[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 60 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4981-S4984]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         SELF-EMPLOYED HEALTH INSURANCE ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am disappointed with the news that we 
will not have the opportunity to vote on the conference report. I do 
not think there is any doubt that when the conference report passes, it 
will pass overwhelmingly.
  There is no need to file a cloture petition. There is not one 
Democrat holding up the conference report this afternoon--not one. 
Whenever we have that vote, it will be overwhelming. Cloture will be 
invoked overwhelmingly. I doubt that even one Democrat will oppose 
cloture. So to go for a cloture motion at this point is really 
meaningless. There is no need for it. No one is holding up the 
conference report.
  Cloture is designed to break a filibuster. There is no filibuster. We 
have not even had a good chance to discuss it, much less filibuster it.
  So for anyone to misunderstand what is happening here would be a very 
significant mistake. The fact is, we are on the floor this afternoon 
and we are prepared to work.
  I had hoped that by now we would be in the middle of a good debate 
about protecting children. I thought we would have a good opportunity 
here to talk about helping 1 million children with the Democratic 
amendment that was offered this morning. That is what this debate was 
supposed to be all about today. The fact that that debate is not being 
held is, in and of itself, a very significant disappointment. Because 
the majority leader saw fit to offer a second-degree to our amendment, 
I also feel very disappointed.
  The fact is that we ought to have an opportunity for an up-or-down 
vote on that amendment itself. If the Republicans have alternatives, we 
ought to discuss those. But we will save that argument for another day.
  It was the majority leader's decision to take that legislation off 
the table and then to put the conference report before the Senate for 
consideration this afternoon.
  All we were suggesting as part of that consideration is to deal with 
the matter the Finance Committee had taken up, and that was to 
eliminate a tax break providing millions of dollars of benefits to some 
of the wealthiest people in this country.
  The headline in the Washington Post says it all: ``Tax Break for 
Wealthy Expatriates Sparks Class Warfare Charges: `Confiscatory Tax' on 
Rich Who Leave U.S. Denounced.''
  What kind of class are we protecting here, for heavens sake? What 
kind of class warfare is this?
  The real class warfare is occurring by many Republicans who will not 
even allow us to have a vote on the minimum wage issue. That is class 
warfare; an unwillingness to provide those at the lowest rung of the 
economic ladder with a meaningful income. That, in my view, is what 
class warfare is all about.
  Every Republican and Democrat ought to be opposed to providing 
expatriates a huge tax handout. There should not be any question about 
that.
  But let there be no mistake: As strongly as we feel about this, as 
strongly as we want to address this issue, we are prepared to set it 
aside, to have a vote at a time certain next week so that we can move 
along the legislation dealing with the deductibility for the self-
employed.
  We want that to happen. We are going to vote for cloture on Monday. 
We are going to support it on Monday or Tuesday, whenever the leader 
decides to bring it up. And it is our desire to move this legislation 
along as quickly as possible.
  So there is a nice ring, perhaps, to the indignation on the other 
side, but the fact is that ring rings pretty hollow when the truth is 
laid out. The fact of the matter is, very clearly, Democrats want just 
as much as Republicans to pass this legislation.
  We offered a vote in relation to both Senator D'Amato's and Senator 
Kennedy's amendments on Tuesday morning and to pass the conference 
report today.
  So the record ought to be very clear about this. We were going to 
break the logjam the Republicans caused yesterday with the D'Amato 
amendment. We were going to break the logjam that was created, in part, 
by the determination by some Republicans to protect the wealthiest 
among us, and we were prepared to have the votes next week, Monday and 
Tuesday, just as quickly as we could work out an arrangement for both 
Democrats and Republicans.
  That is not going to happen, and I am disappointed. It is only 1:30. 
We should not have the afternoon off. We ought to have the ability to 
debate why we are leaving 1 million children unprotected as a result of 
the rescissions made in the supplemental that has been pending before 
the Senate all week.
  We ought to talk about the ramifications of 5,000 kids being denied 
opportunities to get adequate child care and hundreds of thousands of 
children who 
[[Page S4982]] are not going to get the opportunities in education that 
they should because we are rescinding the funds that provide those 
opportunities.
  Those are the kinds of debates we needed to have this afternoon. It 
is very unfortunate that we will not be given that chance.
  Let me say one more time, without equivocation so that everyone 
understands, we want the legislation to provide tax deductibility for 
the self-insured to pass this afternoon. We are prepared to vote right 
now. We will bring people back and vote as often as we need to to make 
that point clear, if that is required. But there ought not be any 
mistake. No one on this side of the aisle is holding that provision up. 
We want it this afternoon. We will take it on Monday, we will take it 
whenever it is offered, but it is going to happen, and it is going to 
happen with overwhelming Democratic support.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank our leader, Senator Daschle, for 
a very clear, concise summation as to where we are in the Senate this 
afternoon.
  I might be missing something. I think, given the tone of some of 
those who have spoken this afternoon, that evidently I am missing 
something. All week we talked about how we were going to get into the 
issue of rescissions. That is a matter of enormous importance and 
consequence. The reason it is of enormous importance and consequence, 
in many respects more so than regular appropriations bills, is because 
this is funding that has already been planned to be used.
  In particular, when so many of the funding cuts that are included in 
the rescissions bill affect children and affect education, this is the 
opportunity for the Senate of the United States to make a statement, to 
have a debate, and to have accountability--and also, hopefully, to take 
positive action on those issues affecting children and education.
  The Senator from South Dakota indicated earlier in the week that he 
was prepared to offer an overall amendment to try to reflect the 
position of a number of different Members of the Senate on these issues 
affecting children and education and voluntarism. He had stated that 
earlier in the week.
  It was his hope to offer that amendment yesterday but when our friend 
and colleague the Senator from Connecticut came over here to speak on 
children's issues, unbeknownst to us, as the debate will show, there 
was another amendment before us that was not related to the 
rescission--an amendment that dealt with the Mexican situation. That 
issue is enormously important and enormously significant.
  There was certainly an indication from our side that if the issue 
regarding Mexico was to be decided and considered as an independent 
kind of issue, then the matter could be resolved.
  But nonetheless, no, we had no opportunity to consider the Daschle 
amendment.
  Last evening, when I was down in the well at about 10 o'clock there 
was a sense of urgency: ``We have to move ahead with this bill,'' the 
Senator from Oregon said. ``We are going to stay in all Thursday night 
and all day Friday.'' Read the Record--all day Friday. We are going to 
stay here even into Saturday if we have to, he said; we have to finish 
the bill. There was no comment that the conference report was coming 
up. That is a different issue, but we understood we were staying here 
to complete the bill.
  And then there were the inquiries in the well: ``When are you going 
to bring that amendment up?'' It was decided that the Senator from 
South Dakota's amendment would be brought up at 10 o'clock this 
morning. Many of us who are the cosponsors and have had a longstanding 
interest, committee jurisdiction interest, came over to be able to 
debate and discuss these issues--at least to make a case about the 
importance of Head Start, the importance of chapter 1, the importance 
of the volunteer community service program.
  The minority leader had hardly gotten his amendment in when there was 
an amendment on top of it--an amendment on top of it. Usually in this 
institution, you permit the person putting the amendment in and the 
principal cosponsors to speak in favor. That courtesy was not even 
accorded. We were off and running on another amendment in the second 
degree that continued on through the morning.
  Many of us stayed here. We continued to think that, because of what 
the majority leader said, we were going to have an opportunity to make 
our case. Then at 12 o'clock, with a few minutes notice, we were told 
we were going to set aside the rescission issue. We were only going to 
return to the rescissions after the disposition of the conference 
report, which excluded a very, very important provision that had been 
accepted here in the Senate unanimously, a provision that was valued at 
$3.6 billion--$3.6 billion.
  Well, Mr. President, on the one hand, the minority leader's amendment 
is $1.3 billion for children that we intended to battle for. It 
reflects a very substantial group of the Members here, hopefully 
bipartisan, but certainly an overwhelming majority of the Members on 
our side. It is $1.3 billion.
  Then we were asked, in a matter of moments, to consider another 
measure, which I support, which is the deduction in terms of the self-
employed. In that particular measure, the conferees had dropped a 
revenue measure that would have been worth $3.6 billion, almost three 
times the amount of money that would fund the children's programs. And 
we are being labeled this afternoon as being somehow not considerate of 
the small business men and women.
  As the leader said, it is 1:30. We are glad to talk about these 
issues. We are glad to debate them. I am glad to vote on these 
measures. And suddenly we found out, no, we are not going to do it. 
After he speaks, after you speak, the Senate is going out and, no, we 
are not going to give any consideration to these issues, we are not 
going to debate them.
  It is a reasonable juxtaposition--$3.6 billion from wealthy 
individuals who renounce their citizenship and $1.3 million for 
children's programs.
  The $3.6 billion is on a measure which was accepted unanimously here 
in the Senate but resisted by House Republicans. We are told, ``Well, 
we'll do our best, we'll try to come back, the next time we'll do 
better.'' I do not question or doubt the commitment of those members of 
the Finance Committee--but I have been around long enough to know that 
when you go into conference with a vote of 100-0 of the Members, you 
get more attention from the House. That is the record around here. That 
is the history around here.
  All we are doing is saying let us have a chance to express ourselves 
on this issue. Let us have a chance to express our view on this 
provision that was worth $3.6 billion when it passed through here last 
time and $3.6 billion less when it is considered now this afternoon. We 
are told that for objecting to that change, we are told by the 
Republicans that we do not care, we somehow do not really care about 
the small business men and women. Let me tell you, Mr. President, I 
propose that we have a vote on adoption at a time certain--at 5 o'clock 
on Monday--and a 4 o'clock vote on the sense of the Senate.
  I am going to vote for the cloture motion. It is going to be agreed 
to. The minority leader is quite correct, every American ought to 
understand it is going to go through on Monday at whatever time is 
established by the majority. It is going to go through. We are all 
going to vote for it. I do not know anybody who is going to vote 
against it. That is why this is an extraordinary set of circumstances. 
I am going to vote for it. Everyone is going to vote for it. But this 
issue is not going to go away. This issue is not going to go away.
  We were quite prepared to have a vote on the measure at a time 
certain that would accommodate most Members--I would leave that up to 
the majority and minority leaders on Monday, whenever they want, they 
know the schedule--and to have a vote on the sense of the Senate at a 
time certain. We were even prepared to have that vote on adoption of 
the conference report and then a time certain have a vote on the sense 
of the Senate.
 That was certainly acceptable. But we in this body ought to be able to 
express ourselves on an issue of that kind of consequence and 
importance; $3.6 billion--here today, gone tomorrow, when 
[[Page S4983]] one of the major amendments on the rescissions is going 
to be $1.3 billion.
  There are a dozen other amendments, Mr. President--on the voluntary 
community service programs, on education programs, children's 
programs--that are a fraction of that, a fraction of the $1.3 billion. 
Nobody is interested in an undue delay in the rescissions bill.
  But to say that, my goodness, this is somehow out of sync with what 
has gone on in common debate, and that this is an unusual way to 
proceed, defies the history of this institution.
  I must say, I would think that the parents of those children would 
have to be asking themselves this afternoon, why is it that my child, 
who is one of those 70,000 that could have received assistance under 
the chapter 1 program, or under Head Start, will not be able to get it? 
Why is the $1.3 billion is not there? My child will not be able to get 
in a Head Start Program because the resources are not there; my child 
will not be able to get day care because the money is not there. We are 
saying, no, your child will not get into Head Start, will not get into 
chapter 1, we are saying no to the school boards that are trying to 
have education reform, and no to the school boards and parents, that we 
cannot afford to provide the already appropriated $100 million for safe 
schools.
  The Senator from North Dakota debated the issue about guns in the 
schools, and we had a long debate about safety in the schools. And we 
accepted money for safety in the schools--$100 million is proposed to 
be cut out of that. Parents are wondering why, if my school board wants 
to have those programs for safety in the schools, we cannot have it. 
The money has just been rescinded. We have just said no to $3.6 billion 
in revenue that was accepted unanimously by Republicans and Democrats 
in the Senate. That is gone. That disappeared somewhere out there.
  To raise the issue that somehow we are not really serious about 
dealing with this underlying issue, that is hogwash. I do not know why 
it is that every time you agree with one side of the aisle, you are a 
statesman or a stateswoman, and when you do not, you are political. 
Just read the Record on that. That was said earlier today. You are 
political somehow. This is politics. It is about children. When you 
agree, you are a statesman; when you differ, it is somehow politics. We 
heard that on the floor. I was not here. I was at another conference 
dealing with another issue which is affecting working people, the issue 
on the minimum wage.
  Four years ago, the last incremental increase in the minimum wage 
took place. We have not had an increase in the minimum wage in the 
period of the last 4 years. Most Americans believe that men and women 
in this country want to and can work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the 
year, and if they do, then they ought to be able to provide for their 
families. That has been true under Republicans and Democrats. The last 
time we increased the minimum wage, we had a Democratic Congress and a 
Republican President. Bob Dole voted for the increase and so did Newt 
Gingrich. We are just asking to bring the purchasing power back to 
where it was 4 years ago. But they say, ``We have no time to debate it. 
We have no time to consider it. We are opposed to it.''
  Evidently, those dozen multimillionaires were able to get their wages 
or incomes taken care of--to the tune of $3.6 billion. They are able to 
get their interests taken care of.
  Well, I wish that we had on the floor of the Senate the Dowd family--
a young, very appealing young man and his wife and two children, making 
virtually the minimum wage. They spend $75, $80 a month just to repay a 
student loan. He is making the minimum wage and is still trying to pay 
a student loan. He did not have enough money to continue his education, 
and he is trying to pay for it. They are both working, Mr. President, 
trying to make ends meet.
  As we pointed out--and I see my friend and colleague Senator Simon on 
the floor here, and he attended that event--the principal problem this 
family has--even though they could do better in remaining on welfare, 
they want to work and want to be able to provide for their children--
the principal problem they have is that they do not have enough time to 
spend with their children. The mother's principal concern is that, ``My 
children will not grow up in a home like I did, where we used to be 
able to have one meal a day together, dinner. That does not happen in 
our family because my husband comes home at 3 o'clock, and I leave at 
3:30.'' They spend an hour and a half with their children on the 
weekends.
  These are our fellow citizens. They are wondering why some of us are 
raising the issue of preserving $3.6 billion for a dozen very wealthy 
individuals who renounced their citizenship and we have no time for 
these hard-working Americans. They are not out there to renounce their 
citizenship; they are not out there to try to find loopholes; they are 
not out there to try to evade the taxes. They are playing by the rules. 
They are playing by the rules and are honored to be citizens of this 
country. But we have no time to consider them. We do not have the time. 
That is shameful, Mr. President.
  I am not going to be lectured to by any Member of this body about 
what is in the interest of those self-employed people. We know what is 
going on. We know. That is a red herring. That is a red herring for 
protecting those dozen wealthy taxpayers who want to change their 
nationality and bug out with all the money that they have made here in 
this country. That is scandalous.
  So I am quite prepared to discuss this issue. There are those who 
say, oh, well, by doing this we are somehow not concerned. The American 
people are much more intelligent and much fairer than many in this body 
give them credit for. And they know, or hopefully they will know, what 
is at issue here. It is an issue about fairness. You can talk about 
provisions and contracts and compacts and all the rest of it. But, Mr. 
President, it is wrong, it stinks.
  It stinks when we reject a provision that would have provided $3.6 
billion in revenues for the deficit. We are trying to do something 
about education and children in this country, and this provison, which 
the Finance Committee said will return $3.6 billion, disappears out 
there because of some complexity. This loophole remains, and at the 
same time we are not prepared to get some resolution on the issues that 
have been talked about in Senator Daschle's amendment--the Head Start 
children in this country, or the chapter 1 kids, or safe schools, or 
the day care programs. That is just wrong.
  This Senator is not going to go along with it this afternoon. We will 
have a chance to vote in favor of cloture, and that conference report 
will pass and will become law. Every self-employed person ought to 
understand that there was not one person on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate who spoke this afternoon who is not going to vote in favor of 
and support the conference report. I certainly urge that they do.
  This did not have to happen this way. All we had to do was accept the 
sense of the Senate, pass this measure, and it could have been done 
this afternoon. We could have done it that way, or we will do it in a 
different way. We are still going to do it. I regret the inconvenience 
to Members if their plans have to be altered; but it did not have to be 
that way. I think the Record will show that it did not.
  I yield the floor.
  (Mr. SMITH assumed the chair.)
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, before I get into prepared remarks on 
another subject, let me associate myself with the remarks of Senator 
Kennedy. I think we have to ask ourselves why we can be so responsive 
to a few millionaires who want a tax break that is going to cost $3.6 
billion and we cannot respond to millions of Americans who are 
struggling at the minimum wage?
  I think we have to go to two things. No. 1, our system of financing 
political campaigns. Those millionaires, I am sure, if we look at our 
financial records, have contributed to Members of the Senate. Maybe to 
Paul Simon, I do not know. They have a voice.
  How many people working at the minimum wage have contributed to 
Members of the U.S. Senate? Not very many, if any, because they cannot 
afford it.
  We respond to those too much, to too great a degree, who pay for our 
campaigns. That is the simple reality.
  I think the second reality is, millionaires can hire the lobbyists. 
That is 
[[Page S4984]] part of our system. I do not suggest that we change 
that. I do suggest that we change the way we finance campaigns.
  What we have to keep in mind is, who is contacting Members? And the 
people who have real needs, working men and women who are struggling, 
are they getting their voices through? Too often, they are not.

                          ____________________