Download the podcast
here: Senator Dodd habla sobre la abrogación permanente del impuesto de estado.

May 11, 2006
“I support tax cuts for all Americans. But this bill would irresponsibly and recklessly dig us $70 billion farther into debt while shelling out the lion’s share of benefits to those who need it least. Our nation has great promise but unless we get our fiscal house in order and live within our means we are living on borrowed time and that is wrong. There are many pressing investments that need to be made -- in our security, our schools, and our people.

Watch Video

Mr. President, I noticed earlier that our friend and colleague, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, referred to today's proceedings as akin to the movie “Groundhog Day.” He stated that this is the third time the Senate has debated this bill in one form or another. I appreciated his discussion. I certainly can understand his frustration. He has worked hard on this legislation and would like to see it move on to conference. In fact, I think his reference to that movie is an apt one. The movie “Groundhog Day” reminds us that sometimes in life we get another chance to get it right. That’s why we’re here today – to hopefully get it right when it comes to paying for urgent priorities like the health and safety of our troops and veterans.

Mr. President, our nation should have few higher priorities than taking care of our military veterans who have served in harm’s way to defend our freedom.

When this bill last came to the floor two weeks ago, I offered an amendment that would have provided crucial health funds—in a fiscally responsible manner—to our wounded troops returning home. Tax legislation passed in 2003 currently calls for spending $43 billion over the next five years on capital gains and dividends tax breaks for individuals making more than $1 million a year. Instead of spending this money on the wealthiest 0.2 percent of the population, my amendment would have used these resources to meet our veterans’ health needs—estimated by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz to be $18.9 billion over the next five years—establish a $1 billion trust fund for health facilities treating wounded and disabled veterans returning home, and reduce the deficit by approximately $23 billion.

Regrettably, this body did not approve my amendment. We did, however, unanimously approve a substitute offered by my colleague from Iowa that still provides these needed funds—just without paying for them, as I and many other of our colleagues would have preferred.

The motion I offer today offers my colleagues a chance to say, “Yes, we support the Grassley amendment—and we believe the health needs of our troops and veterans must be met in a responsible manner.”

The House of Representatives has proposed not only keeping in place the scheduled dividends and capital gains tax breaks enacted in 2003, but adding two more years of them. My motion makes no statement about these tax breaks for 99.8 percent of Americans. It deals with just a small—but costly—subset of the capital gains and dividends tax breaks the House bill has proposed extending.

My motion would put this body on record as saying the funds for veterans that we passed should not be sacrificed to pay for additional capital gains and dividends tax breaks for individuals making more than $1 million.

Under the tax breaks of 2001 and 2003 alone, individuals in this narrow segment of the population have received more than $125 billion in benefits so far. Meanwhile, our soldiers and veterans are being told to go without essential items—like body armor and the health care that they need and deserve.

The motion does not ask for any of that $125 billion back, Mr. President. It simply acknowledges the reality that in a time of record budget deficits, we need to make some choices. Do we provide more tax breaks to a small group that has already received so much since this Administration took office, as the House of Representatives proposes to do? Or do we meet the needs of a nation at war in properly taking care of our wounded and disabled veterans, as the funding approved by this body would do?

Over 2,200 men and women in uniform have been killed in Iraq and over 16,000 have been severely wounded. But instead of addressing their needs fully and adequately, this Administration has under-funded veterans’ medical care. In fact, last year, the Administration devised an FY 2006 VA budget that could only handle 23,000 veterans returning from Iraq. This number was drastically too low, and the VA had to scramble to meet the needs of over 103,000 Iraq veterans on top of its already existing patient-load.

Congress was forced to intervene in the middle of the year, and in June approved an emergency spending bill that provided an additional $1.3 billion to address shortfalls in the VA health budget. Now, I must stress that I have the greatest respect and admiration for former VA Secretary Anthony Principi and the current occupant of that post, James Nicholson. They have led their Department with great distinction and continue to do the best they can. But they have had a difficult task, since the current occupants of the White House have repeatedly provided them with very, very limited resources.

We cannot and should not address veterans’ needs on the cheap again. According to some experts, this year, the VA health system is likely to face another shortfall of $2.6 billion due to the Administration’s drastically low veterans’ budget. And for all of the President’s rhetoric about supporting our troops, I remain concerned that his Administration’s actions are not matching its deeds.

On the whole, I commend the President for finally proposing an increase of $1.9 billion in the VA budget for fiscal year 2007. But as in previous years, the Administration’s priorities are wholly misplaced. In spite of the proposed increase, the President’s 2007 request cuts the VA hospital construction budget by $576 million. To make matters worse, the Administration’s proposed budget would impose a doubling of veterans’ prescription drug co-pays and assess a new $250 enrollment fee for thousands of veterans.

As I have mentioned on this floor before, the situation has gotten so dire that now our military personnel and veterans are having to rely on the charity of private citizens to build critical health facilities to meet their needs. According to the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, our military personnel are suffering inordinate numbers of injuries resulting in brain damage, spinal injuries, and amputations. About 20 percent of those injured have suffered major head or spinal injuries and an additional 6 percent are amputees. And without financial support, our veterans are actually having to depend on the charity of private citizens to finance the construction of major rehabilitation centers for the most seriously wounded.

The Bush Administration is simply not meeting its obligations to those wounded in Iraq -- a war that has returned home amputees at twice the rate of Vietnam. And so, instead, the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund is raising $37 million to build the Intrepid Center at Fort Sam Houston next year. It will be manned and operated by VA and Army personnel, but is currently not expected to receive a dime from the U.S. Treasury for its construction, because the White House would rather dole out scarce resources to the wealthiest Americans who have already received so much.

I remind my colleagues that the funding approved by this body—which, without the support of this motion, I fear will be wiped out in conference—will allow critical facilities like this one to receive the investments they deserve from our nation’s government.

Moreover, it will create a trust fund to allow private and state facilities that provide medical treatment to veterans to receive federal funds as they meet our veterans’ critical health care needs— in addition to facilities such as the Intrepid Center, it will allow vital hospitals and veterans residences such as the Connecticut State Veterans home at Rocky Hill the opportunity to tap into vital federal resources as they strain to meet the increasing demands of caring for our veterans—young as well as old.

Mr. President, I cannot stress the importance of these programs enough— our veterans need the critical care provided at our state veterans’ nursing homes, and regrettably, this Administration is choosing to put scarce resources into more high-income tax breaks rather than address our veterans’ essential living needs.

As a matter of fact, last year, the President actually proposed cutting off states’ access to federal funds to build and maintain state veterans’ homes. It took an act of this Congress to reverse the President’s budget proposal.

And this year, although the Department has a list of 129 state veterans projects approved for receiving federal grants for new construction and improvements, 2006 allocations only provided enough for 13 of these 129 state projects throughout the country. The proposed 2007 budget would “flatline” this program at $85 million, providing funding for another 10-13 projects, and still leaving over a hundred state veterans’ facilities looking for additional resources.

The funding approved by this body— and supported by my motion— would address these shortfalls, allowing state homes to tap into a trust fund to provide more funding for construction that has already been approved by the VA.

In light of these facts, I urge my colleagues to consider the consequences of not acting today. This vote is about priorities. Do we meet the health needs of our veterans and our troops? Or do we continue to provide more tax breaks for those who neither need nor seek such largesse?

Supporting the Senate position on this issue is the least we can do to show our full backing of America’s men and women in uniform. We owe these heroes at least that much. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion to instruct conferees. Stand up for America’s heroes as they continue to defend our freedoms at home and abroad.

Measure Would Prevent the IRS from Taxing Compensation for Service

WASHINGTON – Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) today introduced bipartisan legislation to prevent the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from taxing the compensation awarded to local volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders for service to their communities. Congressman John Larson (D-CT) introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives.