and Tyler Garrett.

The Finance Committee staff worked closely with staff members from other Senate offices. They also were in touch with officials from the Administration, including Susan Brown and others from Treasury.

The Joint Committee on Taxation provided technical assistance. Lindy Paull, Mary Schmitt, Roger Colinvaux, Ron Schultz, Sam Olchyk, Ray Beeman, and Brian Meighan. And many others. We owe many thanks for the assistance they provided.

Second, I want to thank Senators Lieberman and Santorum. The CARE Act has been a priority for them for a long time. They have worked tirelessly to get this bill before the Senate. We are grateful for their diligence, cooperation and input.

I also want to thank our leaders Senators Frist and Daschle for their decision in moving the CARE Act forward.

I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Chairman Grassley. As always, he has been instrumental in ensuring a truly bipartisan bill. And, it continues to be a pleasure to work with him.

Finally, I look forward to seeing this bill passed into law--and soon. It is my hope that the House will take up this legislation quickly.

The CARE Act is one of the President's top priorities. There is a lot in this bill that enjoys widespread, bipartisan support.

Together, we have been working on this bill for more than 2 years. There is no need for further delay.

I urge the House to act quickly on this legislation so that we can have the CARE Act on the President's desk by the Memorial Day recess.

This is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for the CARE Act.

Madam President, the CARE Act takes bold steps to combat the devastating problem of hunger--an issue that affects far too many of my constituents in Montana.

Today, in the greatest and most prosperous nation in the world, hunger remains a real problem for our families.

According to the USDA, more than 1 in 8 households were food insecure in Montana between 1999 and 2001. This means that they do not consistently know where their next meal will come from.

And 4 percent of households in Montana--that is 32,000 people, 12,000 of whom are children--live in conditions so severe that they are classified as actually experiencing hunger.

These numbers are on the rise--Montana's hunger rate had the second highest jump of any state from an identical USDA study done just three years earlier.

Many of these are working poor families, making gut-wrenching decisions

between whether to spend their hard-earned money on housing, healthcare, child-care, or food.

So this is an issue that concerns me deeply.

The CARE Act will provide a valuable weapon in the war to end hunger. It will do so by making it easier for farmers and small businesses to donate surplus food to our struggling hunger relief charities.

Simply put, these difficult economic times mean that more people are showing up to food pantries and soup kitchens at a time when these organizations are struggling the most to meet demand.

These community groups--usually consisting solely of volunteers--are often ``first-responders'' in the battle against hunger.

The CARE Act will help food pantries and soup kitchens to keep food on the shelves for hungry families.

The CARE Act is also good for America's struggling farmers and businesses. It helps them do the right thing by donating surplus food that would otherwise have been thrown away.

Here is what Peggy Grimes, of the Montana Food Bank Network has to say about the CARE Act:

It has come to my attention that these struggling farmers

and small grocers do not receive any tax benefit for their

increasing donations. They have been donating out of concern

for their neighbors as they have been hearing reports of

increased food insecurity throughout Montana. . . . For

Montana, as an agricultural state, the Care Act will be of

significant benefit to both those donating food and those in

need of food.

Hunger in America is not a problem of lack of food. The USDA estimates that 96 billion pounds of food are thrown away each year.

This is simply shameful when working families are struggling to make ends meet. There is a problem when it is more profitable to throw away food than it is to donate it to those who need it.

The CARE Act helps solve this problem by providing incentives to farmers and small businesses, whose resources are also constrained in these economic times.

America's Second Harvest, the nation's largest anti-hunger charity, estimates that the CARE Act will result in enough donated food to provide roughly 765 million meals over the next 10 years.

These results are real, and I am proud to support this provision.

The CARE Act is a win-win-win situation. It is a win for anti-hunger charities that work hard to ensure that America's families have food on the table.

It is a win for our farmers and businesses that want to help their neighbors in need. And most importantly, it is a win for America's low- income families, who will see food on their tables.

I urge my colleagues to support the CARE Act.

Madam President, it is a sad fact that in a large number of homes-- particularly in the homes of our poorest, most at-risk children--you cannot find a book. Sixty percent of kindergartners--in neighborhoods that performed poorly in school--did not own a single book.

The lack of access to books poses the greatest barrier to literacy. That is why we must change the status quo.

Unfortunately, the tax law functions as a disincentive to the charitable donation of books to schools, libraries, and literacy programs. Under the tax law, it is actually more economical to truck books to a dump than it is to give them to your local school or library.

Through the title I program, however, we have nearly 15 million youngsters nationwide enrolled. This allows us to reach at least a portion of the disadvantaged children in our country.

In my State of Montana, there are an estimated 35,000 poor children who qualify for the title I program. These children will also benefit from the provision in the CARE Act which encourages the donation of books. For a child who has never owned a book--their first book is a prized possession.

An increase in charitable book contributions would especially benefit the State of Montana. According to the Montana Library Association, the Montana State Library has fallen victim to a 26 percent budget cut in 2003. These reductions will mean less money for local libraries. And they will mean cuts in the State subsidies that currently fund book purchases, interlibrary loans, and audio and other special books for the elderly, disabled, and sick.

According to the Montana Commissioner of Higher Education, Montana universities will also receive fewer books. In the wake of the latest budget cuts, the state legislature has cut university budgets 8.4 percent. That puts university funding below 1992 levels.

The University of Montana leads the list with a 10.9 percent cut in state money. Followed by Montana State University at a 9.8 percent cut. And MSUY-Billings at a 8.5 percent cut. The libraries at Montana universities will experience cuts of $1.6 million for new materials.

These cuts will not only hurt universities--they will also hurt the programs in which university students participate. For example, the Montana Reads literacy program--started by University of Montana President Dennison in 1997.

This program is critical to the 60-plus University of Montana student volunteers who regularly tutor kindergarten through fifth grade Missoula students. I think it is simple common sense that a critical component of any successful literacy program is for the students to have books. These Montana tutors depend on book donations to help their students. The CARE Act helps them to help the elementary kids in Missoula.

Of course these donations will also greatly aid adult literacy. Campaigns such as the Montana Adult Basic & Literacy Education, ABLE, program serve adults who lack sufficient mastery of basic skills to function in society, a high school diploma, or basic English skills. In Montana, 75,000 adults aged 25 and over do not have a high school diploma or a GED. Twenty-five thousand adults have less than a ninth grade education.

Every effort we make to improve reading in Montana will suffer if we do not include books in the equation. The Federal Government granted 36 Montana schools $11 million over 3 years to find reading coaches, family literacy programs and tutors.

These grants are so important to Montana. But if we fail to supply books as part of the equation, then the grants are not put to use in the most efficient way. Allowing charitable donations for books ensures that we use taxpayer dollars more effectively. We cannot afford not to.

Madam President, earlier this year, Senator Grassley and I reintroduced S. 701, the Rural Heritage Conservation Act. This bill will help the nation's hard-working farmers and ranchers preserve their heritage and way-of-life. At the same time, it promotes conservation of valuable open space and wildlife habitat. This legislation is included as a provision in the CARE Act.

S. 701 provides targeted income tax relief to small farmers and ranchers who wish to make a charitable contribution of a qualified conservation easement.

The bill would allow eligible farmers and ranchers to increase the currently deductible amount for charitable contributions of qualified conservation easements. That means that farmers and ranchers can deduct amounts up to 100 percent of adjusted gross income.

The bill also extends the carryover period from 5 years to 15 years. In the case of all other landowners, the AGI limitation would be raised from 30 percent to 50 percent.

Senator Grassley has worked closely with me to include the provisions of S. 701 in the CARE Act. I believe our bipartisan cooperation is the reason why we have come so far in moving this very important piece of legislation.

Passing the provisions in S. 701 will mean that farmers and ranchers facing the potential of having to sell their ranch will have another financially viable option. Under this proposal, they will be able to choose to take advantage of the conservation easement incentives, stay on their land, and invest in their farming or ranching business.

In practical terms, that means these farmers and ranchers do not have to sell the family farm or ranch. They can keep it in the family. This is so important to preserving the character and economic vitality of our rural communities.

Over the past 25 years, over 3 million acres of agricultural lands have been

lost to development in Montana alone. Many of those lands were lost when family farms--hit hard by tough times--were forced to give up their generations' old farming operations and sell to developers in order to pay the bills.

We have to find additional tools to help these folks keep their land in agricultural production and in open space. Our legislation provides one of those tools.

To illustrate why this legislation is so important, let me give you an example of the impact of current law on farmers and ranchers.

Jerry Townsend was born and raised on his family's ranch in Highwood, Montana. He has operated the ranch since purchasing it from his parents in 1974. On his ranch, called the Elk Run Ranch, he raises commercial beef cattle.

In 1995, Mr. Townsend donated a conservation easement to the Montana Land Reliance. His ``donation'' was calculated at $528,000. However, because his ranch is held as a C corporation, his tax deduction was limited to10 percent of the ranch's net income. His tax deduction over the six years totaled a paltry $1,998--less than one percent of the total value of his donation.

In contrast, a landowner with more in income would have a much greater incentive to enter into an easement agreement because he or she would be able to deduct more of the value of the donation from their taxes.

S. 701 would do nothing more than level the playing field for farmers and ranchers when it comes to the tax benefits of donating conservation easements. What should matter is the value of your land--not the amount of your income.

Our conservation easement bill, and as included in the CARE Act, have been endorsed by 210 land trusts representing 44 States. Other supporters include the Montana Stockgrowers, the American Farmland Trust, and the Colorado Cattlemen.

This is a win-win proposition. Farmers and ranchers will be able to preserve their important agricultural and ranching lands for future generations. They will be able to continue to operate their businesses. They will be able to stay on their land.

It is a purely voluntary, incentive-based way to promote conservation. And it will allow us to bring people together. Landowners. Conservationists. The Federal Government. And local communities. All working together to preserve our precious natural resources and agricultural heritage.

Madam President, I rise to talk about another important, but often overlooked, aspect of the CARE Act additional funding for the Social Services Block Grant, or SSBG.

SSBG funds are very flexible. States can use these funds to assist abused children cope with their trauma; to help seniors live at home, instead of nursing homes; to provide day care for children in low- income working families; so that we know those kids are in safe places while their parents work; to assist the disabled so that they can fully participate in our society; to help parents adopt children, so that every child has a loving parent.

In my State of Montana, we use SSBG to help children with developmental disabilities, like those with cerebral palsy.

SSBG is ``glue money.'' Communities use it to fill holes in the safety net. It is up to States and localities to decide where it goes. We give them a long menu of options, and they use it the way they see fit, based on local needs. This bill provides over $1 billion more in SSBG to fill those holes over 2 years.

The goal of the CARE Act is to increase compassionate activity in our country. We are a big-hearted country. We want to help each other. This bill will help turn more of that desire into action and will make sure Government is doing its part.

SSBG funds support the activities of faith-related charities. We give the money to the States and they often contract with faith-related organizations to do the hands-on work that they do so well. If you want to support Catholic Charities, then you should support SSBG. If you want to support Lutheran Social Services, then you should support SSBG. These organizations have told me that SSBG funds are crucially important to them.

The CARE Act is about increased individual giving. That is absolutely vital. But if the Government does less, then any increase in individual giving may only be filling that gap left by the withdrawal of the Government.

The additional SSBG funding in this bill is our way of saying that the Government will keep its part of the bargain and continue to play a role. It is a flexible source of funds, so it won't be bureaucrats in Washington dictating the money will be used. And much of the funding will go to faith-related charities--the very organizations we want to bolster.

We haven't talked much about the SSBG provision. That is a good sign. Around here, we tend to talk about the things we disagree about. I am glad we could find common ground on this provision so easily. I'm sure the faith-related charities will thank us for doing so.

I commend Senators Lieberman and Santorum for their work on the CARE Act.

Madam President, on February 5, 2003, the Finance Committee passed tax shelter legislation to offset the cost of the CARE Act.

How appropriate it is for a bill to encourage more charitable giving to be paid for by those shirking their responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes.

The tax shelter legislation included in the CARE Act was developed by the Finance Committee over the past 4 years.

The committee has taken time to develop appropriately targeted legislation. Care has been taken to avoid encumbering legitimate business transactions. Nevertheless, we will all be burdened until we get this problem in check.

Without these changes, honest businesses will continue to be burdened to the extent they compete against companies avoiding taxes.

Tax shelters are carefully engineered tax transactions. Most have little or no economic substance. That means that they are designed to achieve unwarranted tax benefits rather than business profit. And, they place honest taxpayers at a considerable disadvantage.

As Michael Graetz, Professor of Law at Yale University, once said: ``a tax shelter is a deal done by very smart people that, absent tax considerations, would be very stupid.''

It is time to put a stop to the unsavory practice of mining the Tax Code for these abusive shelters.

These transactions are designed to take advantage of the complexity of the tax law to obtain benefits that Congress never intended.

They pose a real threat to the integrity of our self-assessment system by eroding the public's respect of the tax law.

Under tax shelter legislation produced by the Finance Committee, promoters, advisors, and taxpayers would be subject to stiff penalties for failing to acknowledge these transactions to the IRS.

Treasury believes that if a taxpayer feels comfortable entering into a transaction; if a promoter feels comfortable selling a transaction; and, an advisor feels comfortable recommending a transaction, they should all feel comfortable disclosing the transaction to the IRS.

We have worked closely with the Treasury Department in crafting this legislation. We have given Treasury authority to fine-tune the provisions so as to protect legitimate tax planning.

But make no mistake, I am committed to combating abusive tax transactions. The tax shelter package is the first installment. It will not be the last.

The tax shelter package reinforces steps already taken by Treasury by requiring more transparency.

Taxpayers will now be required to disclose certain reportable transactions on their tax returns or face stiff penalties. Promoters will have to provide information to IRS on their tax avoidance strategies or face stiff sanctions.

These provisions are designed to change the cost-benefit ratio of those contemplating engaging in egregious tax planning strategies.

The bill would also eliminate abusive tax shelters by denying tax benefits with little or no economic substance.

That means that taxpayers will have to enter into transactions for legitimate economic and business reasons and not purely for tax avoidance.

This was the key recommendation made by the Joint Committee on Taxation in response to the investigation of Enron's tax transactions.

Presently, there is lack of uniformity regarding the proper application of the economic substance doctrine. Some courts apply a conjunctive test that requires a taxpayer to establish the presence of both economic substance and a substantial nontax business purpose. Other courts have found the existence of one of these as sufficient to respect a transaction.

The provision will clarify the application of the doctrine. It does not tell the court when to apply it.

A tax shelter disallowed in New York should not be permitted elsewhere. The clarification ensures uniformity across the country.

The tax shelter legislation included in the CARE Act is only a down payment. It will go a long way toward curbing abusive transactions. But it is not the final answer.

Based on the Joint Committee's investigation of Enron's tax returns, additional steps are needed. The Joint Committee made several specific recommendations for additional changes. We are looking closely at these recommendations. Additional legislation will be forthcoming. I am confident we will make any additional changes with bipartisan support.

Enron kept the IRS in the dark and out-maneuvered. The lack of adequate disclosure rules and the lack of sufficient IRS enforcement resources clearly helped Enron and its executives walk away with millions maybe billions. Our legislation would bring more transparency to these Enron-type transactions. The Enron report clearly demonstrates the need for meaningful shelter legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in reintroducing the ``Indian Tribal Surface Transportation Improvement Act of 2003'', a bill to reform and improve Indian Reservation Road, IRR, program.

In the past two Congresses the Committee on Indian Affairs has held hearings on the problems with the IRR program and this bill provides much-needed clarifications to better meet the transportation needs in Native communities.

Involving as it does transportation and related issues, this bill includes an initiative I proposed last session to support commercial vehicle driving training programs at tribal colleges and universities.

Although reservation roads comprise just 2.63 percent of the Federal highway system, less than 1 percent of Federal aid has been allocated to Indian roads. This bill would allow the already-authorized funds for Indians to reach the intended beneficiaries.

As with any community, Indian reservations need efficient and effective road financing and construction to develop healthy economies and raise the standard of living.

It is no secret that when entrepreneurs, Indian or non-Indian, calculate whether to invest in a community they first look to see if the basic building blocks exist within the community: roads, highways, electricity, potable water, and other amenities.

Unfortunately, despite recent successes some Indian tribes have had with gaming, energy and natural resource development, most Indian tribes still suffer from poor infrastructure that thwarts investment and economic growth.

Building on the successes of the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, this bill authorizes the Federal Lands Highway Administration to create a 12-tribe pilot program to contract directly for roads funding.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in re-introducing legislation to assist Indian tribes to fight the scourge of alcohol, drug and associated mental health problems in their communities.

Native Americans continue to be plagued by chronic alcohol and drug addictions which destroy their bodies and souls and inevitably require mental health treatment as well.

There are a good number of Federal agencies involved in treating these problems and, through no fault of their own, agency efforts are often un-coordinated and ineffective as a result.

Relying on models that are proven winners, the ``Native American Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program Consolidation Act of 2003'' authorizes Indian tribes and tribal consortia to string together these disparate programs and services and bring them together in one comprehensive and coordinated package.

In addition to achieving economies of scale in these Federal services, the bill would also encourage the use of automated clinical information systems and bring to bear state-of-the-art diagnostic and treatment tools

The two main themes of this bill, better use of resources combined with technological innovations have proven successful in other areas like Indian job training.

Just this week, Health and Human Services Secretary Thompson launched a new effort aimed at combating chronic health problems in minority communities.

Substance abuse and diabetes are included in Secretary Thompson's effort and this bill would go a long way in assisting Federal and tribal governments in that battle.

The mechanics of this bill are also consistent with the broad contours of the President's Management Agenda, increasing the effectiveness of Federal services without increasing the budget.

For these reasons, I am hopeful the bill will be well received by the Administration and the tribes so that it can be considered speedily in the weeks ahead.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important initiative and ask unanimous consent to have the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as I did last session, I am again pleased to introduce the ``Indian Tribal Contracting and Federal Lands Management Demonstration Project Act'' to expand the highly-successful Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 and to bring Native knowledge, values and sensitivity to the management of our Federal lands.

I want to emphasize that this initiative is a starting point for a broader discussion about whether Federal law sufficiently protects sacred Indian places that are located on Federal lands.

Americans react viscerally when lands and sites held sacred are threatened. Whether the site in question is the Little Bighorn Battlefield in Montana; the American Cemetery at Omaha Beach in Normandy, France; or religious and ceremonial sites held dear by Native people.

Twenty-five years ago Congress passed the American Indian Religious Freedom Act which declared that it is ``the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.''

A series of hearings held by the Committee on Indian Affairs over the past two years revealed that the AIRFA policy remains aspirational and the goals of that Act have not been realized.

The clashes between economic and cultural interests will also sharpen as our nation's needs for economic activities, such as logging, energy and mining, increases.

In 1970, President Nixon's Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs changed forever Federal Indian law and policy. The President also signed into law legislation transferring the sacred Blue Lake lands back to the Pueblo of Taos. These two events set the stage for both the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, 1975, as well as the AIRFA, 1978.

The legislation I am re-introducing today will build on these precedents by setting up a Demonstration Project to expand opportunities for Native contracting on Federal lands. One goal of this bill is to bring to bear the knowledge and sensitivity of Native people to activities that are currently being carried out by Federal agencies.

Under the bill, the Secretary of the Interior would select up to 12 tribes or tribal organizations per year to provide archaeological, anthropological, ethnographic and cultural surveys and analysis; land management planning; and activities related to the identification, maintenance, or protection of lands considered to have religious, ceremonial or cultural significance to Indian tribes.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Fairness to All Fallen Vietnam War Service Members Act of 2003. Almost forty years ago, our country started sending a generation of young men off to fight in Vietnam. Over 58,000 American soldiers gave their lives to their country in and around the lands, skies, and seas of Vietnam.

The legislation I am introducing today is based on language which I previously introduced toward the end of the 107th Congress.

The ultimate sacrifices many of these men have made are honored on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall here in Washington, D.C. There are, however, names that are missing from the wall, names that rightfully should be there with their fallen fellow Americans. It is now time to correct that omission.

On the morning of June 3, 1969, the United States Destroyer, USS Frank E. Evans, was cut in half during a training exercise by the Australian aircraft carrier, Melbourne. The front half of the destroyer sank in three minutes claiming the lives of seventy-four men.

While these men were not lost due to enemy fire, they were involved in serious combat only days before this tragedy. At the time of the accident, the USS Frank E. Evans was taking part in Operation Sea Spirit in the South China Sea which involved over 40 ships from Southeast Asia Treaty Organization Nations. These brave men were instrumental in forwarding American objectives in Vietnam.

The fact is these men died while serving their country and are due the rights and honors they deserve, including being listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall.

Two of my fellow Coloradans, Brian Crowson and Del A. Francis were on board that fateful morning and survived this horrible accident. Sadly, 74 of their fellow sailors were not as fortunate.

At a time when we rightly honor heroes across our country, should we not also take the necessary step to ensure that our past heroes are also honored?

This legislation directs the Secretary of Defense to determine an appropriate manner to recognize and honor Vietnam Veterans who died in service to our Nation but whose names were excluded from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall. It further asks for input from government agencies and organizations that originally constructed the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall regarding the feasibility of adding additional names. Finally, the bill asks for appropriate alternative options for recognizing these veterans should it be deemed that there is no logistical way to add these names.

As a veteran of the Korean War, I personally understand the ultimate sacrifice many of our brave men and women have made for the price of freedom. This recognition should not be taken lightly.

I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate as well as the USS Frank E. Evans Association so that we can pass this long overdue legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in introducing the ``Federal Acknowledgment Process Reform Act of 2003''.

Since 1997 I have offered changes to the Federal Acknowledgment Process, FAP, which is the process by which Indian groups are ``recognized'' by the United States as tribes.

Recognition of a tribal group as a tribe brings with it the privileges, immunities and rights accorded to Indian tribes.

In recent years, the FAP has been described as ``broken'', ``too lengthy'', ``too costly'', ``without integrity'', ``not transparent'' and ``inconsistently applied'' to name but a few.

For petitioners that have waited literally generations for a final answer on their application, the process is too lengthy.

For petitioners of modest means driven to seek the financial support of ``a backer'', the process is too costly.

For interested parties who feel compelled to file Freedom of Information Act requests to secure information, the process is not transparent.

And for the uninitiated and those not familiar with the governing legal regime, the regulations do appear to be inconsistently applied.

The FAP has not been with us forever. In 1978, the Department of Interior established regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, 25 CFR Part 83, to ``establish a departmental procedure and policy for acknowledging that certain American Indian groups exist as tribes.''

Since this administrative procedure was set up in 1978, over 270 groups have petitioned under the regulations, with 18 groups being awarded acknowledgment as a tribe, and 19 groups having been denied.

This means that nearly 230 groups are still waiting to hear on their petitions.

For those who think the Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, BAR, is a serial grantor of recognition: just last week the Golden Hill Paugussett group in Connecticut was preliminarily denied acknowledgment.

The delays petitioners face have led to understandable frustration: the Indian Affairs Committee has received testimony from groups where the individuals that originally filed the petition have passed away, and the struggle is carried on by their children, and even grandchildren.

Some petitioners have become so tired of waiting that they have sued the Secretary of Interior and some courts have forced the BAR to produce decisions by dates-certain.

Unfortunately this ``queue jumping'' has created adverse incentives, as more groups file lawsuits.

The kinks in the process have also caused understandable frustration on the part of other, non-Indian groups. These frustrations have led to voluminous Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, requests, and even lawsuits, as these groups have tried to secure information or seek a better understanding of the regulations.

As you might expect, once the lawsuits get started, paper starts churning. The BAR staff testified to the Indian Affairs Committee that their anthropologists, genealogists and historians spend 40 percent of their time just making photo-copies in response to FOIA requests.

The bill I am introducing today will resolve many of the problems I have described. It will do this first by introducing discipline into the process. Under this bill would-be-petitioners must include enough information in their ``letter of intent'' so that the BAR and other interested parties have a better idea of the context of the group. Obtaining more information will better assist the Secretary of Interior in providing notices to the group and interested parties; and the bill requires that such notices go out within 90 days, insuring timeliness.

Secondly, this bill will provide more resources to petitioners and interested parties, based on the needs of the group or party, something on which all observers of the process seem to be in agreement.

Third, this bill will provide more resources to the Department of Interior, another point on which there seems to be wide agreement.

I do not propose to merely throw more money at this problem. Instead, the bill establishes a research pilot project that will draw upon independent research institutions and consultation with the Smithsonian to expand the research capacity of the BAR.

The bill will also provide a resource to the Assistant Secretary that is sorely needed: an independent research and advisory board that can be called on by the Assistant Secretary to act as a peer reviewer and a second source upon which the Assistant Secretary can base his determination on a petition.

This board will consist of certified professionals and will be available to the Assistant Secretary: 1. at his discretion, if the Assistant Secretary and BAR disagree regarding whether particular criterion have been met in a petition; and 2. to provide outside peer

review and a second opinion on a proposed final determination.

The board will give the Assistant Secretary greater assurance in the soundness of his determination, and will provide a more solid foundation for any later appellate review.

Finally, this bill will provide the certainty of a statutory basis for the acknowledgment criteria that have been used by the BAR since 1978.

There appears to be widespread acceptance of the substantive validity of the criteria, but questions have been raised regarding whether those criteria should be codified. This bill answers that question definitively.

This bill addresses the criticisms of the FAP by increasing the transparency, consistency and integrity of the process, and at the same time removes some of the bureaucratic hurdles that have caused the process to be too costly and time-consuming.

I urge my colleagues to support this important measure and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Montana.

I rise to speak in favor of the CARE Act, the Charity Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment Act. This began as an attempt to give support to faith- based groups to perform good works.

Congratulating the UConn Women Huskies

If I may use that as a segue for a seemingly unrelated comment, I want to express this morning the pride and exultation of the people of Connecticut whose faith in our UConn Women Huskies was vindicated last night as they achieved an extraordinary victory over a very tough and proud Tennessee team. The UConn Women won another national championship for the UConn Women Huskies, the fourth in the program's history.

My congratulations to Coach Geno Auriemma, Assistant Coach Chris Dailey, and the great UConn women who rebuilt a lot of young talent that came together and made us all proud. They set an extraordinary example for young women all over America who, like my 15-year-old daughter, love basketball, love to play it, and are inspired by the skill and grit and team spirit of the UConn Women Huskies.

So our faith was redeemed, and you give us faith, Lady Huskies, as we go on.

Returning to the CARE Act, I must say that I am proud and, in some senses, relieved to join my colleagues in supporting this act. This act is a compromise version of the initial faith-

based and community initiative. It comes to the Senate floor after a difficult path. But the important point is that we are here.

This is a different plan than the President originally proposed. It is different than the plan that Senator Santorum--who I have been so pleased to work with as lead cosponsor with him--and I negotiated with the White House to address concerns that were blocking its initial movement.

Perhaps most notably, it no longer contains any provisions targeted specifically at carving out a larger lawful space for faith-based groups in our social service programs. But despite this evolution, the heart of the proposal remains the same; and I guess, I would add, the soul of the proposal remains the same as well.

That is why the CARE Act enjoys overwhelming support from America's philanthropic community, with endorsements from more than 1,600 charities of all sizes and denominations, as well, as we can see, strong bipartisan support here in the Senate. And that is why I feel confident this measure will help transform the spirit of good will in America today into more good works at a time of growing hardship and make this country as good as its values are.

Any doubt about the vitality of America's spirit was firmly laid to rest on September 11, 2001, when so many Americans gave so much and all of us collectively embraced the values of compassion and community. But if we truly hope to keep moving America closer to our founding ideals, we have to extend that commitment to helping those who continue to live in a different type of need--children living in poverty and despair; drug addicts desperate for treatment and a better life; low income working families who are struggling for self-sufficiency.

Our Government, of course, runs many programs at the Federal, State, and local levels that aim to fill those needs as best they can by establishing a safety net. But all of us here, regardless of party or geography, recognize that Government can't do it all on its own, nor should it. We have long relied on a wide network of private charities and social service providers, community organizations and religious groups, what you might call the sinews of our civil society, to partner with the public sector, to fill in the gaps of the Government's reach and, in particular, to target aid to local priorities and problems. That is what this bill will do.

We start with a new focus on building and leveraging the capacity of the small faith-based and community organizations who are often in the best position to help people in need because they are closest to them. But in many cases, they don't have the technical wherewithal to find the public resources to do so. So to help those groups, the CARE Act creates a Compassion Capital Fund authorized at $150 million a year that will underwrite a wide range of technical assistance efforts. But the bill goes beyond just expanding the pool of applicants and enlarges the pie of resources that is available to America's charities and social services providers. That will be particularly critical at this difficult time in our Nation's economic history when charities are stretched.

I saw an article in the paper in the last 24 hours that said the United Way expects a significant drop in its fundraising this year because of the economic problems America faces. I hope and believe this bill will create the incentives for more giving to the United Way and a host of other charities, national and local. It will do so by creating several well targeted tax incentives over the next years that total $10.6 billion which, working from the general rule that most tax incentives are worth about 30 cents on the dollar to a taxpayer, should lead to new donations to charities, community-based, faith-based, of more than $30 billion over the next 10 years. How much good will come from that is wonderful to contemplate.

Part of the CARE Act that may make as big a difference and of which I am particularly proud is the $1.3 billion increase in Social Service Block Grant (SSBG) funding over the next 2 years. The CARE Act will finally make good on our commitment by restoring SSBG funding to its authorized level of $2.8 billion over the next 2 years and in so doing would empower charities across the country to do good for so many people in need.

I want to mention one other provision in the bill which has been a labor of love for me and Senator Santorum. That provision would expand on the use of innovative savings accounts, known as Individual Development Accounts (IDAs), to help low-income working families build wealth and achieve financial self-sufficiency. There have been a number of IDA demonstration projects around America that have proven successful in making home ownership, college, and small business not just a dream but a reality for thousands of low-income people nationwide. The CARE Act aims to build on those successes and significantly increase the availability of IDAs by offering America's financial institutions new incentives to help low-income families who want to save for their future which represents a whole new strategy in fighting poverty. It is based on a growing body of research that shows the best path to the middle class comes not just from hard work but also through savings and asset accumulation.

In sum, this CARE Act represents a comprehensive response to a complicated problem. That is why it is broadly and enthusiastically embraced by charities all over America. This bill puts our shared values into action by elevating the priority we place on helping our most vulnerable citizens. For that I thank my colleagues for their support.

I particularly thank Senator Santorum with whom it has been a pleasure to work in this long-time effort. His dedication, his commitment, his faith, his persistence, and his willingness to accommodate and reach common ground is a good part of the reason why we are on the verge of this very significant accomplishment. I thank the leaders of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, and I thank my leader, Senator Daschle, who worked with us as we negotiated this logjam-breaking compromise with the administration and then pushed hard among our ranks to have this bill considered on the Senate floor. Senator Daschle's staff, particularly Jennifer Duck and Andrea LaRue, has been indispensable to this mission.

Finally, I thank my own staff for the dedicated work they have done on this exceedingly challenging but important legislation. Specifically, I am grateful to Laurie Rubenstein, Debbie Forrest, Dan Gerstein, Chuck Ludlam, and Michelle McMurray. We could not have passed the bill without them.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill and yield the floor.

Madam President, I am disappointed that the administration has put out a statement today opposing the SSBG provisions in this bill, especially after we negotiated a bill with the Administration that included those provisions. The SSBG funding is critically important to this bill. It funds a number of essential social services that have been harmed by cuts to that program. I'd like to put in the record here the results of a survey done by the United Way of America.

In January 2000, UWA conducted an informal survey to assess the impact cuts to SSBG have had on local United Ways and their community partners. This study represents the impact of cuts from a funding level of $2.8 billion to SSBG in fiscal year 1995, to $1.9 billion in fiscal year 1999. Since conducting the survey, SSBG funding has been further reduced to $1.7 billion.

Following summarizes ``The Stories Behind the Social Services Block Grant: A Survey by United Way of America.''

Effect of SSBG Cuts on Health and Human Service Agencies:

One hundred thirty-eight agencies from 26 States responded.

Effect on budget: 38 percent received less SSBG money in

1999 than in the 1995; 42 percent have been level funded for

the past 5 years.

Effect on services: 17 percent of the total respondents had

to cut programs to compensate for SSBG cuts; 29 percent of

the agencies that received less SSBG money in 1999 than in

1995 were forced to cut programs; 32 percent of the total

respondents had to cut staff to compensate for SSBG cuts; 50

percent of the agencies that received less SSBG money in 1999

than in 1995 had to cut staff; 46 percent of the total

respondents were forced to serve fewer clients; 73 percent of

the agencies that received less SSBG money in 1999 than in

1995 were forced to serve fewer clients.

Respondents' median 1999 grant: $70,472.00.

Median percent of respondents' budget that SSBG represents:

10 percent.

Median number of people served with respondents' SSBG

funds: 180.

The survey found that further cuts to SSBG would greatly reduce the reach and impact programs that provide services for a full range of health and human services from child welfare and

child care to youth development, job training and other work supports for those transitioning off welfare, assistance for domestic violence victims, respite care, home care services and information and referral. The administration's backtracking on its assurances about funding this program will further damage these efforts.

Mr. President, during his State of the Union speech this week, President Bush emphasized the importance of local and charitable initiatives that help define the character of the many communities that make up the mosaic of our country. I have come to the floor today to discuss a community tradition that is unique to many of Alaska's remote villages and which should be recognized and supported by the Federal Government.

Subsistance whaling is vital to the survival of several Alaska Native communities. In many of our remote villages, the whale hunt is a tradition that has been carried on over many millennia. As part of that tradition, it is the custom that the captain of the hunt make all provisions for the meals, wages and equipment costs associated with the hunt.

After the hunt, the Captain is repaid in whale meat and muktuk, which is blubber and skin. However, as part of the tradition, the Captain donates a substantial portion of the whale to his village in order to help the community survive the harsh winter.

While the International Whaling Commission, IWC, has banned commercial whaling, it has specifically recognized the cultural significance of whaling to the Alaska Native community and has allowed them to continue the seasonal hunt. The IWC recognizes that the traditional whale hunt is not carried on for financial gain. Although the hunt generates no financial gain to the whaling captain, the captain incurs real expenses.

Since the whaling captain is not engaged in a business, he is not permitted to deduct the costs he incurs from his taxes. In order to maintain the traditional hunt and to offset some of the costs incurred by the Captain, I am today introducing legislation that would allow the captain to claim a charitable deduction of up to $10,000 to help defray the costs associated with providing this community service.

I want to point out that if the Captain incurred all of these expenses and then donated the whale meat to a local charitable organization, the Captain would almost certainly be able to deduct the costs he incurred in outfitting the boat for the charitable purpose. However, the cultural significance of the Captain's sharing the whale with the community would be lost. Moreover, since there is no commercial market for whale meat because of the international whaling bank, there is no way to set the value of such a charitable contribution.

This is a very modest proposal and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I speak today on behalf of Alaska's most vulnerable individuals, our children, the disabled, and the elderly poor. Since its enactment in 1965, the Medicaid program has helped States provide low-income and disabled individuals with access to vital health care services. In 1997, Congress allowed States to take on certain health-related responsibilities for children. The Denali Kid Care program, a Medicaid expansion, has been very successful in providing health services for Alaskan children. Unfortunately, under current law many Alaskans who rely on this program could lose some or all of their Medicaid coverage. This is because Alaska's Federal Medical Assistance percentage, FMAP, adjustment, a correction to the Medicaid formula due to the high cost of health care in Alaska, will expire within the next 2 fiscal years. An FMAP correction is necessary for Alaska because this ``one-size-fits-all'' formula does not account for variations in cost-of-living, and does not consider Alaska's higher federally mandated poverty level.

First of all, the FMAP formula was developed in 1946, 13 years before Alaska was admitted to the Union. This archaic formula is used to calculate the Federal share of Medicaid costs for each State. The calculations are based on the per capita income of individual States relative to the national per capita income. In this way, States with higher per capita incomes end up paying a higher percentage of their Medicaid costs. This formula appears to work well for States near the national norms for most economic indicators. It most certainly does not work in the State of Alaska, however, where these economic indicators appear more frequently as statistical exceptions and outlyers.

The problem is fairly simple: it just costs more to do business in Alaska, and this includes health care. A national per capita income threshold is not a fair indicator unless it takes into account the cost of living in that area. The cost-of-living adjustment for Federal employees in Alaska suggests that it costs 25 percent more to live in Alaska than in the lower 48, and Federal employee salaries are adjusted accordingly. A dollar simply does not buy the same thing in Alaska that it does in the lower 48.

This is especially true for health care costs. Estimates suggest that, on average, it costs up to 71 percent more to deliver health care services in Alaska. American Hospital Association data shows that Alaska has the highest average expense per hospital admission of any State in the Nation. But let's talk real numbers again. If you were to be admitted to a hospital in Oregon, on average the cost would be $6,649.00; in Alaska the same average hospital stay costs almost double, $10,859.00. There are also higher costs associated with limited road access and necessary air ambulance service for rural and isolated communities, but the Medicaid FMAP formula does not consider any of these additional costs.

In addition to the higher cost of services in Alaska, the Federal Government sets the poverty level 20 percent higher in Alaska than in any of the lower 48 States. This means 1 out of every 5 Alaskans is eligible for Medicaid. The problem is that this is essentially an unfunded Federal mandate because the FMAP formula, again, does not change to reflect this additional requirement. The higher demand for services that results from the higher poverty level dilutes our resources. The Medicaid FMAP formula was developed before Alaska became a State and does NOT provide the funds to cover all of those who are eligible.

However, in 1997 and again in 2000, Congress recognized that the Medicaid FMAP formula was unfair for Alaska and enacted an adjustment to the formula. Due in part to this more equitable funding and a careful re-allocation of resources, Alaska now: has the lowest age- adjusted death rate for breast cancer in the Nation; has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the Nation; and has one of the lowest percentages of low birth weight babies in the Nation.

These are encouraging statistics, but more can and must be done to improve access to quality health care. All disabled and low-income Americans, including Alaskans, have been assured access to quality medical care. Alaska has proven it can deliver this quality care, but only with the necessary adjustment to the FMAP formula that recognizes the reality of Alaska's needs.

This issue is timely because the Congress has the opportunity to allow the State of Alaska to plan for the future. Planning is the essence of good management, and when it comes to health care, we must allow States to plan for future needs. In short, the Federal Government must remember its commitment to Alaskans, and allow my State a benefit that all other states have, assurance that money for vital Medicaid services will not just dry up and disappear.

Alaskans do not seek charity, we seek equity. The Congress has supported this request twice before, and I ask for an additional extension to honor Federal commitments to my state. The legislation that I am introducing today will permanently adjust the Medicaid formula for Alaska. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will support this vital legislation that will preserve my State's ability to provide health insurance to the most vulnerable Alaskans.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to establish the Denali Transportation System.

This bill in intended to help create in the same beneficial transportation system in Alaska as exists for every other State in the Union. It is patterned after a similar effort adopted years ago for the Appalachian region, which has demonstrated beyond any doubt that transportation investment is wise investment.

The bill authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish a program to fund the costs of construction of the Denali Transportation System, at a level of $450 million per year from Fiscal Year 2004 through Fiscal Year 2009. As new roads are constructed, they will become part of the National Highway System.

As my colleagues are aware, Alaska's ability to develop a strong economy for the benefit of the State and the nation is deeply impaired by the lack of transportation. This affects all aspects of life in the 49th State, from the delivery of fuel and essential services to individuals and families in our many remote villages, to our ability to develop Alaska's abundance of valuable natural resources. Only our major cities have modern roadways, and many of those remain isolated.

No State, or its citizens, can prosper without adequate transportation systems. In much of the country, such systems have been in place since before

the American Revolution, and have been constantly changing, adapting and being upgraded ever since. In much of Alaska, in contrast, residents are still forced to travel between communities by boat, or on frozen rivers, just as they did when the Territory of Alaska was first purchased from Imperial Russia. In this day, and age, such a situation is completely unacceptable. It is a lasting mark of neglect, and it is past time to rectify it.

The Denali Transportation System will provide far greater benefits than costs. As we enter an era where gigantic natural changes are occurring in the Arctic environment, and ice-free maritime transportation through the Arctic Ocean is expected to become a reality within decades, it is critical that we begin to prepare ourselves for those changes. Adequate transportation connections to, and within, America's only Arctic State are imperative.

As we debate a Federal budget during a time when the economy is struggling, let us not forget that the key to long-term prosperity is wise investment. Investing in Alaska is investing wisely. We have incomparable resources and vigorous citizens. It is time we have the transportation system that will allow those assets to be used as they should.

Mr. President, I ask unanimously consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am joined by my colleague, Senator Dorgan, in introducing the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2003. This legislation is designed to strengthen existing Federal boxing laws by making uniform certain health and safety standards, establish a centralized medical registry to be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reduce arbitrary practices of sanctioning organizations, and provide uniformity in ranking criteria and contractual guidelines. This legislation also would establish a Federal regulatory entity to oversee professional boxing and set uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport.

Since 1996, Congress has acted to improve the sport of boxing by passing two laws, the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000. These laws were intended to establish uniform standards to improve the health and safety of boxers, and to better protect them from the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations.

While the Professional Boxing Safety Act, as amended by the Muhammad Ali Act, has had some positive effects on the sport, I am concerned by the repeated failure of some State and tribal boxing commissions to comply with the law, and the lack of enforcement of the law by both Federal and State law enforcement officials. Corruption remains endemic in professional boxing, and the sport continues to be beset with a variety of problems, some beyond the scope of the current system of local regulation.

Therefore, the bill we are introducing today would further strengthen Federal boxing laws, and also create a Federal regulatory entity, the ``United States Boxing Administration'', USBA, to oversee the sport. The USBA would be headed by an Administrator, appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The primary functions of the USBA would be to protect the health, safety, and general interests of boxers. More specifically, the USBA would, among other things: administer Federal boxing laws and coordinate with other federal regulatory agencies to ensure that these laws are enforced; oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the status and standards of the sport. The USBA would license boxers, promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations, and revoke or suspend such licenses if the USBA believes that such action is in the public interest. No longer would a boxer be able to forum- shop for a state with a weak commission if he or she is undeserving of a license.

Under this legislative proposal, the fines collected and licensing fees imposed by the USBA would be used to fund a percentage of its activities. The USBA also would maintain a centralized database of medical and statistical information pertaining to boxers in the United States that would be used confidentially by local commissions in making licensing decisions.

Let me be clear. The USBA would not be intended to micro-manage boxing by interfering with the daily operations of local boxing commissions. Instead, the USBA would work in consultation with local commissions, and the USBA Administrator would only exercise his/her

authority should reasonable grounds exist for intervention.

The problems that plague the sport of professional boxing compromise the safety of boxers and undermine the credibility of the sport in the eyes of the public. I believe this bill provides a realistic approach to curbing these problems, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to sponsor the Military Home Owners Equity Act of 2003, S. 284. This is important legislation which I have been privileged to introduce in the Senate during previous Congresses. This legislation would allow members of the Uniformed Services, who are away on extended active duty, 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, the American Foreign Service Association, and the American Bar Association.

The average American participates in our Nation'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.

This bill will not create a new tax benefit; it merely modifies current law to include the time members of the Uniformed Services are away from home on active duty when calculating the number of years the homeowners has lived in their primary residence. In short, this bill is narrowly tailored to remedy a specific dilemma.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 delivered sweeping tax relief to millions of Americans through a wide variety of important tax changes that affect individuals, families, investors and businesses. It was also one of the most complex tax laws enacted in recent history.

As with any complex legislation, there are winners and losers. But in this instance, there are unintended losers: members of the Uniformed and Foreign Services.

The 1997 act gives taxpayers who sell their principal residence a much-needed tax break. Prior to the 1997 act, taxpayers received a one- time exclusion on the profit they made when they sold their principal residence, but the taxpayer had to be at least 55 years old and live in the residence for 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale. This provision primarily benefitted elderly taxpayers, while not providing any relief to younger taxpayers and their families.

Fortunately, the 1997 act addressed this issue. Under this law, taxpayers who sell their principal residence on or after May 7, 1997, are not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit from the sale, joint filers are not taxed on the first $500,000 of profit they make from selling their principal residence. The taxpayers must meet two requirements to qualify for this tax relief. The taxpayer must one, own the home for at least 2 of the 5 years preceding the sale, and two, live in the home as their main home for at least 2 years of the last 5 years.

I applaud the bipartisan cooperation that resulted in this much- needed form of tax relief. The home sales provision sounds great, and it is. Unfortunately,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 a certain locale, even though they will not live there much of the time. Under the new 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 new 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 ``live'' in the house for enough time to qualify for the exclusion.

This bill simply remedies an inequality in the 1997 law. The bill 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.

In the wake of September 11, our Armed Forces are now deployed to an unprecedented number of locations. They are away from their primary homes, protecting and furthering the freedoms we Americans hold so dear. We cannot afford to discourage military service by penalizing military personnel with higher taxes merely because they are doing their job. Military service entails sacrifice, such as long periods of time away from friends and family and the constant threat of mobilization into hostile territory. We must not use the tax code to heap additional burdens upon our women and men in uniform.

In my view, the way to decrease the likelihood of further inequalities in the tax code, intentional or otherwise, is to adopt a fairer, flatter tax system that is far less complicated than our current system. But, in the meantime, we must insure the Tax Code is as fair and equitable as possible.

The Taxpayers' Relief Act of 1997 was designed to provide sweeping tax relief to all Americans, including those who serve this country abroad. Yes, it is true that there are winners and losers in any tax code, but, this inequity was unintended. Enacting this narrowly tailored remedy to grant equal tax relief to the members of our Uniformed and Foreign Services restores fairness and consistency to our increasingly complex Tax Code.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.