Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. That is right.

Ms. DeLAURO. You know, I think in so many ways in terms of the debates and the conversations we have been having in recent months that this not closing this loophole down, quite frankly, is not out of character with what we are seeing from the Gingrich leadership here in the sense that when you are looking at the tax package and the budget, which 51 percent of the benefits go to people making over $100,000, when the bulk of the emphasis is on the special interests, the corporate special interests and their tax breaks are being paid for by cuts in Medicare, by cuts in student loans, by cuts in the student lunch program, which we saw. So that is another piece of this philosophy.

Ms. DeLAURO. You cannot take it with you.

Ms. DeLAURO. That is right, those people squeezed at both ends because of this Republican budget, and then you turn around and you find that this small group of folks who are billionaires are just going to take their money and run, if you will, and those folks who are struggling every day would not for 1 minute ever do that or think about doing that.

Ms. DeLAURO. Much is expected, I agree. And I think about the working middle-class families who are out there who play by the rules, who do what is right, trying to educate their children, trying to pay that mortgage every month; if they have elderly parents who are on Social Security and Medicare, all of those things are in jeopardy at the moment, and we have been talking about that, and it is an issue for another time. But those are serious issues which working families are facing today: How are they going to get their kids to school? What happens if student loans go away? What happens if their parents are in a nursing home and Medicare is cut, which it is going to be cut?

Ms. DeLAURO. Who want to shut it down. It is wrong. And we have seen over and over again, month after month, that every time this comes up, those who are in the leadership, the Republican leadership in this House, have either taken no action or have rejected the opportunity to close the loophole.

Ms. DeLAURO. I do not understand it either. My father came to this country as an immigrant. The greatest joy in his life was to be an American citizen, gave back to his community and still instilled that love of country and love of community in me, and one works hard. I admire people who succeed, but what you do is you try to give back in some way. As you pointed out, these are folks who are eminently able to be able to give back, and for a financial gain they would turn their back on the United States. And you talk about a history, what I find equally outrageous is that there have been a number of times over these past several months where there has been an attempt made to shut down this loophole, to close it by well-meaning people, by people and on both sides of the aisle, in some instances.

Ms. DeLAURO. One, it is not something that I would do. I am not in a position to do that, nor would I do it. And I would be embarrassed. Really embarrassed. I think when the gentleman talks about this, I think of the number of people. I treasure my citizenship. I think most Americans do that. And I think about the people who want to come to the United States. They want to be here. They would like to be citizens of the United States. They would like to participate in the life of this country and its cultural life and its economic life. They would like to raise their families in this Nation. And we have people who have had all of the advantages and could truly contribute in a very fundamental way to the well-being of this country and they decide that, well, it is okay. If it deals with a tax advantage, I can blow it off. What does my U.S. citizenship mean? I can just blow it off.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr Speaker, I will not take an hour's worth of time, but just a few minutes. I have asked for the time today to discuss an important development in the Committee on Ways and Means this week. The committee took up the highly controversial expatriate loophole. This provision allows the super-rich of this Nation to dodge paying taxes by renouncing, they can actually renounce their U.S. citizenship. And this is not something that is just a figment of my imagination. It is a loophole that has allowed billionaires such as the Campbell Soup fortune heir, John Dorrance III, and Dart Container Corp. president, Kenneth Dart, to avoid taxes by renouncing their U.S. citizenship. Now, keep in mind that these are folks who made their fortunes in the United States on the backs of working men and women in this country. And they decide that they do not want to pay their taxes, so they renounce their citizenship and they go to live elsewhere. Republicans had promised that they would close this loophole that allows the super-rich to profit by turning their back on America. And on Tuesday, the Committee on Ways and Means passed a bill that the U.S. Treasury Department says contains many of the same problems and would be as unworkable as the current law is. So that, rather than close that expatriate loophole, the Republican legislation would simply open up a whole series of new loopholes for the superwealthy to be able to squeeze through. Here we celebrated Flag Day yesterday, Republicans, and at the same time you see the Republican leadership allowing billionaires to profit by turning their back on the flag. Democrats on the committee worked to close that loophole, but were rebuffed on a party-line vote. I might add there were several instances in the past when this, the closing of this loophole, was brought up. January 1995, the President submitted a budget to Congress including a proposal to close that tax loophole. In February 1995, there was an amendment by Congressman Jim McDermott to close the billionaire's loophole and to use the revenue to pay for health insurance deduction for those people who are self-employed and not covered employees. That was rejected by the Republicans. On February 21, 1995, House Republicans rejected an amendment by the Ways and Means ranking Democrat Sam Gibbons, and again Representative McDermott, to close the loophole. On March 24, the full Senate passed a bill which included the Senate Committee on Finance's provision to close that loophole. On March 28, 1995, once again, the House Republicans rejected a motion by the Ways and Means ranking Democrat, Sam Gibbons, to instruct the Senate to close that loophole. March 28, the Republican House-Senate conferees, they rejected the Senate's provision to close the billionaire's loophole. March 30, 1995, once again the House rejected the conference report which would have reinserted this expatriate provision. On April 3, once again Sam Gibbons introduced a bill to require the State Department to disclose the identity of those who renounce their U.S. citizenship. No action was taken on that. April 6, 1995, Ways and Means Chairman Archer rejected Mr. Gibbons' request for assistance in obtaining from the State Department the names of the billionaires who have expatriated and who have escaped paying taxes. May 2, 1995, again Ways and Means' ranking Democrat Sam Gibbons introduced legislation to close the loophole. No action was taken. May 25, 1995, Democrats introduced a resolution that would serve as a rule to ensure the floor consideration of the Gibbons bill. June 13, the Ways and Means Republicans rejected the Gibbons substitute and reported out this bill which, in fact, is a fig leaf which still allows the most wealthy people in this country to be able to export their wealth, tax free, to foreign countries before they renounce their U.S. citizenship. Leaving this escape hatch wide open truly is a shame in my view, because closing that billionaire's loophole is both the smart thing and the right thing to do. One estimate says that we could bring in over $3.6 billion to the Treasury over 10 years without raising a single penny in taxes. That is smart public policy in these days of such fiscal concern about what our budget is all about; what our deficit is all about in this country. More importantly, ending this kind of a billionaire tax loophole is the right thing to do. The superwealthy who make their fortunes in this country and then renounce their citizenship to avoid paying taxes, in my view, have betrayed the United States and it is time to end special favors to these billionaire tax evaders and make the super-rich pay their fair share. Working middle-class families pay their fair share every single year. And while they continue to come up with creative ways to protecting benefits for the super-rich, the Republican leadership are sticking it to the middle-class families on both ends. In their budget they talk about cutting student loans. They also talk about cutting Medicare for our grandparents. So that in my view again it is an outrage that the Republicans are refusing to stand up to these billionaire Benedict Arnolds who move their wealth offshore. And I am pleased to be able to come here this evening, this afternoon, and to make this statement. And it is my hope that we will be able to address this issue once again. And finally, in a bipartisan fashion, we will close a billionaire's loophole that does not do anything to serve the interests of the United States or the working people of the United States, but it allows those who have made a fortune in this country by the sweat of working people to take that money offshore and to use it for their own purposes; for what they want to do and not to increase the economic viability of the United States. I would like to ask my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward], who has joined me, to add his thoughts to this issue.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\3/4\ minutes, the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, in closing, what I would like to do is to emphasize that this amendment in fact is not about public funding, it is not about special treatment, it is in fact about preserving the right to choose, a right to choose that American women have in the United States. And it is about safe health care for American military women who serve this Nation and serve it proudly, who are far from home, and who sacrifice every single day for this country, such as women who served proudly and gallantly in the Persian Gulf. They should be able to expect the Federal Government to protect their liberties, both at home and abroad. This amendment restores current law. There is not a shred of public funding involved in it, contrary to what my colleagues on the other side would like to portray. The conscience clause is preserved for all branches of the military so that those health professionals who do not want to perform this procedure do not have to do that. This is very, very simply about maintaining and preserving what is the right of women in this country, and that is the right to choose. Why are we singling out women who serve this country for discriminating treatment? I urge support for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I would ask how much time remains on both sides.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown]. (Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney]. (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Georgia [Ms. McKinney].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

Ms. DeLAURO. The gentleman knows that there are no taxpayer dollars involved in this effort. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler], my colleague on the Committee on National Security. (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such times as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton]. (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, again in the spirit of bipartisanship on this amendment, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds, with pleasure, to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari].

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)