[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 61 (Monday, April 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5026-S5027]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            SELF-EMPLOYED HEALTH INSURANCE CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments to explain 
at least my understanding of where we are in terms of Senate procedure.
  I think the majority leader and the minority leader will come to the 
floor shortly and propound a consent request which I will certainly 
support. I urge my colleagues to also support it so that we will have a 
final resolution and disposition of the conference report. We will do 
that sometime this afternoon in a way that accommodates the greatest 
number of Members. And I have every intention of supporting the 
conference report. I had that intention last week, and I have that 
intention today. I hope the Members do as well. It is a very important 
measure which means a great deal to the self-employed and small 
businesses across the country, as it does provide protection for those 
who are purchasing health insurance. It makes sense to give the self-
employed some help and assistance in recognition of the pressures they 
are under in terms of health care.
  As I had mentioned over the course of last week, it was never my 
intention not to proceed to that particular program. Rather, I wanted 
to draw the attention of the Senate to changes which took place in the 
legislation from the time that it passed the Senate, when it included a 
provision to close what has grown into a sizable tax loophole. That 
loophole would permit some of the wealthiest individuals in this 
country, by renouncing their citizenship, to escape the financial 
responsibilities for accumulation of significant amounts of wealth in 
this country.
  The fact remains there were provisions already in existence in the 
Tax Code to try and capture that accumulation of wealth, but it had not 
been effective. Through the work of the Senator from New Jersey, 
Senator Bradley, an amendment was offered to address that very sizable 
loophole in which individuals could become Benedict Arnolds by 
renouncing their American citizenship and walking off with hundreds of 
millions of dollars in accumulated wealth, and then taking up residency 
in Belize or the Cayman Islands or other places around the world, and 
avoid their participation in ensuring that this country is going to 
remain free.
  This is an extremely offensive loophole. I think all of us commended 
the Senate Finance Committee in eliminating the loophole. It was only 
in the few hours prior to the time that we were requested to take 
action on the conference report that it was brought to our attention 
that the loophole which was closed by the Senate had effectively been 
reopened by our House colleagues, and that the $3.6 billion that would 
have been recaptured over 10 years was effectively lost. Not only 
myself but my other colleagues were so troubled by that action that we 
wanted to at least have an opportunity to present to the Senate, at the 
time when we were going to accept the conference report, a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution that would indicate not just other Members' 
desire to close that loophole, but also reflect the totality of our 
support for that action.
  As I said last week, I do not doubt the sincerity of the members of 
the Finance Committee when they said that they would address that issue 
down the road. But we have seen at other times that what really speaks 
the strongest is when you have a unanimous vote. I believe that this 
would win a unanimous vote and certainly should win a unanimous vote of 
the Members--Republicans and Democrats alike. It is absolutely 
outrageous and unacceptable to permit the plundering of the Treasury by 
selfish individuals who refuse to be part of our American system.
  Mr. President, I was reminded last week that, under the Senate rules, 
the sense-of-the-Senate resolution would not be appropriate on a 
conference report because of Senate rules. I think if there ever was a 
legitimate reason for an exception to overturn a ruling of the Chair 
this would be one so that the Senate could go on record as to what the 
real sentiment of the Members would be on this particular issue.
  Nevertheless, I had tried to see if we could not work out at least an 
opportunity to vote on the sense-of-the-Senate resolution as a separate 
matter, hopefully prior to the time that we pass the conference report 
or at a time related to the conference report, because it makes a great 
deal of common sense.
  The conference report is the instrument by which this matter was 
considered. It would be appropriate to consider a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution at the time of its acceptance or shortly thereafter.
  The majority leader has laid down the cloture motion, which, as I 
mentioned, I expect will be vitiated with the understanding that we 
will vote later in the afternoon. I certainly will support that. We 
will have an opportunity prior to the time of the vote to review where 
we are in terms of the conference report and also where we are in the 
Senate debate on priorities. Because that is really the issue--the 
priorities being reflected in the rescission proposal of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  During the course of the presentation by the chairman and the ranking 
minority member of the Appropriations Committee, they have outlined the 
areas where there are going to be rescissions.
  In response to that outline, the minority leader, Senator Daschle, in 
consultation with a number of Members on our side, had proposed an 
amendment to cancel rescissions totaling $1.3 billion in the areas 
which are reflected in the chart here and which we have spoken of last 
week--the restoration of the AmeriCorps, drug free schools, title I 
education programs, Goals 2000, Head Start, the WIC program, school-to-
work, child care, and also some housing and health training programs.
  Mr. President, just to go back a step, many of us were under the 
impression that this matter was to be debated on the floor of the 
Senate on Wednesday or Thursday of last week. It reflected a principal 
opportunity for the Senate to reflect on how important these programs 
are for children and parents, and how we believe that the cuts in the 
rescission package were too deep. We wanted an opportunity to debate 
those cuts versus other cuts.
   [[Page S5027]] I respect the rights and the priorities that are 
being reflected in the second-degree amendment to the minority leader's 
amendment. We ought to have an opportunity for an exchange on that.
  But, generally speaking in this institution, when the majority leader 
or the minority leader offers a proposal, we have an opportunity for a 
full and complete presentation of the amendment and the reasons for and 
against it.
  We were in a situation where many of us thought the proposal would be 
considered last Thursday. Then, the Senator from New York, as is his 
right, sought and received recognition and offered his amendment on the 
Mexican loan issue. The Senate had a good debate on that particular 
measure. We did not conclude until late Thursday evening to at least 
reach a procedure by which that matter would be considered at a later 
time.
  Then I was in the well on Thursday evening when the majority leader 
asked the minority leader, ``Will we be able to consider your amendment 
and perhaps dispose of it as early as 1 o'clock on Friday so that 
people can meet their schedules?''
  Although there was not a firm time agreement, I think those of us who 
were the sponsors thought we could take that matter up at 10 o'clock 
the next morning, then have a good chance to debate and vote on the 
amendment of the Senator from South Dakota, which would certainly have 
been appropriate.
  So the amendment was offered, and there were short speeches on it. 
Then, within just a matter of minutes, an amendment in the second 
degree was offered. Many of us who had thought we would have time to 
have a debate on children and education were at least temporarily 
foreclosed from being able to make that presentation.
  Then, at the noon hour, when some of us were still here, we were 
asked, at a moment's notice, for a consent agreement to not only 
proceed to the self-employed conference report, but also for immediate 
adoption of that.
  That conference report, as I just referred to, was different from the 
measure that actually passed the Senate. The Senate measure would have 
provided $3.6 billion in additional revenues, and that particular 
loophole in the bill would have benefited a dozen or so American 
citizens who renounce their citizenship for tax purposes. The cost 
would be $3.6 billion over a period of 10 years, and we were asked to 
go ahead and agree to it.
  There were questions, Mr. President, that should have been responded 
to. I appreciated the responses given by the Senator from Oregon on 
those issues raised in the conference.
  Nevertheless, it seemed to me, if we were going to consider that 
measure in the conference report, we ought to have had at least been 
given an opportunity to resolve it with a very brief discussion before 
coming back to the Daschle amendment.
  We were not permitted to do so, and so here we are this afternoon 
with the prospect of voting on the conference report and then the 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  Mr. President, this issue becomes all the more significant when you 
look at the Daschle amendment, which invests $1.34 billion on programs 
primarily focused on children and their education.
  This measure regarding the expatriation tax break, however, is $3.6 
billion. It is interesting that our total return for reinvestment in 
children is only $1.3 billion. It is a pretty interesting 
juxtaposition. Many of us are saying, look, if we can be so sensitive 
to the handful of multi-multimillionaires to give them a tax break of 
$3.6 billion, then we ought to be able to at least say that the $1.3 
billion devoted to children for the Head Start Program and the WIC 
Nutrition Program is a higher priority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The time 
expires at 12 noon.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will just take 2 minutes. I ask unanimous consent for 
2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in terms of where we stand, I think this 
chart clearly juxtaposes what the issues are.
  I believe that the overwhelming majority of all Americans believe 
that if we are going to give a tax benefit of $3.6 billion, we ought to 
be able to at least try to do something about children, Head Start, the 
Women, Infants, and Children Nutrition Program, the School-to-Work 
Program, the Child Care Program, on the basis of importance and need. 
We will have an opportunity to address that later in the afternoon. I 
look forward to participating in that debate.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. What is the order of business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The morning business lasts until the hour of 
12 noon.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. And at 12 noon, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture vote is to occur under the order.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Cloture vote is under the order at 12 noon. Mr. 
President, so we have how much more time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have approximately 4 minutes before 12 
noon.

                          ____________________