|
We support immediate enactment of the Armed Services Tax Fairness Act of 2003. H.R. 878 would provide important tax relief to the men and women serving in our military and show our support for their personal sacrifices in defense of our Nation.
This legislation should have been approved by the Congress and sent to the President for signature last year. However, it was not completed then because of the Republicans' refusal to support the Senate's provision to address individual expatriates leaving the country to avoid taxes.
As the Committee on Ways and Means considered the legislation this year, unfortunately, we found that it had been designated as the "2003 tax Christmas tree" where Members could add-on whatever unrelated tax provisions they wanted. This is just plain irresponsible and an insult to our Armed Forces.
H.R. 878, as introduced and presented to the Committee for approval, was a noncontroversial, bipartisan bill. Its sole purpose and goal was to provide tax relief to men and women in the uniformed services serving abroad. We do not agree with the Committee Chairman's decision to throw out the bipartisan spirit and support for the bill--just to give his Republican Members a chance in 2003 to put forward any tax amendment, even if totally unrelated to military tax relief. This decision puts real tax relief for the men and women of our Armed Services at great risk. These games are being played at the very time our Armed Forces may be asked to sacrifice their lives in order to defend our Nation.
A much better approach to consideration of this bill would have been to pass H.R. 878 without amendment or to pass the bill as approved by the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year. The Democrats' substitute amendment would have accomplished this goal. Had our amendment been adopted, significant tax relief for our military could have moved quickly through the Senate and to the President for signature.
We were not alone in our concern that the Armed Services Tax Fairness Act should not be used as a special interest "gameboard." Even the Republican House Budget Committee Chairman joined us in calling repeatedly for the Committee to refrain from offering totally extraneous amendments that could delay tax relief to the men and women serving our Country. Together we argued that it was critically important that we do not jeopardize tax relief for members of the Armed Services who potentially could be fighting in Iraq within a month.
Our calls for restraint were ignored. More than $300 million in unrelated, special interest tax breaks were added to the bill by the Republicans. Among those offered and approved were (1) a tax break for foreigners who place bets outside the United States on U.S. horse races, (2) a special tax rate on fuel that is a blend of diesel fuel and water benefitting the few companies that manufacture such fuels, (3) a tax break to benefit manufacturers of fishing tackle boxes, (4) a tax break to benefit landowners who sell timber from their land, (5) an extension of the time allowed for ranchers to utilize a tax break for the weather-related sale of livestock, and (6) a tax break for several varieties of archery bows. While some may believe in the merits of one or more of these amendments, the Armed Services Tax Fairness Act is not the proper place or time for their consideration.
One particularly offensive amendment, which was described when offered as a "technical correction" to the health tax credit provisions included in the Trade Act of 2002, is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to gut the few consumer protections that were included in that legislation. The practical effect of this amendment is to negate a carefully constructed compromise reached during the conference negotiation on the Trade Act which specified the coverage options available for individuals who are eligible for the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) health tax credit and required insurance companies and other sponsors of coverage under specified state pooling arrangements to (1) issue a policy without exclusions for pre-existing conditions, (2) limit the premium to what would be charged to other similarly situated individuals, and (3) to offer benefits to TAA-eligibles that are substantially similar to those offered to other individuals. These protections, which would substantially limit the ability of insurance companies to turn down applicants or otherwise seek to cover only the healthiest individuals, are critical if persons with any type of current or potential health condition are to be able to actually use the tax credit toward the purchase of meaningful coverage. Under the guise of consumer choice, this amendment overrides these important federal protections. All Republican members of the Committee voted for these safeguards just seven months ago.
Further, the bill, as passed the Committee, includes $662 million less tax relief than the similar Senate Finance Committee-passed bill for National Guard and Reserve members who have to travel more than 100 miles from home. The Committee's bill caps the deduction for overnight travel expenses at $500. The Senate Finance Committee's bill covers all such expenses.
We strongly believe that tax relief for the military needs to move forward, but do not believe it was appropriate to use this vehicle, H.R. 878, to enact provisions unrelated to Americans serving overseas. The Committee should have approved legislation identical to that reported by the Senate Finance Committee. If we had done that, the bill could have been on the President's desk in a short period of time and tax relief for our Armed Services a reality.
CHARLES B. RANGEL
PETE STARK
JERRY KLECZKA
JOHN LEWIS
XAVIER BECERRAM
SANDER LEVIN
JIM MCDERMOTT
RICHARD E. NEAL
STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES
WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON
MICHAEL R. MCNULTY
LLOYD DOGGETT
ROBERT T. MATSUI
MAX SANDLIN
BEN CARDIN
JOHN TANNER
|
