April 7, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S5539 

exception for one pending deal. I want 

to set the record straight. 

The conference report simply clarifies the definition of a binding contract, and let me add that this clarification was raised by a Democrat 

Member, not a Republican. 

Second, the letter insinuates that 

during conference, Republicans took 

out a provision imposing a tax on U.S. 

citizens who renounce citizenship. 

Mr. President, we have already been 

through this. We explained earlier this 

week, that in the Senate we agreed to 

impose taxation on U.S. citizens who 

renounce citizenship. But, this measure 

was adopted without the benefit of 

hearings. Subsequently, the Finance 

Committee’s oversight subcommittee 

held a preliminary hearing. This proposal raises important questions, and 

the hearings exposed some serious concerns. We simply decided to not delay 

action on H.R. 831 while we continued 

to consider alternatives to this expatriate provision. That is right, let me 

set the record straight once again—we 

are not opposing this in any way. Just 

the opposite, we want to get this done. 

The conferees asked the Joint Committee on Taxation to study this provision and other alternatives and get 

back to us by June 1, 1995. It is also 

clear that this provision will be effective as of February 6. 

But while concerns remained with 

the provision, we did not include it in 

H.R. 831. 

Also, Mr. President, during floor debate in the House on the tax bill, one of 

the signatories of the letter, Congressman GEPHARDT, tried to put a similar 

expatriate tax provision in the tax 

bill—with an effective date of October 

1, 1996, much later than the Finance 

Committee provision. 

The letter to the President claims 

that House Democrat Members want to 

close an important tax loophole for 

millionaires, but it seems like they 

want to close it very slowly. 

CONCLUSION

It is my sincere hope that the President gets the record straight. Because 

if he does not, and he decides to play 

politics as usual, then 3.2 million farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and 

taxpayers will suffer for it. 

It has been 3 days since the President 

received H.R. 831, and I urge the President to sign it into law. There is no 

reason to delay any longer. It should be 

signed as soon as possible so that taxpayers can finish preparing their tax 

returns in time. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO NELLE M. BIGBEE 

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, Mrs. 

Nelle M. Bigbee, a native of 

Tuscumbia, AL, passed away on March 

8 at the age of 92. An accomplished 

writer, news commentator, artist, poet, 

and public speaker, Nelle was the first 

female newscaster in the State of Alabama. Her daily radio and television 

programs, which were such a fixture of 

the Tuscumbia community, won many 

awards from the American Women in 

Radio and Television Organization. 

Nelle Bigbee wrote for numerous publications and received many awards 

from the Associated Press as well. She 

participated in many community, 

church, civic, and professional activities, including the American Cancer 

Society, American Heart Association, 

and United Way, just to name a few. 

She was instrumental in organizing the 

first Helen Keller play, and acted the 

part of ‘‘Aunt Ev’’ for several years. 

She held the distinction of being the 

first female candidate to run for elected representative to the Alabama Legislature. 

She was a wonderful neighbor of 

mine. She and her departed husband 

Hatton were great friends. She was admired and loved by all who knew her. 

Nelle Bigbee indeed lived a long, rich, 

and multifaceted—even trailblazing—

life. The talented Alabama journalists 

and commentators of today owe her a 

great deal of thanks for her pioneering 

spirit and determination. I extend my 

condolences to her entire family in the 

wake of their loss, and join her many 

friends and admirers in reflecting on 

the many outstanding accomplishments that defined her life and work. 

f 

WAS CONGRESS IRRESPONSIBLE? 

THE VOTERS HAVE SAID YES 

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as of the 

close of business yesterday, Thursday, 

April 6, the Federal debt stood at 

$4,872,967,679,626.75. On a per capita 

basis, every man, woman, and child in 

America owes $18,497.87 as his or her 

share of that debt. 

f 

PRESSLER AMENDMENT: STAY 

THE COURSE 

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I join 

the President, Members of Congress, 

and the American people in welcoming 

the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mrs. 

Benazir Bhutto, to the United States. I 

wish her well during her visit. I had the 

opportunity to meet with her in Pakistan just a few months after her reelection as Prime Minister in October 

1993. I enjoyed visiting her beautiful 

country. The opportunity for lasting 

peace and economic growth both within Pakistan and throughout South Asia 

should be a top priority for the United 

States and all the countries of that region. 

I suspect that it is largely due to the 

visit of Prime Minister Bhutto that the 

Clinton administration once again is 

publicly questioning the effectiveness 

of the so-called Pressler amendment, 

the law that prohibits direct United 

States aid to Pakistan. 

As my colleagues know, it was 10 

years ago that I successfully offered an 

amendment in the Foreign Relations 

Committee to cut off aid and military 

sales to Pakistan if the President could 

not certify that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear explosive device. The 

Reagan administration supported the 

amendment. In fact, they helped write 

it. Even the Government of Pakistan 

did not object to the amendment because they claimed they were not pursuing a nuclear option. 

In fact, my amendment was considered a compromise. Our former colleague from California, Senator Alan 

Cranston, had another amendment that 

immediately would have cut off aid to 

Pakistan, without Presidential certification, because he believed Pakistan 

already possessed the materials needed 

to assemble a nuclear bomb. 

In October of 1990, nearly 5 years 

after the Pressler amendment became 

law, the Bush administration was unable to certify that Pakistan was not 

in possession of a nuclear explosive device. As a result, all U.S. direct aid and 

military sales were terminated. At the 

time of the aid cutoff, Pakistan was attempting to purchase a fleet of F–16’s 

from the United States. Because of the 

enforcement of the Pressler amendment, delivery of the aircraft never 

took place. 

Despite claiming to have a strong 

policy on nuclear nonproliferation, the 

Clinton administration consistently 

has shown hostility toward the Pressler amendment—the only nuclear nonproliferation law with teeth. In the fall 

of 1993, the Clinton administration 

called for the repeal of the Pressler 

amendment, but backed off after pressure from Members of Congress. 

The Clinton administration last year 

began to float a new proposal to grant 

a one-time waiver of the Pressler 

amendment to allow for the delivery of 

at least 22 of the F–16 aircraft sought 

by Pakistan—aircraft that can carry 

and drop a nuclear bomb. The administration’s proposal was originally unconditional, but was later modified 

with a condition that Pakistan promise 

to cap its nuclear weapons arsenal. 

In recent weeks, the Clinton administration has been at it again, proposing 

a $1 billion package of military equipment, consisting mainly of the F–16’s. 

Frankly, Mr. President, I find simply 

preposterous any proposal that would 

transfer even one F–16 to Pakistan 

without first securing that nation’s 

compliance with the Pressler amendment and its signature on the nuclear 

non-proliferation treaty [NPT]. 

The latest Clinton F–16 transfer 

plan—like the first—is unacceptable. I 

am astounded that an administration 

that pays so much lip service to the 

cause of nuclear nonproliferation 

would consider providing Pakistan 

with aircraft capable of carrying a nuclear weapon. 

Never before in history has a nation 

sought to transfer nuclear delivery vehicles to a country that has nuclear 

weapons and say it is doing so in the 

interest of nuclear nonproliferation. 

The Clinton plan defies basic common 

sense. 

Indeed, President Clinton’s proposed 

military aid package to Pakistan 

would have the worst of consequences: 

It would strike a serious blow against 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS