[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 96 (Thursday, June 26, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1361]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND IRS ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. EARL POMEROY

                            of north dakota

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 19, 2003

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that I cannot support 
this bill. I do support nearly everything in the underlying bill. It is 
mostly the product of a bipartisan effort to address taxpayer rights 
issues and those provisions should be enacted. Unfortunately, the 
addition of ``poison pill'' language into this bill prevents me from 
supporting this legislation today.
  This bill has many good components, including provisions I worked on 
personally with Mr. Houghton. There are several excellent provisions 
from members of both sides of the aisle, in addition to a number of 
important recommendations made by the Taxpayer Advocate at the Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS) to improve services of the agency and protect 
consumer rights. Most of these provisions are broadly, if not 
unanimously, supported.
  However, what started as a good bipartisan bill has been tarnished by 
the addition of an anti-consumer provision that is troublesome enough 
that I cannot vote for it. Language was added to this bill to strip 
essential consumer protections for those purchasing health insurance 
using tax credits granted under the Trade Assistance Act (TAA). These 
existing, carefully negotiated consumer protections are in place to 
ensure adequate coverage for those using the tax credit. They are 
enjoyed by every member of this Congress, and they are critical to 
providing meaningful health coverage.
  Proponents of removing these consumer protections call it ``consumer 
choice.'' But as a former insurance regulator, I can tell you that 
families facing unemployment and possible loss of health insurance due 
to U.S. trade policy need health insurance that is both affordable and 
provides adequate coverage. They should not be forced to ``choose'' one 
over the other.
  Under current law, insurance companies who agree to offer coverage to 
displaced workers under this program are substantially limited in their 
ability to turn down applicants, charge excessive premiums or otherwise 
seek to cover only the healthiest individuals. Without these 
requirements, the promise of help for most of these people and their 
families would be meaningless. Understand, however, these are not 
special protections. These are standard protections and they are being 
stripped in this bill.
  Making coverage cheaper by restricting it to the healthy undermines 
its purpose--health security for those who need it most. It's like 
making automobile air bags out of tissue paper--a tactic sure to make 
cars cheaper for all and hurt only those few who are in accidents--
those whose goal it is to protect in the first place.
  Only healthy people can afford to ``waive'' the protections. If the 
waiver is available, the insurance industry would likely gladly enter 
into arrangements to cover only the young and healthy displaced workers 
and walk away from those who need help most. This would make a mockery 
out of the agreement the members of this House voted for in passing the 
TAA.
  Or worse yet, perhaps those most in need of coverage would indeed be 
issued policies, using this credit, but only coverage that exempts any 
pre-existing conditions. In other words, this credit could be used to 
underinsure individuals or families, leaving them vulnerable without 
the protection they need most. Is it really helpful to displaced 
workers to provide a tax credit to purchase coverage that doesn't cover 
what they need most? Of course it isn't, and that's why we included 
standard consumer protections in the first place.
  Mr. Speaker, aside from this anti-consumer provision related to 
health care tax credits, I strongly support the underlying bill. The 
majority of this bill is good for taxpayers and would serve to improve 
the operations of the IRS and the services they provide to our 
constituents. However, as long as this poison pill provision remains in 
this bill, I will oppose it.




                          ____________________