Conversations with Congress, Sept. 20, 2006

Rep. Allyson Schwartz (PA-13) D

Sept 20, 2006—Rep. Schwartz’s staff person was amiable and seemed genuinely interested in the bill. He had a general background of the bill and knew that John Lewis is the lead sponsor. He told us early in the meeting that he is “personally interested” in the bill. He wondered if there were privacy concerns regarding creating a database of COs who are using the fund, but later mentioned that COs using the fund probably want people to know their beliefs. He also asked if this would really make a difference in military spending since federal funds are fungible. We explained that the bill’s primary intent is to protect religious freedom of conscientious objectors to military taxation and allow them to freely exercise their beliefs. We then mentioned that it’s likely that more and more people will use the fund once it is established and publicized which could then have an effect on military spending.

Rep. Marion Berry (AR-01) D

Sept 20, 2006—Rep. Berry’s staff person was friendly, listened well, and had good questions. His first question was how the term “conscientious objector” is defined in the bill, and we responded that it referred to a taxpayer opposed to war in any form based upon moral or ethical beliefs. When talking about how COs feel they cannot pay for war, he said that many people have objections to supporting certain programs with their taxes. We then discussed the difference between political/economic preferences and deeply held beliefs. We described the legal precedence of CO status and some of the sacrifices tax resisters makes, but he seemed unconvinced that conscientious objection to military taxation should be accommodated. At one point he referred to where our taxes go as “the great American debate.”

Rep. Michael McCaul (TX-10) R

Sept 20, 2006—Rep. McCaul’s staff person told us as at the beginning of the meeting that he had a meeting coming up that afternoon and that our meeting would have to be quick. He did give us decent attention for the time we had with him. His first question was whether COs would pay their full tax obligation, and he seemed relieved to hear that they would pay the same amount of taxes when using the fund. His other questions were mostly questions about how the bill would work logistically, and he took some time to hear our thoughts on how this will uphold religious freedom while increasing government revenue.

We also presented correspondence from a constituent who has written Rep. McCaul’s office numerous times about the Peace Tax Fund bill and has not heard a response. The staff person said that he was sorry to hear about the lack of response and assured us that he would send a letter to the constituent.

Rep. Joseph Pitts (PA-16) D

Sept 20, 2006—The staff person for Rep. Pitts was open, friendly, and seemed genuine. He listened to overview of the bill and rationale for it, and said that he thought Rep. Pitts would probably not support the bill because he believes that you cannot “line-item” where your taxes go. We brought up the legal precedence of CO status, the fact that Congress has already passed legislation that allows Amish not to pay social security tax for religious reasons, and talked about the sacrifices COs make by impoverishing themselves and/or practicing civil disobedience, and how that sets them apart from other types of tax objections. The staffer listened respectfully, and when the exemption for Amish was brought up, he said, “That’s true, I hadn’t thought of that.”