National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REFORM ACT OF 2004-CONTINUED

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 10 minutes as if in morning business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

THE GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know the issue the Senator from California raised is very important and will be considered as we go forward in our debates, as our session wraps up. The Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Maine have done an outstanding job in managing the underlying bill and helping us come to grips with some of the new fundamental changes necessary to reorganize our intelligence communities to face the challenges confronting our Nation. I do not want to take too much time away from that very important debate. But I did feel compelled to come to the floor and raise an issue regarding our military families, especially the families of our National Guardsmen and Reservists. They, too, are so critical to meeting and defeating enemies on the home-front and in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Because we call on thousands of Active men and women in our armed forces, as well as reservists in our Guard and Reserve, to be in the forefront of the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, I thought it was important to come to the floor to share some information that will disappoint people in Louisiana and across the United States.

Right now, somewhere in this Capitol, there is a conference meeting trying to finalize a tax relief package that we refer to around here as FSC/ETI. It is a necessary change in our Tax Code because of some trade decisions that were made relative to the way Europe and America conduct trade and impose taxes and fees on imports and exports. For several months, members of the Senate Finance Committee and Members of the House Ways and Means Committee have been working to reach a final agreement. Different amendments have been added and subtracted as a means to bring the bill closer to final passage.

One of the amendments that I thought was one of the most important amendments in that bill-one that my colleagues in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, agreed to unanimously called for tax credits to be made available to employers who continued to pay the salaries of their employees if those employees had been activated for duty in the National Guard and Reserves. The Senate agreed that if we were going to give tax relief and a trade fix for corporations and for businesses, then we should also find space in that bill to provide tax relief in some way to the patriotic employers who are trying to help their employees in the Guard and Reserve make ends meet. We should do that so the men and women who put the uniform on every morning and run those patrols ferreting out insurgents and terrorists in Iraq would not have to take a pay cut to do their job to defend America. We want those troops focused on the war-front, not whether bills have been paid on the home-front.

Americans might be shocked, because I am shocked, and I am disappointed, that our Government has not yet found a way to make sure that when we call up the men and women basically out of their regular life-as doctors or lawyers or truck drivers or nurses or teachers or government workers or firefighters or police officers-and ask them to leave their families, leave their jobs, leave their businesses and go fight on the front line for us, that we have not found a way to make sure they can do that without taking a pay cut. The GAO has documented that 41 percent of the Guardsmen and Reservists fighting for us-being called away from their homes, away from their families, and putting their lives in peril and great danger-are doing so with a pay cut. We need to provide them a helmet and a gun and a flak jacket and some protection. But I think we also should make every effort to ensure their families back-home have some stability. We should take steps so that the troop in Falujah knows his employer can take care of his family.

If this Congress and the President were not already enacting trillions in tax cuts and we were adhering to a plan of fiscal responsibility, I might be able to look these families in the eye and say, "Sorry we have a budget deficit. We are doing the best we can."

But do you know what the shame of it is? There is a conference meeting somewhere in this Capitol giving out tax relief to people who already have a lot of money, to corporations some of which may be on the front line but many of which are not, and we have the Republican leadership on the House that says we cannot afford a tax credit to benefit patriotic employers, our Guardsmen and Reservists, and their families. We are asking our men and women in unifrom to bear 100 percent of the risk and burden of fighting the war on terror. Yet in all the tax relief in the Republican-drafted plan, the Republican-leadership plan drafted by Chairman Thomas, we can't find one penny to make sure the military families get a full paycheck. The cost of my amendment amounts to less than .1 percent of all the Bush/Republican tax cuts enacted since 2001. My amendment is even offset, but the Republican leadership simply refuses to help military families.

Since 2001, the Republican leadership has passed over $2.1 trillion in tax cuts and tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. I supported some of these tax cuts but the major beneficiaries have been wealthy individuals who had already accumulated great assets, and corporations. Direct support for military families has been less than .1 percent, or $1.37 billion, of the $2.1 trillion in tax cuts.

If you remember, in 2001, we had one bill for tax cuts which we called the Military Family Relief Act. It amounted to $1.37 billion out of $2.1 trillion. So the bulk of the tax relief is going to people who are not on the front line. Only limited help is going to the people on the front line.

You can see the graph here, $2.1 trillion to everybody else who is not in uniform and $1.37 billion to the military families who are fighting the battle. I don't understand how we are fighting this war. Maybe somebody can explain it to me.

At least people say: Senator, you must not understand that much of these tax cuts get to the military families; it is just not directly. If they have children, they might get the child tax credit. I understand that. But 75 percent of the enlisted men and women in our armed services make less than $30,000 a year. A staff sergeant with 8 years of experience makes $30,000 a year. So if you don't write them directly into the bills-because the bills are skewed to those individuals and families making over $75,000, mostly $100,000, $200,000, $300,000-the military families don't get to take advantage of tax cuts.

Time and time again, every time a tax bill passes this Congress, the military family is left on the cutting room floor. In 2001, we passed the Economic Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, $1.6 trillion-direct support for military families was $0.

In 2002, we passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, $41 billion-military families, $0.

In 2003, we passed the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Act, $230 billion-direct support for military, $0.

This year we passed the Working Families Tax Relief Act, $146 billion-direct support for military families, $0. This $146 billion had no offsets.

Now we have a conference in this Capitol putting together an $81 billion tax bill. And the amendment, the one little amendment we put on to encourage employers to keep the salaries up for the Guard and Reserve when they are fighting in Iraq, was taken out because we can't afford it. When it left the Senate, we had paid for it. There are plenty of ways the House Republicans could pay for it, today, but helping military families is not in their interests. We could close a loophole that allows companies to leave the United States for the purpose of reorganizing themselves so they do not have to pay taxes. We could close that loophole and gave it to the men and women putting on the uniform to defend our country. These soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines aren't fleeing the country to avoid paying taxes, yet we don't get tough on the corporations that are leaving the country to avoid taxes. They take every benefit of what this nation has to offer, including the blood and sweat of our troops, and pay nothing in return. But, some in Congress want to put these corporations in front of our men and women in uniform.

Let me also say I am ashamed for our Government that we have not yet closed our own loophole when a Federal Government worker takes off the Government suit or dress or uniform and puts on the military uniform and goes to fight on the front lines of Iraq. The US Government, as an employer, does not fill the pay gap for Federal employees.

Mr. President, 41 percent of the guardsmen and reservists who are fighting in Iraq take a pay cut to fight and we keep passing appropriations bills and tax cuts to give everyone in the world a tax break, except our military families. And, our poor military families ask for help and we have the Republican leadership in the House telling them: Sorry, there is no more money.

I just got back from Fort Polk a couple of weeks ago, where I have 4,000 maybe 5,000 families in Louisiana whose primary breadwinner has stopped winning bread at home and gone over to Iraq to help fight this war. I promised them that I was not going to just come on home without a fight or without raising this issue for the 5,000 families in my State and for the thousands of families around this country who do not ask for much. They ask for good training. They ask for equipment.
And they are asking that they don't take a pay cut when they go to fight. They are not asking for a pay raise; they just don't want a pay cut. They'll get that pay cut if we let this last tax bill go out of here without fixing this provision or without giving some tax credit to companies, many of them small businesses, who continue to pay their activated Guard and Reserve employees.

You can understand why a small business sometimes can't afford to continue to pay the guardsmen and reservists 100 percent of their salary and then have to pay 100 percent of the salary for a replacement.

We are asking for a tax credit for these employers so they can voluntarily, if they want, continue to pay the salary of their Guard and Reserve, take a tax credit so we would basically share that expense among everyone and allow that guardsman and reservist to get a full paycheck.

I repeat for the record, the GAO reports that 41 percent of the guardsmen and reservists called to active duty take a pay cut. We could fix that, but for some reason we do not want to, we do not think we should, or we do not have the money. Yet at the same time we are fixing a lot of things for a lot of people and passing one appropriations bill and one tax bill after another.

Forty percent of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are Guard and Reserve; 410,000 families or individuals have been activated since September 11. We probably have a few more thousand to activate until we get it right in Iraq.

We can pay for this, as I said, by closing loopholes, but the Republican leadership said, "No." We cannot not pay for it. They have passed tax bills out of here and chalked it up to more debt. This would not be that much to add for people assuming 100 percent of the risk to defend this Nation, but they do not choose to do that, either. Right now, as I speak, 3 o'clock today, it is not in the bill.

I hope these words are traveling through this Capitol. I hope there are people listening and phones start ringing to include the military families in this FSC/ETI bill that is moving through conference so this tax relief can be given and the pay gap can be closed. If you are on the front line, taking 100 percent of the risk, the last thing you need to take is a pay cut.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.