Reservists and Guardsmen Pay Protection Act of 2003

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 433

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that will help our Nation's reservists and members of the National Guard who have been called to active duty.

Since 1991, the U.S. military has significantly scaled down its troop levels to reflect the end of the Cold War. With the reduction of active duty troops, the military has become increasingly dependent on the Reserves and National Guard to supplement troops who have been sent to deal with crises all over the world.

In addition to this, we have had to rely on an increasingly diverse group of people to fight our wars. The conflict in Afghanistan was heavily reliant on new technologies in the air and personnel intensive techniques on the ground. In order to properly execute the war on terror, we have relied on highly skilled individuals such as linguists and Civil Affairs personnel who have worked closely with the population of Afghanistan. We will have to rely on them again in Iraq. Many of these men and women have been reservists.

These two trends reflect a dramatic shift in the structure of our armed forces. Gone are the Cold War days when we had a massive military positioned all over the globe. We are now reliant on a much leaner force, which views the Reserves and National Guard as necessary components to any conflict, and not forces of last resort.

Between 1945 and 1989, a period which encompassed most of the Cold War, reservists and Guardsmen were called up four times: during the Korean War, the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Vietnam War. A majority of those mobilized during this period were called up during the Korean War, when over 800,000 troops were activated to supplement the 900,000 active duty forces fighting in Korea.

Between 1990 and today, reservists and Guardsmen have been called up six separate times. Over 230,000 reservists and Guardsmen were mobilized for the Gulf War, forming nearly half of the force that drove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Since then, reservists and Guardsmen have been activated for the Haiti Intervention, the ongoing Bosnian Peacekeeping mission, the ongoing patrol of the No Fly Zones in Iraq, the Kosovo conflict, and the War on Terrorism which has seen 151,348 reservists and Guardsmen activated in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle. Many of them are in the Persian Gulf Region today.

Over the past ten years, the OPTEMPO of the Reserves has increased by fifty percent.

This OPTEMPO has had a significant strain on reservists and their families. In almost every instance, when a reservist or Guardsman is activated, their military salary is significantly smaller then their civilian salary. In many cases, service member's income is cut in half. This places a particular strain to reservists and Guardsmen as their household budget is structured by their civilian salary. The decrease in income that activation brings makes it increasingly difficult to pay the bills. Whether or not the Nation is at war, mortgages, rent, credit card debt, student loans, and other household expenses must be paid.

When we send our fighting men and women into harm's way, it is important that they concentrate on one

thing: their mission. When Guardsmen and reservists are worried about having enough money for rent of the mortgage or whether their children have enough to see a doctor, they cannot concentrate on the mission, and this becomes a readiness issue.

Many corporations volunteer to make up the difference between the military and civilian salaries of their Guardsmen and reservists. Not only do these employers sacrifice important members of their companies for national defense, they hold their jobs for them and they voluntarily choose to continue paying them. In some instances, employers have continued to provide health insurance and other benefits. This represents a significant burden that the employer has undertaken, in order to ensure that their employees and their families are taken care of during times of national emergency.

In order to alleviate the burden that these employers face and to encourage more employers to pay the difference to Reserve and Guard employees, I have drafted legislation that would provide an incentive for employers to make up the difference between the military and civilian pay of activated reservists. The Reservists and Guardsmen Pay Protection Act of 2003 provides a tax credit to employers who continue paying their service members after they are activated. It also requires the Federal Government to make up the difference between civilian and military pay for Federal employees who are activated.

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

Mr. President, many bills were introduced in the last Congress that would lower the age at

which Reservists can receive retirement benefits. Most of these bills were met with resistance from the Department of Defense, due to cost estimates over a 10-year period. It is my hope that his Bill, the Reserve Retirement and Retention Act of 2003, will serve as a compromise measure and deliver retirement benefits to Reservists and Guardsmen at an earlier age. This legislation would lower the retirement age of a Reservist by one year for every 2-year period that he or she serves past the requisite 20 years for retirement. For example, if a Reservist should serve for 22 years, he or she could receive retirement benefits at age 59. This legislation will serve as a critical tool in encouraging the most experienced Reservists and Guardsmen to stay past the 20-year mark. It is my hope that this measure will encourage our Reservists and Guardsmen to stay in their units longer, while making their retirement benefits more generous for them and their families.

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

Mr. President, When the President give the order to activate reservists and National Guardsmen, the lives of those men and women are put on hold. Businesses, careers, and families are left behind so that America's interests may be served. Students make up a substantial part of our National Guard and Reserve forces. When these students are activated, it jeopardizes their academic standing, as well as their scholarships and grants. This bill would preserve their academic standing for the duration of their service as well as a one year period that follows that service. It would also preserve their scholarships and grants, as well as entitle them to a refund of unused tuition and fees. Federal law already safeguards the employment status of activated reservists and Guardsmen. It is time that we extend the same guarantee to students.

This legislation would require colleges, universities, and community colleges to grant National Guardsmen and reservists a leave of military absence when they are called to active duty. This leave of absence would last while the student is serving on active duty and a one year period at the conclusion of active service. This bill would preserve the academic credits that the student had earned before being activated. It would also preserve the scholarships and grants awarded to the student before being activated. Under this legislation, students would be entitled to receive a refund of tuition and fees or credit the tuition and fees to the next period of enrollment after the student returns from military leave. If a student elects to receive a refund, it would allow them to receive a full refund, minus the percentage of time the student spent enrolled in classes.

The protections that are already afforded our reservists and Guardsmen are appropriate considering the hardships they endure on the nation's behalf. We need to acknowledge the many college students who are in the ranks of the Guard and Reserve and extend to them the protections they deserve. In this day of uncertainty on the world stage, our reservists must be prepared to be called up at a moments notice. Thousands have already been activated for Operations Enduring Freedom, and many thousands more are either in Kuwait or on their way there. Once they get to their duty station, they need to focus all of their attention on the mission. This legislation provides our student reservists with the proper safeguards on their academic career which will allow them to accomplish their mission.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my good friends, Senators Grassley and Specter, to introduce the Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act of 2003. This bill does not change or diminish any power available to the government in the pursuit of homeland security, but it does create important mechanisms to allow the Congress and the public to assess how effectively and appropriately the government is using its domestic surveillance powers.

I also rise to speak about an important bipartisan report being released today by myself, Senator Specter, and Senator Grassley entitled ``FBI Oversight in the 107th Congress by the Senate Judiciary Committee: FISA Implementation Failures,'' ``FIF Report''. The report summarizes our joint conclusions based upon our bipartisan oversight of the FBI and DOJ's performance in using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, ``FISA'', an important tool in conducting domestic surveillance. The report distills our mutual findings and conclusions from numerous bipartisan hearings, classified briefings and other oversight activities. It concludes that the FBI continues to be in need of serious reform. The report also sets forth our bipartisan disappointment with the DOJ and FBI's non-responsiveness to our oversight efforts and the resulting necessity for better oversight tools, such as the bill we introduce today.

Our committee worked with the FBI and the Justice Department to achieve initial reforms both through administrative steps and also through legislation. Most notably, last fall we enacted a new Department of Justice charter that included some provisions of the FBI Reform Act. We need to enact the rest of that bipartisan bill.

Taken together, this bill and report represent a bipartisan statement about the importance of oversight and, where possible, sunshine on the government's domestic surveillance efforts. Only by fulfilling our constitutional responsibility to conduct such oversight, can we in Congress help to protect both the security and the liberty of the American people.

In times of national stress there is an understandable impulse for the government to ask for more power. Sometimes more power is needed, but many times it is not. After the September 11 attacks, we worked together in a bipartisan fashion and with unprecedented speed to craft and enact the USA PATRIOT Act which enhanced the government's powers.

Now, as word continues to circulate about a possible sequel to the USA PATRIOT Act that the Department of Justice is considering in secret and that supposedly would give government even more power, it is constructive for us to first examine and understand how Federal agencies are using the power they already have. We must answer two questions.

First, is that power being used effectively, so that our citizens not only feel safer, but are in fact safer?

Second, is that power being used appropriately, so that our liberties are not sacrificed?

In short, before we can craft and enact new laws, we must first make sure that the Department of Justice and FBI are properly using the laws that are already on the books. That is the purpose of enhanced Congressional oversight.

Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act:

Today, with the Senior Senator from Iowa and the Senior Senator from

Pennsylvania, I am introducing the bipartisan Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act of 2003. This bill provides basic information to Congress and the American people about the FBI's use of FISA to conduct surveillance on Americans. Such domestic surveillance is certainly appropriate in some cases, and the bill does not intrude in any way upon law enforcement or diminish its ability to conduct FISA surveillance when necessary and appropriate. Nor does it require the Department of Justice to publicly release any sensitive or classified information. Rather, it seeks reporting only on the aggregate number of FISA wiretaps and other surveillance measures directed specifically against Americans each year. In this way, the public and Congress can assess over time whether the government has turned more of its powerful surveillance techniques on its own citizens, as opposed to non-U.S. persons. If necessary, we can ask it to explain its actions.

The amendment also clarifies that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC, and FISA Court of Review have the authority to adopt rules and procedures, and it requires that those rules be shared with the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives as well as the Supreme Court. In the last year, and only after requests from Senators Grassley, Specter and myself, the FISC shared its rules with Congress for the first time. One of those rules and one which was eventually rejected by the FISA Review Court embodied a controversial legal interpretation of a provision we crafted in the USA PATRIOT Act. The Congress ought to have been immediately informed of that court rule either by the FISC or the DOJ, but it was not. It is entirely appropriate that a court be enabled to promulgate its own rules. It is entirely inappropriate that those rules be kept secret from Congress.

Consistent with national security, the bill directs the Attorney General to include in an annual public report the portions of applications to and opinions of the FISC and FISA Court of Review that contain significant legal interpretations of FISA or the Constitution. These disclosures will not include the facts of any particular case, which this provision requires to be redacted in order to preserve national security. This type of disclosure, however, will prevent secret case law from developing which interprets both FISA and the Constitution in ways unknown to the Congress and the public.

The first annual report required under this provision is also to include the same type of legal information for the four years before the year of the first report.

Finally, the bill would require a report to appropriate committees of Congress on the use of National Security Letters to request information from public libraries or libraries affiliated with high schools or universities. Such letters are functionally equivalent to an administrative subpoena and require no court approval. We have heard from members of the library community that the FBI may be returning to a discredited practice from the Hoover days of monitoring public and college libraries to ascertain what books people are reading. In fact, a media report from Vermont, which I ask consent to place in the Record, indicates that bookstore owners there are scared to keep records for just this reason. Again, this provision would not in any way limit the use of National Security Letters, but would merely require an annual report of such activities to Congress, so that we can ascertain whether or not these administrative subpoenas are being used for improper purposes. This section would also ensure that reports on the use of such letters are provided to all appropriate oversight committees.

This enhanced reporting is exactly what was called for by the American Bar Association in a resolution adopted on February 10, and echoed in a Washington Post editorial on February 12, 2003. As the Post editorialized, the Department of Justice ``needs to disclose how it is using the [powers] it already has. Yet the Justice Department has balked at reasonable oversight and public information requests . . . Congress should insist on a full understanding of what the [D]epartment is doing.'' I ask unanimous consent to print a copy both of the ABA resolution as well as the Washington Post editorial in the Record.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, as we look at the situation in America and in the world today, we face serious challenges. Obviously, the war on terrorism is one of the most serious challenges we have had in many decades, one that is different because there are no specific battles that are won or lost. There may not be a moment when we say it is over. Because we are dealing with a moving, shadowy element that uses the most dastardly types of attacks on individuals, innocent men, women, and children.

We have seen the situation in Florida, where the people there have been hit repeatedly by hurricanes and disasters. I guess you could say in many respects these are times that try men and women's souls.

We are under attack in a lot of ways. But, also, these are the times that require a certain trumpet. We cannot have uncertainty in terms of leadership. We cannot have an uncertain trumpet. We have to have direction, strong leadership, and courage to take a stand and follow it through. That is why I am very much worried about what I see in Senator Kerry and the positions he has taken, first on one side and then the other.

I was greatly distressed last week when we had the Prime Minister of Iraq here. He is a man who is showing strength, leadership, and great courage because his life is on the line every day with repeated assassination attempts directed at him. He came here. He said: Thank you, America. He said: We are going to have elections. We are going to have peace and freedom and democracy. We chose justice and the rule of law rather than chaos and anarchy. He did a magnificent job. I was inspired by what he is doing and by his speech.

Yet Senator Kerry attacked his speech before he even left town. Where are the basic courtesies that we have in the past extended to leaders of other countries?

President Bush, on the other hand, has shown strength, leadership, and courage. He is dealing with the issues of security. People see in him and hear in his voice a determination, a commitment, that will get us through this. But Senator Kerry has been flip-flopping back and forth on Iraq for not just the campaign but actually for years, going back to 2002 where he took one position and where now, in 2003 and 2004, he has taken a different position.

On September 20, 2004, he said that our most important task is to win the war on terrorism. On March 6, 2004, he balked at calling the war on terror an actual ``war.''

On September 20 he said Iraq was a ``diversion from'' the war on terror. Yet back in December of 2003 he said that Iraq is ``critical'' to the success of the war on terror.

In September of 2004 he said the evil of Saddam was enough to justify the war. Yet before that he agreed with the administration's goal of regime change. He also said that Saddam's ``breach of international values'' was a sufficient cause of war.

In 2004 he said Saddam's ``downfall . . . has left America less secure.'' Yet in December of 2003 he questioned the judgment of those claiming Saddam's capture doesn't help American security.

The list goes on and on. I ask unanimous consent this list be printed in the Record.

But it goes beyond just the war on Iraq. What worries me is there is a pattern here, across the board, not only in that area that threatens our very security and our lives, the war on terrorism, but in area after area, issue after issue.

For instance, in 1991 Senator Kerry supported most-favored trade status for China and now he criticizes the Bush administration for trading with China.

Which is it? You cannot be for it and against it when you talk about international trade. Trade is good. America can compete. We do need to enlarge the pie. We need to make sure we have fair trade. But you cannot vote one way on trade and then be critical of it on the other side.

In October 2003, Senator Kerry called the fence that is being built in Israel for security purposes a ``barrier to peace.'' He was critical of it. Yet in February of 2004, he calls the fence a ``legitimate act of self-defense.'' You can't get into a very dangerous and sensitive situation like this and say one thing and then the other. What is it? Which is it? An uncertain trumpet takes lives.

Even in the case of eliminating the marriage penalty for the middle class, Senator Kerry said he will fight to keep the tax relief for married couples. He said Democrats fought to end the marriage penalty tax. Yet in 1998, he voted against eliminating the marriage penalty relief for married taxpayers with a combined income of less than $50,000 a year. Last week when we actually extended the elimination of that marriage penalty tax, of course, he didn't vote.

He even flip-flopped on the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act is a favorite punching bag now.

I was here when the death debate occurred. I remember the broad unanimous support involved in passing that legislation. We needed to do some things to give our law enforcement people the ability to deal with these terrorists. If you look at what has transpired since then, this great fear of having your library card checked or a ``knock in the night'' is not occurring. So he voted for it, and now he attacks the PATRIOT Act. He said:

We are a nation of laws, and liberties, not of a knock in

the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft.

I think that is an unfair shot at our former colleague, the Attorney General of the United States. Again, Senator Kerry was for the Patriot Act and now he is against it.

On the gay marriage amendment, in 2002, Senator Kerry signed a letter urging the Massachusetts legislature to reject a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Yet now in 2004 he won't rule out supporting a similar amendment. Which is it? Is it one thing in Massachusetts and another here in Washington?

Also, I think when you get into other issues like the death penalty for terrorists, these are relevant issues we can't take the wrong position on. Yet, in 1996, he attacked Governor Weld of Massachusetts for supporting the death penalty for terrorists. But now he said he might support the death penalty for terrorists.

On the No Child Left Behind Act, he voted for it, and now he attacks it as a ``mockery.'' He trashed it as an ``unfunded mandate'' with ``laudable goals.''

Let me tell you that I am a son of a schoolteacher. I was in public education all my life. I didn't go to some elite school. I went to public education. I stay in touch with teachers and administrators. And they tell me it is making a difference. We have goals and challenges. Teachers are doing better, students are doing better, and the money has been going up every year.

On issue after issue, he has flip-flopped.

I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of this lengthy list be printed in the Record.