[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).

                          ____________________