[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8135-S8138]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. MACK (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Murkowski,
Mr. Hatch, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Warner,
Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Robb, Mr. Thurmond,
Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Cochran):
S. 2296. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal
the limitation on the amount of receipts attributable to military
property which may be treated as exempt foreign trade income; to the
Committee on Finance.
defense jobs and trade promotion act of 1998
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Defense Jobs and
Trade Promotion Act of 1998. This bill will eliminate a provision of
tax law which discriminates against United States exporters of defense
products.
Other nations have systems of taxation which rely less on corporate
income taxes and more on value-added taxes. By rebating the value-added
taxes for products that are exported, these nations lower the costs of
their exports and provide their companies a competitive advantage that
is not based on quality, ingenuity, or resources but rather on tax
policy.
In an attempt to level the playing field, our tax code allows U.S.
companies to establish Foreign Sales Corporations (FSCs) through which
U.S.-manufactured products may be exported. A portion of the profits
from FSC sales are exempted from corporate income taxes, to mitigate
the advantage that other countries give their exporters through value-
added tax rebates.
But the tax benefits of a FSC are cut in half for defense exporters.
This 50% limitation is the result of a compromise enacted 22 years ago
as part of the predecessor to the FSC provisions. This compromise was
not based on policy considerations, but instead merely split the
difference between members who believed that the U.S. defense industry
was so dominant in world markets that the foreign tax advantages
[[Page S8136]]
were inconsequential, and members who believed that all U.S. exporters
should be treated equally.
Today, U.S. defense manufacturers face intense competition from
foreign businesses. With the sharp decline in the defense budget over
the past decade, exports of defense products play a prominent role in
maintaining a viable U.S. defense industrial base. It makes no sense to
allow differences in international tax systems to stand as an obstacle
to exports of U.S. defense products. We must level the international
playing field for U.S. defense product manufacturers.
The fifty percent exclusion for sales of defense products makes even
less sense when one considers that the sale of every defense product to
a foreign government requires the determination of both the President
and the Congress that the sale will strengthen the security of the
United States and promote world peace. This is more than a matter of
fair treatment for all U.S. exporters. National security is enhanced
when our allies use U.S.-manufactured military equipment, because of
its compatibility with equipment used by our armed forces.
The bill I am introducing today will repeal the provision of the
Foreign Sales Corporation laws that discriminates against U.S. defense
product manufacturers, enhancing both the competitiveness of U.S.
companies in world markets and our national security.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Defense Jobs and Trade
Promotion Act of 1998''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON RECEIPTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
MILITARY PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE TREATED AS
EXEMPT FOREIGN TRADE INCOME.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 923 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining exempt foreign trade
income) is amended by striking paragraph (5) and by
redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (5).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. GORTON:
S. 2297. A bill to provide for the distribution of certain
publications in units of the National Park System under a sales
agreement between the Secretary of the Interior and a private
contractor; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
national parks magazine proposal legislation
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee responsible for funding the National Park
System's annual budget and as a long time resident of Washington
State--home to some of the true crown jewels of the system, I have long
held both a personal and professional interest in ensuring that our
parks are adequately funded and well maintained.
Unfortunately in recent years due to declining budgets, more units
added to the system, and substantial increases in visitation, our park
system faces some serious challenges. All told, the total unfunded
backlog in maintenance, resource stabilization, infrastructure repair
and employee housing alone is a staggering $8.7 billion.
While I have done everything I can to ensure that the National Park
Service receives annual increases at a time when overall funding for
the Department of Interior continues to decline, the fact is new,
innovative ideas are imperative to overcome this desperate situation.
For this reason, I have promoted such ideas in my Interior
Appropriations bill.
One idea that was incorporated into our bill during the 104th
Congress was the establishment of the recreation fee demonstration
program. Under this three-year pilot program, individual units of the
National Park and National Forest systems that charge an additional
entry fee get to keep 80% of the receipts collected from that fee
within the park or forest unit to help address the backlog of
operational and maintenance needs.
The user fee program is designed to give each unit more authority
over the resources needed to maintain facilities, to repair roads and
other areas in need of up keep. While nobody likes higher fees, I have
long believed that the public is willing to pay more to visit these
national treasures if it could be assured that such increases went to
addressing critical needs at the parks they visited. The recreation fee
demonstration program is a small, but positive step forward in this
direction.
More recently, I have gotten behind the ideas and efforts of Senator
Craig Thomas, Chairman of the authorizing subcommittee on national
parks. Senator Thomas recently developed a comprehensive and forward
thinking proposal to reinvigorate the park system. In addition to
making my Recreation Fee Demonstration Program permanent and extending
it to all units of the National Park System, Senator Thomas' proposal
which passed the Senate last month contains a number of reforms which
would improve overall services at our parks and hopefully generate more
revenue. I am pleased to have supported Senator Thomas in this effort
both as a fellow member of the Senate Energy Committee and on the
Senate floor.
In addition to my colleagues and my own ideas, I am also relying on
the suggestions of the recreation community in my state of Washington
which is home to the Olympic, Mount Ranier, and North Cascades National
Parks. Recently, I was approached by Mr. John Taylor, a constituent of
mine from the Seattle area, who came up with a thoughtful--albeit
narrower proposal--which only furthers the interests of the system.
This idea would create a National Park Service magazine similar to that
established by the National Smithsonian Institution through its
publication of the Smithsonian Magazine.
A National Park magazine would be created for people who visit or
have a particular interest in our parks, their programs, and purpose.
The plan is to create a high quality commercial consumer publication
that will have broad appeal and park specific sections that will
provide useful information and serve as a guide for the park where a
specific edition is distributed.
Revenue generated from the sale of advertising in the magazine as
well as from the sale of the publication itself would go directly to
the Park in which the magazines are sold. Proponents of such a project
inform me that such a magazine would generate $45 million for the
National Park Service over the first 5 years of publication and $10-$12
million each year thereafter.
Unfortunately, current Park Service regulations severely restrict the
sale of publications which contain advertising in units of the national
park. Existing regulations are unnecessary in this case because a
magazine for the national parks would no more commercialize the parks
than the Smithsonian Magazine commercializes the Smithsonian
Institution.
Ads in a Park publication are very different than corporate signs and
corporate sponsorships in the parks. Magazines are invisible except to
those who purchase them. They don't enter the landscape in any way.
They don't alter infrastructure. They don't use facilities. They don't
express or imply any kind of ownership or funding of any part of the
Parks by sponsoring companies. Nor do they imply an endorsement of the
product by the National Park Service. Moreover, individual parks have
for years distributed information, maps and so on which contain ads
from local community sponsors to cover their cost. A National Park
Service magazine is merely an expansion of this idea.
Because of current NPS administrative roadblocks, I am introducing
legislation which would correct this problem and allow the Park Service
to begin consideration of magazine proposals. The entire cost of the
project will be covered by the advertising and sales revenue the
publication will generate through the large anticipated readership. The
Park Service not only gains a vehicle for educating and informing the
public about Parks--something that has been sorely needed for years--it
does so at no cost. In fact under this proposal, it could do so while
generating revenue for the Parks.
While the revenue generated from this proposal is a mere pittance
compared to the multibillion backlog our
[[Page S8137]]
parks currently face, the continued development and implementation of
ideas such as this are critical to the long term restoration of our
parks. I believe every Senator has an obligation to listen to good
ideas at the grass roots level that help solve this growing problem.
With budgets continuing to decline and demands only increasing for
recreational outlets. Congress must continue to rely on the interested
public for creative solutions that will generate more revenue for this
important purpose.
______
By Mr. BENNETT:
S. 2304. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
the carryover of unused nontaxable benefits under cafeteria plans,
flexible spending arrangements, and health flexible spending accounts;
to the Committee on Finance.
flexible spending accounts legislation
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to
provide individuals with greater control over their health care choices
and dollars. This legislation will allow individuals enrolled in
Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA) at year's end to move unutilized funds
in the amount of $500 or less to other tax protected accounts such as:
a medical savings account, an individual retirement account or a 401k
account.
A flexible spending account is one of the options available to
employers as they provide benefits to their employees. At the beginning
of the year the employer gives the employee a set number of pre-tax
benefit dollars which they can then allocate to any one or combination
of the IRS approved FSA uses: health care, life insurance, day care,
vacation, or retirement. The employee then must determine at the
beginning of the year the number of dollars they will put in each
account. In most cases the employee hopes they have made the
appropriate allocation. If the employee has over funded a particular
account they lose those benefit dollars at the end of the year.
About 21.7 million Americans lose between $125 to $200 every year
because of a 1984 Internal Revenue Service regulation that governs
FSAs. Every year Americans lose between $4.3 and $2.7 billion due to
this IRS regulation! The regulation mandates that individuals with FSAs
must either ``use-it-or-lose-it.'' In other words, if you do not spend
your money by the end of the year, your employer gets to keep the money
you don't spend!
This legislation will allow individuals enrolled in flexible spending
accounts at year's end to ``rollover'' or move up to $500 per year from
their FSA into one of the approved accounts including: IRAs, MSAs, or
401ks. The funds rolled over into an appropriate account would be
treated for tax purposes as a rollover contribution for the taxable
year from which it was unused. The $500 allowable rollover would be
indexed in increments of $50 and rounded to the lowest multiple of $50.
I believe this small change would have a significant impact on
individuals and their health care. First, the incentive would be to
spend these dollars only on health care services that are necessary,
thus encouraging rational health care spending rather than the
irrational health care spending promoted by the ``use-it-or-lose-it''
policy. Second, individuals would be more inclined to open up a MSA,
and in doing so they would have both greater portability and greater
choice. This would empower individuals by giving them greater control
over their own health care dollars and expand access and choice. Third,
more rational spending is likely to translate into lower health care
costs and greater competition.
I hope the Senate will act swiftly to hold hearings and to move this
legislation through the committee process to the Senate floor for final
consideration. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation
and would welcome their cosponsorship.
______
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 2305. A bill for the relief of Nizar Sweilem and Hassan Sweilem;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
private relief legislation
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I introduce a private relief
bill, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, that would grant Nizar
and Hassan Sweilem permanent residence in the United States. Nizar and
Hassan Sweilem are natives and citizens of Lebanon. They are also
brothers.
The Sweilem brothers have lived in Des Plaines, Illinois for fourteen
years and have made the most of this opportunity to obtain a first-
class education in this country. Nizar recently earned a Ph.D. in
biochemistry from the University of Illinois at Chicago. Hassan earned
a B.S. in Political Science and is completing a degree in Computer
Science also at the University of Illinois.
Both Nizar and Hassan were born in Beirut, Lebanon. They entered the
United States as children in August of 1983 to visit relatives. When
they entered the United States, they were accompanied by their mother,
and their maternal uncle. Their uncle returned early to Lebanon and was
killed two weeks later when a rocket destroyed the Sweilem family home.
In April of 1984, because of her brother's murder and her own fear of
persecution, Leila Sweilem applied to the INS for asylum in the United
States without the assistance of counsel. Nizar and Hassan Sweilem were
included in their mother's application since they were her minor
children. Since 1984, the Sweilem brothers have been pursuing the right
to live legally in the United States as permanent residents.
In 1985, the INS denied the Sweilems' request for asylum and
initiated deportation proceedings against the family. Leila, Nizar and
Hassan renewed their application for asylum in their hearing before an
Immigration Judge, but those requests were denied. The Sweilems
appealed that decision, but before any decision was issued, the
Attorney General designated nationals of Lebanon eligible for Temporary
Protected Status on account of the extreme level of violence created by
the Lebanese civil war. TPS for citizens of Lebanon continued until
March of 1993.
In August of 1993, Hassan and Nizar asked that their asylum appeal be
reinstated and that their case be remanded to allow them to apply for
suspension of deportation. In November of 1994, Hassan and Nizar
applied for suspension of deportation. While their application was
pending, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Responsibility Act in September of 1996. This law retroactively made
Nizar and Hassan ineligible for suspension of deportation and left them
with no alternate remedy. The 1996 Act eliminated suspension of
deportation and established a new form of relief entitled cancellation
of removal that required an applicant to accrue ten years of continuous
residence as of the date of the initial notice charging the applicant
with being removable. Despite the fact that at that time the Sweilem
brothers had twelve years of continuous residence in the U.S., the time
accrued after the denial of their mother's initial asylum request does
not count.
Last year, this Congress recognized that these new provisions could
result in grave injustices to certain groups of people, so in November
of 1997, the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act granted relief
to certain citizens of former Soviet block countries and several
Central American countries.
That law allowed several hundred thousand Central Americans and
former Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact countries, who came to the U.S.
during the civil strife of the 1980's to adjust to permanent resident
status under more lenient hardship rules that existed prior to the 1996
change. The U.S. had allowed Central Americans to reside and work here
for over a decade, during which time many of them established families,
careers and community ties. If Nizar and Hassan Sweilem were citizens
of Nicaragua, El Salvador Guatemala or any of the former Communist
countries of Eastern Europe, they could continue to pursue their
applications for suspension of deportation. The fact that they are
citizens of Lebanon makes them ineligible for relief.
Nizar and Hassan Sweilem have lived in the United States for almost
15 years, since they were 12 and 14, respectively. They have taken full
advantage of their educational opportunities and are more than capable
of caring for themselves. The brothers will face undue hardship by
returning to Lebanon, as evidenced by their uncle's murder. The Sweilem
brothers' extended family now resides in the United States, and the
brothers have strong ties to the local community. My office has
received numerous letters
[[Page S8138]]
from the community on their behalf, including a letter from the
Director of Graduate Studies at the University of Illinois. They have
no family left in Lebanon and have never visited it in the last 15
years.
The Sweilem brothers have spent more than half their lives in the
United States. At every step, the Sweilems took American law at its
word: they always attempted to follow the law only to have Congress
suddenly pull the rug out from under them. I think this is an injustice
and these two brothers from Lebanon deserve the same relief that we
gave people from Nicaragua, El Salvador and Czechoslovakia. Mr.
President, I ask you and my fellow colleagues to support these Lebanese
brothers by giving them permanent residence status and not depriving
them of the opportunity to become United States citizens.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2305
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.),
Nizar Sweilem and Hassan Sweilem shall be held and considered
to have been lawfully admitted to the United States for
permanent residence as of the date of enactment of this Act
upon payment of the required visa fees.
SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.
Upon the granting of permanent residence to Nizar Sweilem
and Hassan Sweilem, as provided in this Act, the Secretary of
State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by the
appropriate number during the current fiscal year the total
number of immigrant visas available to natives of the country
of the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
______
By Mr. BURNS (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 2306. A bill to require the Federal Communications Commission to
modify its duopoly rule for multiple ownership of television stations;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
federal communications commission legislation
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that
would eliminate the outdated broadcast ownership restrictions in place
at the Federal Communications Commission. I am pleased to note that I
am introducing this legislation with the co-sponsorship of the Chairman
of the Commerce Committee. I welcome Senator McCain's support on this
issue and look forward to working with him to make sure that these
impractical restrictions are eliminated.
Currently, the FCC disallows ownership of stations in separate
markets if the broadcast signals overlap. For example, a broadcaster
may not now own a station in each of the Washington, DC, and Baltimore
markets. I believe that ownership of stations with overlapping signals
should be allowed if the stations are licensed to communities in
different markets. Practical ownership policies will encourage the
construction of new television stations and broadcast networks that
will promote increased consumer choice.
In the Senate Communications Subcommittee, I have recently held
numerous FCC oversight hearings on how best to create a regulatory
framework for the age of competition. I believe this bill will help to
move in the direction of deregulation and I look forward to working
with my colleagues to ensure its passage.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2306
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MULTIPLE OWNERSHIP RULES.
The Federal Communications Commission shall modify the
television contour overlap rule set forth at section 73.3555
of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, to permit any party
(including all parties under common control), to own,
operate, or control television stations despite overlapping
contours if the television stations are licensed to
communities in different television markets (as defined in
section 76.55(e) of such title).
____________________