Quality Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) for a brief personal privilege matter.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Scott of Georgia was allowed to speak out of order.)

Mourning the Passing of Gloria Aaron

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, I am pleased to join the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) today in support of H.R. 4275, legislation to make the expanded 10 percent tax bracket permanent. In my district in north Texas and across America, scores of families work hard every day to make ends meet. By passing this bill, we will provide some much-needed tax relief to these hardworking Americans.

But I must admit, Mr. Speaker, I find it very odd that some Members of this House would champion the tax relief bill before us today when they have also at nearly every opportunity voted against other measures that would have provided significant economic benefits to a great many middle-class taxpayers. I am talking about measures like providing additional tax relief by reinstating the State sales tax deduction and ensuring overtime pay for America's police and firefighters.

I think it is important to consider these sorts of measures now, Mr. Speaker, because many of our constituents are suffering from the recent recession and the outsourcing of good American jobs overseas.

Do not get me wrong, Mr. Speaker, we all want to provide tax relief to our constituents. I voted last week in favor of the bill to provide relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax. I voted the week before to permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty, and I will vote today to make the expanded tax bracket permanent. The bill on the floor today is a good bill and it is the very least we can do to help families in the country, but I think the American people deserve better than our least effort.

Others may be happy to limit our efforts to help American families to this bill, but I am not, Mr. Speaker. We can improve this bill by amending the rule to allow for the consideration of H.R. 720, a bill introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady). His bill will reinstate the sales tax deduction so that citizens of States without income taxes may deduct their sales taxes from their Federal tax bill. This is a very important issue for many Americans, including my constituents in North Texas who do not pay a State income tax but have been plagued by high sales taxes which may rise even higher if some in the Texas legislature have their way.

Our State comptroller has estimated that the average Texas family would save about $300 a year on their Federal taxes under the bill offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Last week, I attempted to bring a similar measure up for consideration, but that effort was defeated on a straight party-line vote.

This is a bipartisan issue, Mr. Speaker, and I want to give the entire House an opportunity to vote on a bipartisan bill. H.R. 720 has 78 cosponsors, 47 Republicans and 31 Democrats. I have cosponsored the bill, the gentleman from Texas who is managing today's rule on the other side of the aisle has cosponsored the bill, and dozens of other well-respected Members from both parties have cosponsored the bill. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership indicated last week that they too support this bill.

So why do we not vote on it? Is this about politics, or is it about tax relief? Last week, Republicans defeated my amendment and said it was about politics. Well, here is a Republican bill that has strong bipartisan support and will provide millions of families with $300 a year in tax relief.

The American people deserve to find out today whether the majority party will put partisan politics aside for just a minute to pass this badly needed tax relief. I bet our constituents just cannot wait to see how their elected Representatives will vote on this issue.

In the coming weeks, I hope we will have more opportunities to help more families. But in the meantime, if Members are serious about helping their constituents, they will not only vote to extend the 10 percent tax bracket permanently, they will also vote today to defeat the previous question and allow us to consider H.R. 720, to reinstate the sales tax deduction. It is a Republican bill with Democratic support. As my colleagues realize, a no vote will be a vote against tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to insert several things in the Record. I am inserting a special report from Carole Keeton Rylander, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. In this report she says, ``Restoration of the IRS sales tax deduction should be one of Texas' main priorities in Congress. The current discriminatory treatment of Texas taxpayers is taking $701 million out of Texas pockets and costing our State more than 16,000 jobs.''

I would also at this point, Mr. Speaker, insert in the record a statement by my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), that he presented when he introduced this legislation. ``Washington should treat all States equally,'' Mr. Brady says. ``A broad bipartisan group pushes Congress to end bias against sales tax States.''

[Special Report, March 2002]

Restoration of the IRS Sales Tax Deduction Should Be One of Texas'

Main Priorities in Congress

(By Carole Keeton Rylander)

Currently, the citizens of Texas and eight other states

are discriminated against because they cannot take any tax

deduction comparable to the state and local income tax

deductions enjoyed by the citizens of 41 other states and the

District of Columbia. In an attempt to alleviate this

disparity, Comptroller Rylander proposes to restore much of

the federal sales and motor vehicle sales tax deductions that

citizens of Texas were last able to itemize on their federal

income tax returns for the 1986 tax year.

The Comptroller's plan would grant taxpayers in all states

the option of deducting either their state and local sales

and motor vehicle sales taxes or their state and local

individual income taxes on their Form 1040. While such an

option would not fully restore the original deduction, which

allowed deductions for sales as well as income taxes, it

would go a long way to restoring fundamental equity for

taxpayers in those states that no not impose income taxes on

their residents, and at minimal cost to the federal budget.

There is already legislation before Congress that closely

tracks the Comptroller's plan. Last year, Representative

Brian Baird (D-Washington) introduced H.R. 322, and Sen. Fred

Thompson (R-Tennessee) introduced a similar bill, S. 291, in

the Senate. Both bills would grant taxpayers in all states

the option of itemizing a deduction for either their sales

(including motor vehicle sales) taxes or income taxes paid,

but not for both. Both bills would limit the deduction to a

specific amount prescribed in a table (individualized for

each state) providing deductible amounts by family size and

income group. Taxpayers, however, would not have the option

of deducting actual taxes paid, as they had in 1986 and

before. The main difference between the bills is that H.R.

322 refers to state sales taxes, while S. 291 refers to state

and local sales taxes. The Senate version also would allow

the deduction against the Alternative Minimum Tax. H.R. 322

boasts among its 58 co-sponsors 18 Texans; S. 291 is co-

sponsored by both Texas senators.

Texans lost their sales tax deductions in the last-minute

deal-making behind the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Before passage

of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA86), all individuals were

allowed to take separate income tax deductions for their

payments of state and local sales taxes and motor vehicle

sales taxes. For the sales tax, they were allowed to deduct

either the actual amount paid, or they could use an optional

sales tax table that provided deductible amounts for each

state (based on its rate and base) by income group and family

size. For example, a family of four with an income of $33,000

was allowed to deduct $306 in state sales taxes in Texas, but

$508 in Tennessee; and in both instances, taxpayers were

allowed to include an additional amount for local taxes paid.

TRA86 was designed to simplify the federal income tax by

eliminating many deductions, exemptions and credits while

increasing personal exemptions and standard deductions and

lowering and compressing tax rates. The deduction of state

and local sales taxes was one of the last (and most

contentious) items considered by the Senate, but the final

efforts to restore at least some vestige of the deduction,

led in part by Sen. Phil Gramm, ultimately failed. The

argument put forth by members from the states that retained

their state and local income tax deduction was that the

losses attributable to the repeal of the sales tax

deduction would be more than made up for by the increased

personal exemption, and that the sales tax deduction only

benefited the rich, because lower-income groups are less

likely to itemize.

The Comptroller's plan could be put in place for less than

1 percent of the costs of existing state and local tax

deductions. The March 26, 2001 cost estimate provided by the

Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that H.R. 322 would

decrease federal receipts by $23.1 billion over the 10-year

period 2002-2011. The annual costs were expected to average

$2.0 billion for the first three years, rising incrementally

thereafter. Putting the federal cost in perspective, the 1999

cost for the current deduction for state and local income and

property taxes was $268.9 billion. As such, reinstatement

would produce an increased cost to the federal government of

0.8 percent.

The Comptroller's plan could be put in place with virtually

no increase in complexity. Although the sales tax deductions

were eliminated in part for reasons of tax simplification,

the proposed legislation before Congress would add only one

more line to Schedule A, for those taxpayers electing to

itemize on their Form 1040. Even if actual taxes paid were

allowed to be deducted there would be an addition of only two

lines: one for general sales taxes paid, and one for motor

vehicle sales taxes paid.

Equity and fairness demand that tax discrimination against

Texans be eliminated. Reinstatement of the deduction for

sales taxes would eliminate the fundamental disparity created

by TRA86, when citizens in states with a personal income tax

were permitted to deduct such taxes, but citizens in states

without an income tax had no corresponding deduction. The net

effect of this disparity is that Texans, as well as the

citizens of the eight other states without a general

individual income tax pay a greater percentage of taxes to

the federal government than do citizens living in their

neighboring states with income taxes. In other words, the

federal tax law currently treats the same individual

differently solely on the basis of residence. Providing

individuals in all states the choice to deduct one or the

other of their sales or income taxes would restore equity and

fairness for all U.S. citizens at minimal cost.

The Comptroller's plan would put more money in Texans'

pockets. As with everything else in the IRS Code, the devil

is in the details, and even subtle differences in proposed

legislation can have major revenue implications, making any

revenue estimates of the ultimate legislation difficult.

Assuming that the federal legislation fairly and accurately

portrayed Texans' sales tax and motor vehicle sales tax

payments, restoration of the sales tax deduction could be

expected to save Texans--in the aggregate--on the order of

$568.7 million (if only state sales taxes were exempted) to

$701.3 million (if state and local sales taxes were exempted)

in the 2002 Tax Year. The corresponding average savings per

itemizing Texas household would be $231 and $284.

While the deduction only would go to taxpayers who itemized

their deductions, more Texans at lower income levels would

find it to their benefit to itemize. Right now, only one in

five tax returns filed by Texans itemizes deductions,

compared to almost one in three nationwide. The chief reason

for this is that citizens of 41 states and the District of

Columbia enjoy a deduction that is not available to Texans.

Restoration of the deduction for sales taxes paid would go a

long way towards bringing Texas closer to the national

average. In other words, the availability of the deduction

would benefit not only those who currently itemize, but an

additional number of slightly lower-income households that

would find it to their benefit to itemize.

The Comptroller's plan would create more jobs, economic

growth, and state tax receipts with absolutely no state tax

or spending increase. Keeping as much as $701.3 million in

the hands of Texas taxpayers would provide a significant

boost to the state economy. Assuming that the legislation

passed this year and that the deduction could be taken on

income taxes filed in 2003 for the 2002 Tax Year, the tax

savings could be expected to generate 16,180 new Texas jobs,

$590 million in new Texas investment, and $874 million in

increased Texas Gross State Product in 2003. The increased

economic activity in turn could be expected to boost general

revenue by $66.5 million in the three-year period 2003-05.

Most of this revenue would come from increased sales and

motor vehicle sales tax collections.

The Comptroller's plan promises a win-win situation for all

Texans, even those who do not itemize. To the extent that

keeping more Texas income in Texas, where it belongs, instead

of sending it off to Washington, all Texans would benefit

from the increased employment opportunities and investment.

In fact, it is difficult to find a downside for Texas to the

reinstatement of the sales tax deduction.

The Comptroller's plan would be a straight-up win for the

state, a victory for tax equity among the states, and it

would provide a desirable, welcome boost to restoring

statewide economic and revenue growth.

salient features

Legislation tracking the Comptroller's plan would cost the

federal government somewhere between $2.0 to $2.5 billion per

year--less than 1 percent of the $268.9 billion 1999

deduction for state and local income and property taxes.

Texans would save as much as $701 million, or $284 per

itemizing household on their 2002 taxes.

The estimated tax savings would be expected to generate

16,180 new Texas jobs, $590 million in new Texas investment,

and $874 million in increased Gross State Product in 2003.

The increased economic activity could be expected to boost

2003-04 general revenue-related state tax receipts for the

three-year period 2003-05 by $66.5 million.

Assuming that the federal legislation fairly and accurately

portrayed Texans' sales tax and motor vehicle sales tax

payments, a family of four with an income of $60,000 would be

able to deduct an additional $1,015 to calculate taxable

income, and a single mother of one with a total income of

$35,000 could deduct an additional $641.

The current system discriminates against Texans and the

citizens of other states that have opted to finance their

budgets without personal income taxes. The Comptroller's plan

is necessary to restore fairness and equity in the treatment

of those state taxpayers who currently do not benefit from

the tax deductions enjoyed by the citizens of the other 41

states and the District of Columbia.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, my colleague from Texas talks about the legislation and, well, we will do that in all due time and all due course, in terms of the righting of the wrong that was committed 18 years ago. The sales tax deduction for my State and for six other States, it is not 17, it is 7, was eliminated by this Congress in 1986, 18 years ago.

Only a few bills come out of the Committee on Ways and Means, only a few favored bills, so we have to take the opportunity to present this very important piece of legislation on the floor today and to give the House an opportunity to vote to right this wrong on the question of the deductibility of State sales tax. There are no other opportunities to present this to the House. That is why we are presenting it today. I hope that the House will give us the opportunity to right that wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a good piece of legislation before us today that I intend to support. I think most Members of the House will support it. My only request is that, at the same time, we provide equity and justice to the residents of seven States who were denied that equity and justice in 1986.

Now, I know my colleague is a relatively junior Member and was not here in 1986 when that legislation was voted on, but I was here, and I voted against the legislation that denied the residents of my State the opportunity to deduct their sales tax, when residents of New York and California and other States could deduct their State income tax.

I feel very strongly about this issue, Mr. Speaker. As Members of this House, we can do so much to lend a helping hand to our constituents. Today we have a chance to do something good for millions of American families. We can pass the bill to make the extended 10 percent tax bracket permanent, and then we can also immediately consider the Brady legislation, H.R. 720, to restore the sales tax deduction for citizens of Texas, Florida and other States lacking a State income tax.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, last week I attempted to bring to the floor a similar bill to reinstate the sales tax deduction, but the Republican leadership indicated a preference for the Brady bill. So now we have a chance to consider the legislation that Republicans preferred. It does not matter to me which bill we consider. This is a bipartisan issue, with wide support on both sides of the aisle.

I just want to get it done.

So today, Mr. Speaker, to get it done, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote on H.R. 720.

Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. Voting ``no'' on the previous question will not prevent this House from voting on the underlying bill. It will simply allow for the consideration of H.R. 720. A ``yes'' vote, however, will deny the House the chance to even consider the issue of reinstating the sales tax deduction.

The American people deserve to know where their elected representatives stand on the issue of restoring the sales tax deduction. This is not a partisan issue, and this is not a political issue. This is about whether the citizens of Texas and other States should have to pay for the privilege of living there. I hope Members realize it today, and I hope their votes reflect this as well.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Congressional Record immediately before the vote.

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

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

Mr. 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.

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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 637 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 purposes of debate only.

The resolution before us is a modified closed rule, the standard rule used for considering tax bills. It provides for 1 hour of debate in the House to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

It also provides for consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we will be considering this week, H.R. 4275, the 10 percent tax bracket permanent extension bill, is very important to me, to my party, to the American taxpayers, and I believe this country. I support this legislation to fulfill a promise made by our great President, George W. Bush, and the Republican Party that was begun in 2001 when the 107th Congress overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1836, President Bush's visionary plan to provide American workers with comprehensive tax relief.

Among other things, the President's bold 2001 tax plan created a new 10 percent tax bracket, enabling millions of American families to keep more of their hard-earned money. In the period immediately preceding Congress' passing the President's tax proposal, between 1986 and 2000 the lowest tax rate available to these American workers was 15 percent.

The tax relief this new bracket provides to middle-class taxpayers has proven to be very beneficial to our economy and for hardworking families all across the United States. As a result, in 2003 Congress passed H.R. 2, another tax cut championed by President Bush that accelerated the phase-in of an expanded 10 percent tax bracket, increasing the amount of taxable family income that will be subject to this new lower rate. Under this bill the income eligible for this tax rate went up to $14,000 from $12,000, and up to $7,000 from $6,000 for singles.

Unfortunately, because this tax cut language was written as a compromise with the Senate. If Congress fails to pass my bill and permanently extend the 10 percent tax bracket, in 2005, 2006, and 2007 the bracket will shrink back to $12,000 and $6,000 for singles, increasing again briefly and then disappearing forever in 2011 to satisfy the arcane Senate budgetary rule.

If this were allowed to happen, it would mean that some 22 million low-income filers whose tax liability is contained wholly within the tax bracket of 10 percent would immediately be shouldered with a 50 percent income tax increase. I believe that this kind of tax increase on working-class Americans is simply unacceptable. My legislation offers a simple solution to prevent this major tax increase on middle- class families from occurring. It maintains and adjusts for inflation the size of the 10 percent bracket at $14,000 for married couples, $7,000 for singles, and makes this bracket a permanent part of the Tax Code.

If H.R. 4275 is not enacted, it would mean that 73 million tax returns, representing almost 150 million individual Americans, will be hit with a higher tax bill next year, and these taxpayers will face an average income tax increase of over $2,400 over the next decade. It would mean that those 22 million lower-income workers would be pushed into a higher tax bracket, including over 1.7 million hardworking Texans from my State who struggle every day to make ends meet. Congress should not and cannot allow this massive tax increase to occur, and my legislation would prevent this antigrowth scenario from happening.

No other provision of the 2001 Bush tax cut has benefited taxpayers more broadly than the creation of this 10 percent bracket. Studies have shown that the benefits for this provision overwhelmingly flow to lower-and middle-income married earners between the ages of 25 and 54. These are precisely the people that this legislation will help, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this important tax measure on behalf of all American taxpayers.

This week's vote on H.R. 4275 will provide the kind of broad-based middle-class tax relief to which the Republican Party is strongly committed and so am I.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote with me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for what the gentleman was arguing here about this sales tax bill. It is something where the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) has been joined with by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), as they have worked for a long, long time. I recall probably a full year ago where I was approached by both these gentleman about being a cosponsor of this important legislation.

The fact of the matter is today we are here to consider this 10 percent bill. Last week we considered other tax bills. Next week we will consider more tax bills. These are being done in such a way that would allow us a chance to talk about the importance of these, not only to taxpayers, but to the middle class of this country. It is my attempt and desire, just as it is with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), to continue working with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), on the correct bill, the bill that he will support, the bill that will come to the floor, that bill that will pass, the bill that will provide this opportunity for all the taxpayers of these States. I believe it is some 17 States that currently have this problem as it relates to sales tax as a result of those States not having an income tax.

Today we are here for H.R. 4275 because it does the right thing for middle-class wage earners on this 10 percent tax bracket, and I am proud of what we are doing. I think anytime we can join in talking about on the floor of the House a bipartisan approach to lowering taxes, increasing the opportunity for people to have more money, more take-home pay, more opportunity, it is always good.

I have been an advocate of this for a long time. I do not think we should tax savings or investment in this country. That is not a part of what this is about today. We are talking about lowering the tax bracket, making it permanent, doing the right thing. I applaud those people that come to the floor and support this, because it is a great idea that we ought to make permanent.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman not only for his articulation of the wonderful merits of fairness in our Tax Code, fairness for all the people in all the States. I accept the opportunity for my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) to reiterate there are 7 States that this impacts, and I appreciate his bringing that to light and respect that.

I would tell you that today, this is about the 10 percent bracket. This is a very specific request that we are making to the House of Representatives today that will be with the other requests that we are making on the parts of the Bush tax plan to make them permanent.

It makes me proud to know that we in the House of Representatives are together on these issues, about their importance of people who are back home, people who are struggling, people who are trying to make ends meet, people who are trying to make sure they provide for their families and do those things which are necessary to their own dreams. It makes me happy, and I am very proud.

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

We have graciously provided Members this wonderful opportunity to hear about the debate of H.R. 4275, providing each other, both parties, an opportunity for Members to hear about an agreement that we believe that this initiative that was begun by President Bush of this 10 percent tax bracket, one that has now become available, one which we need to make permanent, is the question that is before us today on the floor. We have vetted this process. We have done those right things. We have gone through the committees. We have done this with numerous tax bills, and we will wish to continue doing that also.

We have an abiding faith in the taxpayer, that special interest group of the Republican Party, the people who get up and go to work, people who make their lives work, people who care about their kids, people who create jobs and opportunity, people who do things because they love their country and they want America to be the strongest, with opportunity and bettering people's lives.

That is part of what this H.R. 4275 is about. It is about bettering people's lives. It is a political consideration that our President, George W. Bush, floated to us years ago. It is about us as Members of Congress hearing that call, seeing people back home who relish this opportunity not to have it taken away. That is the importance of this body. This body is able to debate the issues, is able to bring them forth, is able to talk about them. And that is what is so evident about this great Nation, a majority rule.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues, I too wish we had lots of other things that would be a part of this bill for tax relief. Today is a day when we will stand up and say we are going to make sure that this 10 percent bracket will be permanent for all taxpayers. I am proud of what we are doing. I ask each of my colleagues to support this rule, this underlying legislation, and the opportunity which I believe will be tomorrow to debate this fully on the

floor of the House of Representatives and, once again, give a victory to the taxpayers of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.