May 2, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4485

this legislation was worked on by colleagues from both sides of the aisle, led

by our good friend, the gentleman from

Virginia [Mr. BOUCHER]. This legislation does several things to increase

awareness of the problem of arson, including increasing the ability of fire

departments to identify suspicious and

incendiary fires resulting in increased

and more effective prosecution of arson

cases.

The legislation awards 2-year competition merit-based grants to as many

as 10 States for arson research, prevention, and control. The authorization

for fiscal year 1994 was almost $5 million, and for fiscal year 1995 $6.25 million.

The legislation also improves arson

investigator training courses, leading

to professional certification of arson

investigators. It also provides resources for the formation of arson task

forces, especially needed in our inner

cities where arson for profit has become a major problem.

The legislation also supports and develops programs directed at fraud as a

cause of arson, juvenile arson, drug and

gang related arson, domestic violence

connected arson, and civil unrest as a

cause of arson.

Finally, the bill provides for development of an advanced course on arson

prevention and expansion of arson investigator training programs at the

National Fire Academy, the Federal

Law Enforcement Training Center and

the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Academy.

The International Association of

Arson Investigators was formed in 1949.

It is the most broad-based, well-respected organization in this country

and the world that focuses on the problem of arson and works to train arson

investigators. This organization, with

over 8,000 members, was established to

unite for mutual benefit those public

officials and private persons engaged in

the control of arson and kindred

crimes.

In addition, the National Fire Protection Association is currently developing a manual for fire investigation

that will aid in the process of training

these investigators.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to

those brave men and women who day in

and day out are fighting this ongoing

problem in America, a problem that is

affecting our economy and that is taking approximately 700 lives each year. I

pay tribute especially to those brave

arson investigators, those law enforcement personnel who are handling situations in all of our cities and counties

dealing with the terrible tragedy of

arson loss in this country.

previous order of the House, the gentleThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

fwoman from the District of Columbia

[Ms. NORTON] is recognized for 5 minutes.

[Ms. NORTON addressed the House.

Her remarks will appear hereafter in

the Extensions of Remarks.]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HAMILTON] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

[Mr. HAMILTON addressed the

House. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]

LEGISLATION REGARDING EVASION OF TAX LAWS BY REfNOUNCING CITIZENSHIP

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. GIBBONS] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, today, along

with my colleagues Messrs. GEPHARDT,

BONIOR, FAZIO, RANGEL, STARK, JACOBS,

FORD, MATSUI, Mrs. KENNELLY, Messrs.

COYNE, LEVIN, CARDIN, MCDERMOTT, KLECZKA,

LEWIS, NEAL, PAYNE, and FROST, I am introducing legislation to prevent the evasion of our

tax laws by individuals who renounce their

American citizenship.

This legislation is identical to the bill S. 700,

introduced on April 6, 1995, by Senator MOYNIHAN. Senator MOYNIHAN should be commended for his leadership on this issue and

for his efforts to respond to the technical concerns raised by those opposing this legislation.

I must wholeheartedly agree with Senator

MOYNIHAN’s introductory comments that these

technical concerns could have been resolved

‘‘if those criticizing the provision’s technical aspects put even half as much effort into devising solutions as highlighting shortcomings.’’

Mr. Speaker, this bill is similar to the provision which was included in the House Democratic amendment which was defeated when

the House considered H.R. 831. In addition,

this proposal was included in the Senate

amendment to H.R. 831. In addition, this proposal was included in the Senate amendment

to H.R. 831. It would tax the unrealized appreciation in assets held by individuals who expatriate. The bill contains generous exemptions

to limit its applicability to only the extremely

wealthy. This bill contains several technical

modifications from those earlier proposals,

which I would like to quickly summarize to

demonstrate our willingness to respond to legitimate concerns regarding this issue.

Unlike the provision contained in the earlier

amendments, this bill would also apply in

cases where long-term residents of the United

States cease to be taxed as residents. This

change is in response to the argument that

the earlier amendments were unfair in that

they applied only to citizens and did not also

apply to residents who are taxed in the same

manner as citizens.

During House consideration of H.R. 831,

there were arguments about potential double

taxation. This bill I am introducing today responds to those arguments by providing that,

if a foreign person becomes a resident or citizen of this country, the basis of all of that person’s assets would be stepped up to their fair

market value at the time the person becomes

subject to our tax system. Therefore, the bill

creates parallel treatment under which appreciation accruing before an individual becomes

subject to our taxes would be exempt from our

taxes and tax on appreciation accruing while

an individual is subject to our tax laws could

not easily be avoided.

The bill also responds to the argument that

triggering the tax on expatriation would be an

acceleration of the tax that would otherwise

have occurred. The bill provides that each taxpayer would be allowed to irrevocably elect on

an asset-by-asset basis to continue to be

taxed as a U.S. citizen with respect to assets

designated by the taxpayer.

The bill also makes modifications to the administration of the tax by requiring expatriates

to file a return within 90 days of their expatriation and to pay a tentative tax.

Mr. Speaker, we had a long and heated debate on this issue in April and I do not wish

to repeat that entire discussion today. However, there are several matters upon which I

feel compelled to comment.

Opponents of this provision made much of

their concern over human rights obligations

under international laws. Senator MOYNIHAN

has quite nicely analyzed these arguments in

his introductory statement. I do not intend to

repeat that analysis but I do want to agree

strongly with his conclusion that the growing

consensus of opinion is that this provision

does not violate any legitimate human rights

concern. For me, the human rights argument

was never very persuasive. These individuals

are not renouncing their American citizenship

because of any fundamental disagreement

with our political or economic system. They

simply refuse to contribute to the common

good in a country where the political and economic system has benefited them enormously.

Some individuals went so far as to compare

the plight of these wealthy expatriates to the

plight of the persecuted Jews attempting to

flee Russia. I can only say that I agree strongly with the leaders of the National Jewish

Democratic Council who have described this

argument as ‘‘nothing short of obscene.’’

In the last weeks of April, some of my Republican colleagues accused me of engaging

in class warfare because of my attempts to

ensure that these extraordinarily wealthy individuals cannot avoid our tax system by the

despicable act of renouncing their citizenship.

During the welfare reform debate, Republic

Members of this House compared welfare recipients to ‘‘wolves’’ and ‘‘alligators’’ and engaged in crude stereotyping of welfare recipients by referring to ‘‘studs’’ outside their

homes. The Republican welfare bill took billions away from the poorest of our citizens to

be used to fund a tax bill that even the Wall

Street Journal described as a ‘‘windfall for the

well off.’’

None of this was considered class warfare

by Republican members of this House. However, when Democratic Members suggest that

billionaires should not be able to avoid the

same taxes that middle-income taxpayers are

required to pay, some Republicans consider

that class warfare. The difference between the

two parties could not be clearer.

Finally, I would like to make it clear that the

effective date in the bill I am introducing today

is February 6, 1995, and that I will continue to

insist that February 6, 1995, be the effective

date for any subsequent legislation to end this

loophole. The Democratic Members of this

House will insist on this effective date, and the

fact that a different effective date was contained in a motion to recommit on the recent