[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 59 (Thursday, March 30, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3996-H4004]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H3996]]
   CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 831, PERMANENT EXTENSION OF THE HEALTH 
               INSURANCE DEDUCTION FOR THE SELF-EMPLOYED

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill 
(H.R. 831) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 
extend the deduction for the health insurance costs of self-employed 
individuals, to repeal the provision permitting nonrecognition of gain 
on sales and exchanges effectuating policies of the Federal 
Communications Commissions, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report 
is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see Proceedings of the House 
Wednesday, March 29, 1995, at page H3909.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Rangel] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 831 represents a model of how quickly the Congress 
can act when important interests are at stake. I salute our Senate 
colleagues for their expeditious consideration of this legislation and 
for the improvements they made in it in the process.
  The House-passed version of H.R. 831 would have retroactively 
restored the deduction for 25 percent of the health insurance costs of 
the self-employed and made the deduction permanent. The Senate 
amendment increased the permanent deduction to 30 percent beginning 
this year. The conference agreement follows the Senate amendment by 
providing for a permanent 30-percent deduction for the self-employed's 
health insurance costs--a level upon which the House Ways and Means 
Committee hopes to build even further later this year.
  As a result of our quick action on H.R. 831, millions of self-
employed individuals will be able to avoid the time and expense of 
having to file amended 1994 tax returns. In addition, the cost of the 
deduction's permanent extension is fully funded by several provisions 
which will greatly improve our Nation's tax laws.
  First, H.R. 831 repeals Internal Revenue Code section 1071, under 
which the Federal Communications Commission grants certificates 
deferring tax on the sale or exchange of broadcast facilities. When 
this provision was enacted in 1943, Congress intended it to apply to 
involuntary divestitures of radio properties that were sold to comply 
with new FCC rules prohibiting multiple ownership of radio stations in 
the same market.
  This rationale no longer applies and repeal of section 1071 is long 
overdue.
  The bill's other offset for the cost of the permanent 30-percent 
health insurance deduction for the self-employed is a modification of a 
proposal in the Clinton administration fiscal year 1996 budget to deny 
the Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC] to persons with more than $2,500 of 
taxable interest and dividend income. The conference agreement provides 
that individuals with more than $2,350 of investment income, including 
interest, dividends and net income from rents and royalties would not 
be eligible for the EITC. We agree with the Administration's view that 
the EITC should be targeted to families with the greatest need.
  The conference agreement also includes a provision directing the 
Joint Committee on Taxation to conduct a study of issues contained in a 
dropped Senate provision dealing with the taxation of individuals who 
give up their U.S. citizenship.
  Chairman Packwood and I issued a joint statement yesterday which said 
that if--following the Joint Committee study--the committees decide to 
pursue legislation, the effective date of such legislation might be as 
early as February 6, the date the President proposed similar 
legislation in his fiscal year 1996 budget.
  In closing, let me reiterate, not only does H.R. 831 provide for a 
permanent 30-percent deduction for the health insurance costs of the 
self-employed, but it also makes several other needed changes to our 
Tax Code. I urge my colleagues' support for this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I agree with 
the chairman that providing this incentive for self-employees, millions 
of people who we want to make certain that they have adequate health 
insurance, is very important, the Congress has promised it, and the 
Congress is now fulfilling that promise. We do regret that, while we 
have taken care of the employers, that we did not see fit to take care 
of the employees who do not have health insurance. Yes, we had to pay 
for this, and it seemed to us that, as relates to the earned income tax 
credit, as given to us by the President, that we could have and should 
have indexed such income allowing the poor of the working people to be 
able to receive the amounts of income from interest and dividends and 
still qualify for the earned income tax credit. We do believe that such 
income should have been indexed, and we have the assurances of the 
Chair and colleagues in the Senate that this would be revisited.
  Also I am greatly disappointed that in the rush to fund this well-
deserved tax deduction that a Federal Communication Commission minority 
preference section 1071 was used as a vehicle to wipe out any 
incentives that could be there so that minorities would own and 
participate in radio, television, and cable television. It seemed to me 
that, if there was one case which was used as a target, and the Viacom 
sale transaction and deal was one, that the committee should have had 
hearings, that the full committee should have found out exactly what 
went wrong and that we should have corrected it, as we do with so many 
other areas that we find in the Tax Code, and we should not have found 
a need to retroactively go on after one deal, and certainly, if we did 
not do that, then there is absolutely no reason to see why we wiped out 
the entire program without hearings instead of trying to find out how 
we could have improved it.
  As has been said many times on the floor, that when we went into 
conference we had the opportunity to discuss and to push for abolishing 
another loophole that only the richest of Americans have been able to 
find, and we just could not find the guts and the courage to grab this 
and to close it. Some of the proponents of leaving this alone at this 
time have said that to deny an American citizen who has gained wealth 
the opportunity to renounce that citizenship and not to pay taxes would 
somehow violate civil rights. I think I heard someone saying that we 
have a lot of Cuban-Americans that have come here and become 
millionaires, may one day want to return to Cuba, and they will be 
denied that. There may be a lot of reasons why people would not want to 
close the loophole that allows Americans that have enjoyed all of the 
freedoms of a free market system, all of the education, and input and 
training of the American work force, all of the benefits of having one 
of the lowest tax rates in industrial countries, there may be reasons 
why we do not want to look at this and to close this loophole.
  But I know one thing, that the American people, no matter what 
complaints they have, there is one thing that we value more than 
anything else in life, and that is being an American. We may have our 
disputes politically, we may have our differences as groups and 
cultures, we even may have our difference as it relates to economic 
classes, but money has never been a reason why any American would think 
that they would renounce the most precious gift that we have, and that 
is our citizenship. I would hope that one day we will just publish the 
names of people that America has given so much to and that they care so 
little about that citizenship that they would flee in order to avoid 
taxes.
  Having said that, we cannot hold these people hostage, as we have 
held those that have been involved in the FCC hostage, and it is 
abundantly clear that our major obligation and the reason for the 
legislation in the first place was not to raise revenue, but to give 
assistance to self-employers who need this incentive in order to be 
able to deduct the expenses of health insurance 
[[Page H3997]] and also in recognizing that we are working within a 
very short timeframe as to time to file income tax returns are upon us.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest support 
of this conference report. It is about time Congress finally got this 
done.
  Ever since the provision in the Tax Code that allows the self-
employed to deduct 25 percent of their health insurance costs lapsed at 
the end of 1993, these people and their families have been in limbo. 
They did not know if Congress was going to ever get around to 
addressing the problem or was just going to leave them to slowly twist 
in the wind for a little while longer.
  Well, for once, Congress has done the right thing.
  This bill not only extends the 25 percent deduction for 1994, it 
raises this level to 30 percent deductibility for 1995 and beyond. Best 
of all, this extension is permanent.
  No excuses, no temporary extensions, no gimmicks. Just a simple 
permanent extension. Period.
  And, for good measure, there is even $10 million left over from the 
financing mechanism for this bill for the next 5 years. Over 10 years, 
this figure rises to almost $1 billion. This is just a drop in the 
budget deficit bucket, but every little bit helps.
  I am also, pleased, Mr. Speaker, that in this conference report we 
were able to repeal the FCC Minority Tax Certificate Program. This is 
one of the few sections in our Tax Code that conditions tax benefits 
according to race, and he sooner that we can get rid of all of them the 
better. This is a step on the road toward a neutral, colorblind Tax 
Code and Mr. Archer, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, 
deserves our commendation for his determination to strip the FCC 
certificate provision out of the Code. I am proud to serve on his 
committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I also feel constrained to point out that we were only 
able to pass this needed legislation after the electoral earthquake of 
last November made this Congress a Republican one.
  All during 1994, we heard all sorts of hemming and hawing from the 
Democratic leadership about how they wanted to help the self-employed 
and how unfair it was that this deduction had expired.
  But, when push came to shove, the Democrats did not deliver for the 
self-employed. We heard all sorts of rhetoric about how we had to pass 
radical health care reform, and how this would help the self-employed 
an everybody else as well.
  But, when the Clinton health care proposal collapsed and the 
Democrats in Congress refused to pass anything at all, the self-
employed got left out in the cold.
  They were taken hostage during the health care reform debate, and 
after the debate fizzled their interests were simply left for dead.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans know that increasingly it is small business 
and self-employed workers who are driving the American economic engine. 
It is in our Nation's best interest to help them, and passing this 
conference report is the least that we can do for them.
  Frankly, I view passage of this bill as just the first step in the 
process. Other businesses get to deduct 100 percent of their employees' 
health insurance costs, and I do not see any reason why the self-
employed should be treated any differently.
  I look forward to the day when the Congress will level the playing 
field and pass legislation to fully deduct this cost just like every 
other American business.
  The conference report deserves the support of this House, Mr. 
Speaker. It is about time that Congress got something right and I urge 
my colleagues to vote for the measure before us today.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I think it should be made 
clear that there is no other nation in the world that imposes a tax 
such as that contained in the Senate bill and supported by my Democrat 
colleagues as part of the motion to recommit, and, when a nation makes 
the decision to oppose a unique and extraordinarily broadly burdensome 
tax, even if it is on a small group, it sends a message to all those 
choosing to invest that investing in America could be hazardous to 
their interests.
  Now let me just go into this a little bit more because I think it is 
important that we operate from the facts, and I think it will be clear 
that this is not about idea. It simply needs to be done in a very much 
more specific, targeted and well written manner.
  There are only two countries that impose an exit tax. One is Canada 
and one is Australia. Australia imposes a tax only on those assets that 
are non-Australian. No security is required. We are going to impose a 
tax on absolutely everything, assets, world income and assets 
worldwide, and not only are we going to require them to pay up, but, if 
they do not, if they take the deferral plan, we are going to charge 
them interest compounded daily. We are going to charge them interest on 
their obligation whether or not they have any way of selling their 
property and realizing the resources that they would need to pay their 
tax.
  There is simply no precedent for this in any other country. In 
Canada, for instance, they are allowed to defer their tax. They must 
provide some security, but they do not have to pay any interest, and 
furthermore, they are only taxed on the accrued gain on any asset when 
the asset is sold.
  So, other countries looking at the same issue of people giving up 
their citizenship who leave the country, the citizens of that country 
wanting to be able to gain the legitimate tax obligation, tax debt, of 
that citizen who is foregoing their citizenship, they have solved this 
problem in ways that are fair and equitable. We can do that, too.
  For example, we had testimony in the hearing that it would be grossly 
unfair to force people to pay taxes on the underlying value of a trust 
when they had no power to either sell their interest in that trust or 
relinquish their interest in that trust. By imposing a tax on people 
that they literally cannot pay, we have the effect through that of 
imposing an exit tax because we require people to pay money that they 
literally have no way of coming up with.
  Let me read to my colleagues from the testimony of Rabbi Jack Moline 
because it shows, when tax policy becomes irrational when it imposes a 
burden on people that there is absolutely no way that they can assume, 
we do create a human rights violation because we, through that tax 
burden, prohibit them from exercising their right to leave the country.
                              {time}  1245

  Rabbi Jack Moline:

       I respectfully ask the Members of the House of 
     Representatives to reject the tax on citizens who choose to 
     renounce their United States citizenship.
       I have spent many years struggling with foreign governments 
     on behalf of Jews wishing to leave oppressive societies for 
     the freedom afforded by our country and others. I traveled to 
     the Soviet Union in 1978 for the purposes of meeting Jews who 
     wanted to emigrate, but were denied that opportunity on the 
     basis of legal technicalities and, most onerously, excessive 
     taxes placed on their request to emigrate. Their stories were 
     heartbreaking; indeed, many members of this committee 
     remember well their own advocacy on behalf of refuseniks.

  Outrageous exit taxes that a person has no way of generating the 
resources to pay have traditionally been a way of denying people the 
right to emigrate. Now, I have absolutely no opposition to and I fully 
support going after the 12 and 24 people that are manipulating this in 
a way that they renounce their citizenship, get the benefits, but then 
stay in the country and do their business.
  And we will be able to amend this bill, given the work of those 
interested in it and their willingness to report back to us on how we 
do that, but we cannot amend it in time to provide the right for self-
employed people to deduct their health care premiums. In other words, 
we cannot do this in the time frame, in the time we have left before 
April 15th.
  So I assure you that I think the goal of the President's proposal is 
a proper one. This is not a good bill. It will impose onerous taxes. It 
is an exit tax. It will create human rights violations. And no other 
Nation in the entire world imposes this kind of tax.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  [[Page H3998]] It should be noted that the class of people that we 
are talking about already have an exemption, for a single person, of $5 
million of their accumulated assets and $10 million for a married 
couple.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Matsui, a hard-working member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from New York for this time.
  You know, I am still a little puzzled because I do not know how we 
are relating this issue to the issue of the Soviet Jews emigrating out 
of the Soviet Union during the 1970's. We are talking about, as Mr. 
Rangel said, people that make or have assets in excess of $5 to $10 
million. In fact, before this even kicks in, one has to have at least 
$1.2 million worth of capital gains. And so I do not know how we are 
talking.
  It is somewhat outrageous because here we are talking about Soviet 
Jews who are being denied the right to leave the Soviet Union during 
the height of the cold war. And we are talking about 25 families, like 
the Dart family, the Campbell Soup family, who do not go to a country 
where there is more freedom than the United States. They go to the 
Bahamas because they want to avoid taxes.
  So I do not know how we can possibly equate this. It is just not a 
rational discussion.
  I might also further say, you know, we do have to get this issue of 
the self-employed deduction on health insurance done. We should have 
done that
 earlier this year, but we are doing it now. But I would suggest what 
we should do is work today, tonight, Friday. We are off Friday. We are 
not in session Friday. Why do we not work today, tonight, and Friday 
and get this issue done?

  And, frankly, what we could do, which is astonishing, but just as 
Senator Dole and Senator Daschle have said in their letter they sent to 
Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Gibbons, and Mr. Archer of March 24 of this year, 
what we could do is use some of these revenues that we can gain from 
this expatriate issue and increase the amount of deduction for the 
self-employed.
  Right now, they are going to get 25 percent for this last year. They 
are going to get 30 percent in the future years. Why do we not make it 
30 percent now and 35 or maybe 40 percent in the future? We can give 
them a bigger bang for the buck if we just take care of this little 
thing. Why are we protecting these 24 people that I consider disloyal 
for wanting to leave the United States for only tax purposes?
  I might say, this issue is not an issue that we just talked about and 
brought up in the last week or 2 or 3 weeks or a month. This issue has 
been going on.
  Steve Shay, a lot of you know him that works on the tax writing 
committee, Steve Shay, the Assistant Secretary of Treasury under Ronald 
Reagan in the mid-1980's, said that he was working on this issue 
because he knew that it was going to be a problem in the future because 
a lot of tax attorneys, New York and elsewhere, were finding the 
opportunity now to find a way to avoid taxation.
  This is a recent phenomena over the last 6 or 7 years. That is why we 
have not done it in the past. But Steve Shay brought this to the 
attention of a lot of people.
  Forbes Magazine last year wrote a major piece on the number of people 
that are taking advantage of this. Forbes Magazine is not a liberal 
magazine. It is a very, very business-oriented magazine. They said, 
this is outrageous; they are taking advantage of the Tax Code.
  I might also point out, and I am going to do this again because 
people really have to understand this, I received talking points from 
New York lawyers who refused to tell me who they are representing. By 
the way, they refused to tell me who they are representing. New York 
lawyers who said these are talking points. They gave me seven talking 
points to use to support dropping this provision from the conference. 
And he says, this will destroy Jackson-Vanik. He said that this is a 
human rights issue. These are the seven points on this document.
  And then he had the nerve when I turned the page to talk about Soviet 
citizenship, equating this provision with Soviet citizenship. I just 
have to say that that is kind of overstepping a bound. There is an 
issue of patriotism. Anybody that compares the United States with the 
former Soviet Union, that to me is outrageous. And any thought of that 
in this country on the floor of the House is unpatriotic.
  Frankly, we should use the revenues, the $3.6 billion that we are 
talking about, the $3.6 billion over the next 10 years, to give these 
self-employed people that are paying their own insurance a little 
bigger bang. Instead of giving them 25, let us give them 35 or 40 
percent.
  And let me just conclude by making one last observation. This is not 
a human rights issue. I received a letter from a professor at law at 
Harvard University, the Bemis Professor of Law, Professor Vagts, who 
said this has to be taken care of. It is not a human rights issue. It 
has no relation to Jackson-Vanik.
  This is an issue where people are avoiding taxation. This is an issue 
where people are cheating the American public and using it in a way 
that they are being unpatriotic in getting rid of their citizenship. 
This is an outrageous situation that has to be dealt with immediately.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to make clear that in the hearing it was 
Rabbi Jack Moline, it was Bob Turner who was on the Senate staff when 
they wrote the Jackson-Vanik amendment that brought up the issue that 
this would function as an exit tax. And, in fact, CBO's estimates are 
not based on how much money they think anyone will pay as a result of 
this tax. The estimates are based on keeping those people here and the 
assumption that they will therefore continue to pay taxes as American 
citizens.
  So if you do not think that everybody is seeing this as a way of 
preventing people from leaving, frankly, the testimony was all in 
support of this is an exit tax. Even the administration's estimates are 
based on that assumption.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. 
Meyers].
  (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as chairman of the 
Committee on Small Business in strong support of this issue. I rise in 
support of the conference report to H.R. 831 which will retroactively 
restore the deductibility of health insurance costs for self-employed 
individuals at 25 percent and make that deduction permanent at 30 
percent. I thank the Committee on Ways and Means very much for having 
done this in a timely fashion.
  There is evidence that the 25-percent deduction allows hundreds of 
thousands of business owners to purchase health insurance, those who 
otherwise would not be able to afford it. According to a 1993 National 
Association for the Self-Employed study, without at least the 25-
percent deduction, the uninsured population in this country would 
increase by 412,000 people. So this is important not just to small 
business people, but it is an important factor in health care in this 
country.
  The ability to deduct health insurance costs is clearly one of the 
most pressing economic needs of America's self-employed. Self-employed 
individuals comprise over 15 million of the Nation's small businesses. 
These individuals are independent, gainfully employed, pay taxes, and 
create many new jobs and innovations and, are a great part of our 
Nation's economic future.
  In closing, I would like to thank the Committee on Ways and Means for 
their leadership and dedication on this important issue for the 
Nation's small businessmen and women.
  In addition, I would like to say how pleased I am we are going from 
no deduction to a deductible 25 and forward with a permanent 30-
percent. Small business, because of lower cash flow, really needs this 
ability to plan, and having to do this year by year was very difficult 
for them. Hopefully, in the not-too-distant future we can give hard-
working, self-employed Americans the 100 percent self-insurance tax 
deduction which they deserve.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from 
[[Page H3999]] Michigan [Mr. Levin] a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let the record be clear. The issue is not the 
deduction of insurance for the self-employed. We are for it. In fact, 
we want to raise it. Thirty percent is too low. Why not use the 
proceeds from taxing people who leave, who renounce their citizenship 
solely to avoid taxes, to boost the 30 percent to 35 percent? That is 
the issue.
  Now, we have gotten two kinds of arguments. One is the human rights 
issue. I do not understand it. People who are trying to leave the 
Soviet Union, Jews, Christians, and others, were trying to leave to get 
freedom. The people involved here, the 12 to 24 are renouncing their 
citizenship to avoid paying U.S. taxes. That is what the issue is.
  They have got all the freedom in the world. They want an extra 
freedom that other Americans do not have; middle income, low income, 
and other wealthy people. They want the freedom to avoid paying U.S. 
taxes. And they come back here, they keep a home here; they keep a boat 
here. The home is not taxed; their pension is not taxed. They want it 
both ways.
  Then the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] says, well, wait 
a minute, there is a problem here as to the 12 and 24. Well, fix it. 
Fix it now. This has been around for quite a while.
  The President proposed something. Why are you resisting? Who are you 
protecting? I do not understand it. But then I said, all right, well, 
we do not want class warfare. I do not want class warfare. I want class 
equity. Class equity, that is all we want.
  You state a point which is so true. You draw the 100 percent wrong 
conclusion. Most of the money picked up here will come from people who 
decide not to renounce their citizenship. That makes it clear they are 
renouncing their citizenship for one reason, as an artifice to avoid 
paying U.S. taxes.
  My suggestion to the majority is be straight with the American 
people. Do not try to create a smoke screen. When you say there is a 
defect, fix it. Do not make excuses.
  The working people of this country want one thing in terms of taxes; 
fair taxation; everybody pay their fair share. These 12 to 24 families 
are not paying their fair share. This is a fair share provision. Let us 
stand by it.
                              {time}  1300

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, what a precious heritage we have as 
Americans. Each day people from around the world are willing to be 
crammed into the cargo holds of cargo ships, to crawl through sewers, 
to swim across the Rio Grande River, all to share in a little piece of 
the American dream. And most of the people I know swell with pride at 
the thought of being an American citizen, while many, many more want to 
join us.
  And yet there are those who head the other direction, a pivileged few 
who, after consulting with their accountants and consulting with their 
financial planners and consulting with their tax lawyers, decide that 
it is better to put cash over country. That is what this debate is all 
about.
  Every opportunity throughout this Congress, a pattern has emerged. 
The Gingrichites want to put those at the top of the economic ladder in 
first place and to keep them there. Last week they did not mind coming 
along and cutting out school lunch. But this week they say, for the 
billionaires, do not touch the caviar, even if we have to renounce our 
American citizenship in order to keep it.
  This pattern of protection of the plutocrats is what the Contract on 
America is all about. You will remember they had a line-item veto that 
they even printed in TV Guide. And it covered not only spending but it 
covered tax loopholes. But as soon as the special interests started 
whining about the tax loopholes, they snipped that part out of TV Guide 
and out of the contract and went on and passed the other part.
  They have had repeated opportunities on this floor to channel the 
savings from welfare reform, from rescissions into deficit reduction. 
But, no, they have got to finance a tax cut for those at the top of the 
economic ladder.
  Today we stand here with them, once again, putting billionaires 
first, even billionaires who renounce their citizenship.
  Meanwhile, there are Members of this House who are lining up to 
protect this flag. They say we need to go back and rewrite our 
Constitution, it is so important to protect our flag. I say to those 
Members, is it not a form of flag desecration when people burn their 
American citizenship and burn the American taxpayer at the same time?
  Class warfare they tell us? I do not think people who defile this 
flag by rejecting their American citizenship have any class at all.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, these folks just do not get it. Actually, I 
realize they do get it. I just want everybody else to understand the 
game they are playing.
  You wrap yourself in the flag, play the games with class warfare in 
terms of millionaires and billionaires. But let us not get so far away 
from reality that people who are listening to this debate really 
believe what you are saying is the way things are.
  No. 1, we have a law on the books, current law it is called, which 
says that if you try to renounce your citizenship for purposes of tax 
evasion, you are violating the law. All of the rhetoric on your side, 
including the gentleman from Texas who just spoke, falls under current 
law. The gentleman from Hawaii, in repeatedly excoriating people who 
would refuse their citizenship for pecuniary reasons, say we have 
current law that handles that.
  The problem is, repeat, the problem is the current law does not work 
very well. We have conceded this. The Senate has conceded this. Any 
rational person looking at this area of the law has conceded this.
  What the Senate said the other night was, we probably acted too 
hastily in adopting Senator Bradley's amendment, which was not the 
Clinton proposal, to apply evenly on citizens and noncitizens and we 
ought to take a little closer look at the subject. Coming out of the 
conference committee is an agreement, repeat, an agreement between the 
Senate and the House as part of the provision that we are going to vote 
on and pass shortly.
  It says, in order to examine fully the issues presented by the 
Treasury Department's proposal, the Clinton proposal, not the poorly 
executed Bradley proposition which the Senate adopted, but the Clinton 
administration's proposal. It pains me a little bit to say this, but 
the administration's proposal is far better. It is the one that we 
should use as the underlying structure of focus on.
  We have included a requirement to direct the staff of the Joint 
Committee on Taxation to provide a comprehensive study due June 1, 
1995. This is on a fast track. We want to look at it as soon as 
possible.
  Among the issues to be considered, one, the effectiveness and 
enforceability of current law with respect to the tax treatment of 
expatriation. The enforceability and the effectiveness of current law. 
Treasury has testified they offered this proposal because current law 
is not working well. We have said we are going to create a study by 
June 1 to examine the effectiveness of current law.
  You folks want to attach an ill-advised structure now, without 
knowing where we need to go and what we need to do.
  But beyond that, the conferees want to know the current level of 
expatriation for tax avoidance purposes. The gentlewoman from 
Connecticut held an Oversight Committee hearing and asked a direct 
question of Treasury, how many folks are involved in this.
  Virtually every one of you have come to the floor on your side and 
mentioned a number. That number was not supported by the Treasury 
Department. The fact of the matter is, we do not know how many people 
are affected by 
[[Page H4000]] this. This study, due June 1, will provide us with the 
specifics so that we can actually make a decision on an informed basis 
instead of an impassioned basis.
  You folks are trying to move people by emotion. What we in the 
majority would like to do would be to move people by reason. Obviously, 
our hope is that reason prevails rather than your emotion.
  Second, we want to determine whether or not any restrictions imposed 
by any constitutional requirement dealing with the Federal income tax 
would apply to realized gains.
  Now, as the Committee on Ways and Means, we have a responsibility in 
terms of the Tax Code and the Constitution. We do not want to act with 
emotion. We want to act on the advisement of those people who are 
knowledgeable in the area about whether or not in restricting someone's 
right to deal with their own finances affects the Constitution. On and 
on and on, for 11 points, we will look at due June 1.
  If you are rational, if you are honest, you will wait for the report.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, nobody in this House has ever challenged the 
eloquence of the gentleman from California, but when you get to the 
bottom line, we have a whole lot of billionaire bums rejecting their 
citizenship to avoid paying taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Mrs. Kennelly], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I voted for this legislation when it left 
the House and will support this conference report. I have been a long-
time advocate for the deductibility of health insurance coverage for 
the self-employed, and believe once this bill is passed we should begin 
our efforts to increase the deduction even more.
  However, I am quite concerned that the conferees dropped a Senate 
provision that would require American citizens who renounce their 
citizenship to pay capital gains on the appreciated value of some of 
their assets, mostly on stocks and bonds.
  Every year a dozen or more multi-multi-millionaires renounce their 
citizenship as a tax dodge. These people received the protection and 
benefits of the American Government while they were citizens. In fact, 
they thrived under our system of government. Is it too much to ask that 
when they renounce their citizenship as a tax dodge, we reduce the 
benefit by asking them to pay capital gains on the appreciated value of 
their holdings?
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is critically important 
that we enact this deduction for health insurance for the self-employed 
and I urge my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
simply to say that most of the debate today has been taken on an issue 
that is irrelevant to this conference report. It was not in the House 
bill. It is not in the conference report. And yet the Democrats want to 
continue to drag out something that they can try to get emotional 
about.
  We should proceed expeditiously to give this badly needed 
deductibility for the self-employed for their health insurance and 
leave the debate on these other nonissues in this conference report to 
the appropriate time when they will be under consideration later this 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Baker].
  (Mr. BAKER of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting, as we 
move into this debate, one of the last issues of the contract for the 
first 100 days, that if you listen to this debate would you swear we 
were talking about the Tax Reform Act of 1995. Throw in the kitchen 
sink, let us get those expatriates and go, go, go.
  What this really is, is trying to restore a tax deductibility for the 
self-employed so that they can afford to buy health insurance, 
something the liberal Democrats told us last year was extremely 
important. It was so important we were going to turn health insurance 
on its head and turn it over to government.
  Fortunately, the people thought better and contacted their 
Representatives and it died a much deserved death. But part of that 
extending benefits to the self-employed is this deductibility.
  The red herring today is expatriates. If you cannot fix everything 
that is wrong in the Tax Act, why should we allow the self-employed to 
have deductibility for their health insurance? The same thing occurred 
when we took on the food nutrition programs. Amazing to find we had 16 
administrative overheads, 16 audits. We went out to the schools and 
audited them 16 times. Did the right apple go to the right child.
  We wanted to reduce that overhead so we were, of course, charged with 
starving the elderly and the children.
  I want to give thanks to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. 
Johnson], who has, like a terrier, hung onto this issue to restore the 
deductibility for the self-employed and not to chase the red herrings, 
whether they be last night's debate on term limits, turned into, well, 
if you like term limits so much, why do not you make them retroactive, 
knowing that that would kill the bill in the Senate. The red herring 
here is the expatriate issue that will never see the light of day when 
it goes to the Senate until, as the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas] says, we get a study on what the depth of that problem is.
  Do you see people at the border leaving with suitcases full of money, 
leaving America to live in Latin American sanctuary. They are lined up 
at the airports. We ought to send people out to count them and we will 
find out what the problem is.
  We are going to restore deductibility for the self-employed because 
they deserve it. My thanks to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Mrs. 
Nancy Johnson, who is going to bring it up to 100 percent very shortly.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with my chairman that 
the issue today is really how we can better provide incentives for the 
self-employed. I think if we review the record of exchange here, you 
will find that it has been the other side that has been trying to 
defend this tax policy that is repugnant to everything that decent 
Americans believe in.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. 
Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding time to me. I simply say that I rise to support the conference 
committee as it relates to the deduction for the self-employed. We are 
here to address the concerns of Americans and health needs are an 
important concern.
  But let me just simply say to you, I hope my colleagues, the 
Republicans, will take up their own cry and work on something where 
people are leaving this country allegedly under the pretense that maybe 
they have been politically persecuted. I have not heard that, but they 
are taking their billions of dollars, some $3.6 billion over 10 years, 
the needs of which are needed here in the United States of America, but 
more importantly, under the pretense of human rights and civil rights.

                              {time}  1315

  Where are the human rights and civil rights, for I do think they are 
taking bags of money across the State lines and the U.S. lines without 
any political prosecution or persecution.
  I would simply say that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] had 
a very good point about the slash-and-burn policy that is eliminating 
affirmative action in trying to diversify the media in this Nation. He 
raised a very good point about why not hearings.
  If I could, if the Speaker would allow me to inquire of the 
distinguished gentleman from New York about this whole idea of the 
VIACOM deal that we would all admit we want to reform and make better, 
but now we are cutting off the opportunities for those who lift up the 
Constitution and want to be able to spread diversity throughout this 
Nation, I simply ask the gentleman if he would comment, why did not we 
fix this problem with VIACOM as opposed to slashing and burning and 
[[Page H4001]] taking it out and again cutting affirmative action, 
which has been a wonderful tool in this Nation.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond by saying the 
leadership on the other side had decided that it was not really the 
VIACOM issue that they wanted to eliminate, but they wanted the Tax 
Code to be color-blind, and I am still working on that explanation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I hope we can fix that problem. I thank the 
gentleman. I hope as I heard my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, Republicans, say that they are prepared to fix the problem 
dealing with billionaires running to our country's lines.
  I would hope they would take up the inquiry of the gentleman from 
California. Let us fix this in the next 24 hours or 48 hours. Let us 
work on Friday and make sure we pass out a bill, which I am going to 
support because of the deduction on the single owners, but we need to 
fix this bill and make it a better bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman has hit the point on 
the head. We Democrats want to fix it right now and our Republican 
friends would prefer to study it.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friends, including my neighbor from 
Houston, TX, and my friend, the gentleman from New York, Charlie 
Rangel, we have fixed the Tax Code. It is now color-blind. There is no 
reference in the Tax Code anymore to any special preference based on 
the color of skin, race, or creed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague and my neighbor to 
the north, the gentleman from Dallas, TX, Mr. Sam Johnson, a member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Houston 
said health care is important. Let us fix it. That is what this bill 
does. We do not want to pick on an issue that does not have any 
relevance to this particular issue which is fixing health care.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the chairman of the committee 
for his leadership and commitment in bringing the bill to the floor in 
an expedited fashion, because things are about to expire. By doing so 
the committee ensured that the self-employed will be able to enjoy a 
permanent deduction of 30 percent to pay for their health insurance 
costs in the years to come, and 25 percent this year.
  We must help small business survive in America and I guess the 
Democrats just want to help the wealthy because they want big 
corporations to have 100-percent deductions, and small guys to have 
nothing. It was unfortunate that this deduction was allowed to expire 
in the past, and equally unfortunate that we are not able to allow a 
full 100-percent deduction for our small guys, too. We know the self-
employed need the same benefits as big business, I believe.
  Past legislation has been unfriendly toward business and the passage 
of this bill is one step in a new and better direction. We need to 
recognize the barriers to success that are placed in the paths of self-
employed and do what we can to eliminate them. We need a level playing 
field for both small business and big business. Again, I thank the 
Chairman and urge all my colleagues to support the passage of this 
important bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me once again agree with my chairman that he was 
able and had the political power and the votes to effectively make the 
Tax Code colorblind so that minorities would not have the same 
opportunity to purchase stations.
  I do hope that with this political power he and I can work together 
to make this country as colorblind as the Tax Code.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the health care tax deduction for the self-employed is 
critically important to small businesses in my district and across this 
country. It is crucial that Congress move to extend the deduction and 
increase it. That is what is right about this legislation.
  What is wrong with the legislation is that once again House 
Republicans fail to ask billionaire tax-evaders to pay their share of 
taxes. The view that the super-rich billionaires can renounce their 
U.S. citizenship, the country that allowed them to make their fortune, 
in order to provide themselves with a tax loophole really is wrong and 
it is a sad commentary that Republicans today would condone and defend 
that kind of action.
  To my colleague who said we need to have a comprehensive study of 
this issue, where was their comprehensive study of the school lunch 
program, of cutting the funding for severely disabled children, of 
saying to the pregnant women in this country that we cannot provide you 
with some help to avoid a low-birthweight baby.
  The comprehensive study exists for the richest people in this Nation, 
for the billionaires and for the expatriates. What Members ought to be 
doing is standing up here and providing working, middle-class families 
with the opportunity to have a comprehensive study and not deny them 
what belongs to them. Stand up and fight for working middle-class 
Americans and not for the super-rich expatriates.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Portman], one of our respected Members.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I just say that listening to the debate this afternoon, 
some of my colleagues may be confused. This debate actually is not 
about soaking billionaires, soaking rich people. This is an issue that 
has been out there for a long time.
  Certainly when both parties, when both Houses of Congress and the 
administration were with the other party they could have solved this 
problem. We are willing to solve the problem. We do not think this is 
the right time or place to do it. It has not been subject to any 
hearings. It was not even part of the House legislation. It was not 
even on the floor of this House, something that ended up in conference 
on the Senate side.
  However, that is not the issue here today. The issue here is 
providing access to health care for the self-employed. It is something 
I would think that all of us could get together on. I am certainly 
pleased to tell my constituents who happen to be self-employed that we 
are doing two things here that they have been asking for. One is 
fairness and the second is predictability in tax policy, both very 
important.
  How in the world can you run a business when you cannot plan for the 
future? Is it fair to have an automatic unfair disadvantage between the 
self-employed and corporations? Those are the two things we are trying 
to get at here. This bill ensures fairness for those who have taken the 
risk and pursued the American dream by working for themselves. It helps 
them to provide jobs for others.
  I am talking about farmers, small business people, shopkeepers, 
plumbers, and so on. These people are self-employed if corporations can 
deduct their full health care costs, it is only fair the self-employed 
should be able to do so as well.
  Second, this bill is about predictability by permanently reinstating 
the deduction, so that small businesses can plan. They are no longer 
left guessing about whether or not they can deduct their health care 
insurance. That is a very important part of this. At a time when we are 
trying to make sure as many people as possible can get on the health 
care rolls, it really makes sense for us to take out this current 
disincentive for the 3.2 million people in America who are self-
employed.
  Rather than proposing a government takeover of health care, we are 
doing what makes sense, we are trying to give the American people what 
they want, the ability to help themselves.
  In Ohio alone, Mr. Speaker, this bill will make health care more 
affordable for more than 50,000 farm families, not to mention the self-
employed plumber, the mom and pop grocery store owners, and others. I 
am particularly pleased to see we are doing it before April 15, so 
people can get this on their tax returns this year.
   [[Page H4002]] I looked forward to working with the gentlewomen from 
Connecticut, Mrs. Kennelly and Mrs. Johnson, and others to expand 
beyond 30 percent, so it is even closer to major corporations.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, these United States of America almost uniquely in the 
world, provide both economic opportunity and security. You can make 
money here and you can keep it. That is good, and we want to keep it 
that way. There are a lot of people here who are successful.
  Now we have a loophole in the tax law that allows some few people, 
the most successful, billionaires, people who have $1.2 million in 
capital gains or more, the opportunity to escape their tax obligations 
by renouncing their citizenship.
  The Senate in its wisdom fixed that. They provided that in this bill 
that loophole would be closed. Those reckless Socialists over in the 
Senate were wise enough to fix that loophole, but the Gingrich crowd in 
this House took that fix out; $3.6 billion worth of tax cheating over 
the course of 10 years. You can buy a lot of school lunches and a lot 
of health care with $3.6 billion.
  Let me tell the Members, they had better fix this.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask, is the gentleman aware of how 
conference committees work?
  Mr. HINCHEY. Yes, I am.
  Mr. ARCHER. Is the gentleman aware that the House has no ability to 
take anything out? Is the gentleman aware of that?
  Mr. HINCHEY. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, the Senate wanted this in 
the bill, and the conferees in this House wanted it dropped out. That 
was the gentleman's activity. That was his contribution to this 
conference report. He dropped out that provision which would have 
closed the loophole. That was his contribution.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Matsui].
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas raised this issue, 
but there was only one offer made. It was made by the House. I have a 
copy of the House offer on 831. The House offer does not have this 
provision in it, so it had to emanate from the House. You took it out. 
That is what happened. You took it out.
  I read the transcript of the conference report, and it basically said 
you took it out. The gentleman would not agree, but you took it out.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to both gentlemen on the other side 
of the aisle, I do not know how many conferences they have been to, but 
there is no way for one House to take something out of another House's 
provision in a conference. The other House must recede. The other House 
must say ``We do not care about this provision, we are willing to 
disregard it and to drop it out.''
  There is never, ever any power in a conference committee of one House 
to take away something that is in another House's bill, never. The 
gentlemen are just ill-advised. The Senate decided that they had great 
concern about this provision in the bill and they dropped it. They did 
not insist on it. We have no power to force them to drop it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, maybe they have changed the rules, but I always thought 
that when the Senate presented something to us that they had an 
opportunity as conferees either to accept it or to reject it. I thought 
when we look at a Senate offer, we have the opportunity to do it. The 
gentleman saw fit to reject this provision that was in the Senate and 
because of his powerful persuasive personality, they agreed to it, but 
the rejection formally was made by the House under the gentleman's 
leadership to the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. 
Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I am very glad this has been cleared 
up. This is not a House Republican position. The desire to allow 
billionaires to leave the country and renounce their citizenship is a 
Republican Party position. That goes through both houses.
  Let it be explicitly clear, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has 
made it clear, this is not something that was done just at the behest 
of the House. The entire Republican Party is now on record favoring 
billionaires escaping this country, not paying their taxes, while we 
have immigrants coming into this country desiring citizenship that ask 
only the opportunity to become Americans and pay taxes.
  My name was invoked by the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], 
and I appreciate his friendship. He said I am emotional on this issue. 
I think I am. He is quite right, I am emotional about being an 
American. I am proud to be an American. He said and others have said, 
``Why are you bringing this up in this bill? It is irrelevant.'' No, it 
is not.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope those who are listening in understand this bill 
has to be paid for and we are paying for it by taking the opportunity 
of minorities and women to participate in communications and allowing 
millionaires to get away. That is how it could have been paid for.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] always 
speaks with great emotion and I am sure great genuineness and 
conviction, but the reality speaks very different than his words, 
because on this conference report, and I have the signature sheet here, 
this was agreed to 100 percent on the Senate side with only one 
exception. It was signed and agreed to by Carol Moseley-Braun, Democrat 
from Illinois; Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana; Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan, Democrat from New York. They all signed this. They all agreed 
that they wanted to give up this provision, so it is very clear that it 
was not simply a Republican decision.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Hancock].
                              {time}  1330

  Mr. HANCOCK. I thank the gentleman the chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this actually is getting to be a little bit amusing. 
Here we are talking to a minority party that became a minority, and you 
have been in charge of the tax law for 40 years. Forty years. Now, all 
of a sudden you are expecting us on our side of the aisle to fix the 
mess that you all have created in less than 90 days. The situation 
exists, and this situation will be addressed.
  Does anybody on that side of the aisle think that the world is 
envious of our tax law? If you think they are, you have got another 
think coming. They are not envious.
  They are envious of the fact that we have freedom in this country, we 
have opportunity in this country. We will remove the incentive for 
people to give up their citizenship to avoid the payment of taxes. That 
is going to happen. But you are talking about giving us 90 days to 
correct 40 years of what has occurred through the monstrosity we have 
created in our tax law.
  The difficult, we do immediately. In 90 days, we have passed 8 of the 
10 items that the Republicans promised under the Contract With America. 
The impossible is going to take a little time. It may be impossible to 
fix our income tax law without just getting rid of it and starting 
over. It will be addressed, but this is not the vehicle to address it 
with. This is not the time to address it. This is the time to debate 
it, make the issue and then we will remove the incentive for people to 
give up their citizenship because of a monstrosity that we have created 
that we call the Federal Income Tax Code.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the gentleman my 
chairman, I signed as a Democrat and I would sign that conference 
report again, and I encourage Democrats to sign it. That conference 
report was to provide tax incentives for the self-employed, and I 
agreed with you in the beginning, I agree with you now. That is 
[[Page H4003]] what we are talking about and that is what Republicans 
and Democrats support.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me follow up on the point of the conference 
committee to provide help for the self-employed to extend the 25 
percent. It is very important that we extend and provide for the 25 
percent deduction for this year. The self-employed are at a 
disadvantage. They are 1.5 times more likely to be without insurance 
because of our current tax law. When we changed the tax law in 1986 to 
provide the self-employed this 25 percent deduction, we found that we 
got 400,000 more self-employed individuals insured. But I am 
disappointed we did not go further. Let me explain.
  The Republicans came to us early in this session and asked for our 
cooperation to extend for this year only the 25 percent and that we 
could move that quickly. We agreed. Along with the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal], I introduced legislation that would expand 
the 25 percent starting next year to 80 percent, more comparable to 
what businesses are able to deduct on their insurance premiums. We were 
told that we could not consider that in this House. The Committee on 
Rules refused to make our amendment in order, even though we had a way 
to pay for it. We were told that we were only going to deal with the 25 
percent. The bill goes over to the Senate and it is improved to 30 
percent after this year, so a self-employed individual will be able to 
deduct 30 percent starting next year. That is good, but it is not 
enough. It should be comparable to what a company can deduct on their 
insurance. We never had the chance on this side to deal with that 
issue.
  I am amazed as to why we were not given that opportunity. The 
amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal] and I sought 
to put in order was paid for and increased the amount that the self-
employed could deduct starting next year to 80 percent. Although I will 
support this conference committee, I hope the chairman of the Committee 
on Ways and Means will revisit this issue so that we can provide for 
the self-employed fairness and comparability to those who work for 
companies.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). Members are advised that the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] has 2 minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has 5 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Texas has the right to close.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I think we are here today to do 
a service that the Congress has promised to do, and, that is, to give 
our self-employed people an opportunity to deduct their expenses, at 
least 30 percent of it, for health insurance. I hope that those that 
are not on the floor really do not believe that signing a conference 
report whether you are Democrat or Republican to support what we were 
there to do means that we should forever remain silent on how we have 
done it. Today we have had so many opportunities to review a situation 
that exists in our tax law that whether you are a Republican or a 
Democrat, you know it is wrong, it is unpatriotic, it is immoral for 
someone to enjoy all of the benefits of the United States and renounce 
their citizenship and then run off to some foreign island to enjoy it. 
But at least we have agreed and we have taken this opportunity that we 
are going to do something about it. If we did not do anything at all 
about it in 40 years, it does not mean that it should not be done. The 
treasurer says something should be done now and it really ought to be 
done now. But since my friends would prefer a study, what we have to do 
is just deal with what is before us today. I think we can all go home 
proud of the fact that we have given something that really is deserved, 
the opportunity for a large segment of our population, millions of 
people who have that entrepreneurship that go out there every day to 
provide jobs, to be able to get some tax benefits for insurance. I hope 
the day would soon come without another study that my Republican 
friends would say that those people who are employed by the self-
employed should be provided the same type of incentive.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First, I want to compliment the gentleman from New York for his 
cooperation in getting this conference report expeditiously to the 
floor of the House and his concern on a bipartisan basis for getting 
this tax deductibility to the self-employed for their health insurance. 
We reach hands across the aisle in doing the right thing for working 
people of this country. It is my hope that we will be able to increase 
this 30 percent to a higher percentage before this Congress adjourns.
  When we began this process shortly after we were sworn in, we 
recognized that the self-employed were left hanging because this 
provision for deductibility of 25 percent expired on January 1 of last 
year. I expressed publicly the commitment to this Nation that we would 
retroactively take care of that so that by April 15, Americans who were 
self-employed that expected to get this 25-percent deductibility would 
be able to file their returns with that knowledge. Unfortunately, I am 
sure many have already filed and will have to file an amended return. 
That is unfortunate. But at least we are doing it before April 15. And 
those who have not filed certainly can with a degree of certainty know 
that they can now file and take it on their return because I believe 
there is no doubt that the President will sign this into law. Of course 
that still has to occur. Not only were we able to retroactively take 
care of this 25 percent for last year, but we were able as a result of 
the conference committee to increase that to 30 percent for this year 
and future years and we were able to do all of this on a permanent 
basis.
  I would say to my friend from Maryland who is an extremely 
articulate, thoughtful, and constructive contributor to the effort of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, that his desire to get it to 80 
percent was certainly well-intentioned. Unfortunately, it would not 
have been permanent. It would have been subject to a sunset. Once 
again, we would have left this uncertainty out there.
  We need to work on a permanent basis to get this percentage up. But 
for here and now, this is a good bill. It is paid for, it does not 
increase the deficit, and I am delighted that it does have strong 
bipartisan support as shown by those Members of the conference 
committee who signed the conference report. I urge its adoption.
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in solid opposition to 
H.R. 831, a cynical piece of legislation which links a health care 
provision to the destruction of opportunities for minority ownership in 
the broadcast industry.
  The need for more minority-owned broadcast stations is clear. On one 
hand, African-Americans account for over 12 percent of the U.S. 
population. On the other hand, minorities own less than 3 percent of 
all radio and television stations.
  The results of such white domination of the airwaves have been clear 
for a long time. Study after study has proven the existence of 
discrimination against minorities on television. Study after study has 
documented the persistent stereotyping, vilification, and humiliation 
of African-Americans in the industry. Yet, whenever media executives 
are confronted with the facts, they always talk about ratings, market 
share, and profits.
  The only way to end the negative portrayals is by enhancing minority 
ownership of broadcast stations. This bill does precisely the opposite, 
and I won't be a part of it.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation. it is important 
that we act quickly to restore the deduction for health insurance costs 
of self-employed individuals. This legislation reinstates the deduction 
to 25 percent and would increase the deduction to 30 percent for 1995 
and thereafter.
  We are fast approaching the tax filing deadline for 1994 and we need 
to enact this legislation promptly. Taxpayers have been uncertain about 
this provision since it expired on December 31, 1993.
  I am pleased that Congress is taking action to increase this 
deduction to 30 percent and making this deduction permanent. This will 
provide taxpayers with certainty. However, I am concerned by increasing 
the deduction to 30 percent and making it permanent Congress will not 
have a chance to address this issue and increase the deduction.
  On the first day of this session, I introduced legislation to make 
permanent the 25-percent 
[[Page H4004]] deduction and to gradually increase the deduction to 100 
percent. This legislation phases in the 100-percent deduction over a 
period of 4 years. Several bills have been introduced on this issue and 
it has broad support.
  During the committee markup, Mr. Cardin and I offered an amendment to 
restore the deduction for 1994 and to increase the deduction to 80 
percent for 1995 and 1996. This amendment failed by a vote along party 
lines.
  The deduction of health care costs is an extremely important issue 
for the self-employed. One quarter of self-employed Americans--3.1 
million farmers and craftsmen, professionals, and small business 
proprietors--have no health insurance. The self-employed are 1\1/2\ 
times more likely to lack essential health care coverage.
  We have to do more than increase the deduction to 30 percent. Major 
health care reform proposals included a provision to allow self-
employed workers a 100-percent deduction. The Tax Code should encourage 
the self-employed to purchase health insurance. This deduction allows 
businesses to spend more on health care. There are approximately 41 
million medically uninsured individuals in the United States. An 
individual's employment should not determine the tax treatment of their 
health insurance.
  Since I joined the Ways and Means Committee, I have tried to make 
permanent the deduction of health care costs for the self-employed. It 
was the first tax issue I undertook as a member of the committee.
  Small businesses and the self-employed are the engine of economic 
growth for our economy. The ranks of the self-employed include the 
likes of farmers, craftsmen, shopkeepers, day laborers, ranchers as 
well as accountants, lawyers, and doctors who practice either in 
partnerships or as sole practitioners. As you can see, this provision 
affects a wide variety of individuals.
  Businesses can deduct the full cost of any health insurance provided 
to employees. Similar treatment has never been available to the self-
employed. Businesses on the average, contribute and fully deduct 80 
percent of the total cost of employee health insurance premiums. We 
should at least consider increasing the deduction for the self-employed 
to at least 80 percent.
  I urge you to support this legislation today and to consider 
readdressing this issue during this session of Congress. We can do 
better than 30 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________