[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 165 (Monday, December 3, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12312-S12314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 1755. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a special rule for members of the uniformed services and Foreign
Service, and other employees, in determining the exclusion of gain from
the sale of a principal residence; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I along with Senator Lincoln am proud to
sponsor this bill to allow members of the military service, Foreign
Service, and employees serving on assignment abroad to qualify for the
same tax relief on the profit generated when they sell their main
residence as other Americans. This bill does not create a new tax
benefit, it merely modifies current law to exclude the time living
abroad when calculating the number of years the homeowner has lived in
their primary residence. This bill will treat members of the military,
foreign service officers and civilians living abroad fairly, by
treating them like all other Americans.
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 gives taxpayers who sell their
principal residence a much-needed tax break. Prior to the 1997 act,
taxpayers received a one-time exclusion on the profit they made when
they sold their principal residence, but the taxpayer had to be at
least 55 years old and live in the residence for two of the five years
preceding the sale. This provision primarily benefited older Americans,
while not providing any relief to younger taxpayers and their families.
The 1997 act corrected this flaw. Now, a taxpayer who sells his or
her principal residence is not taxed on the first $250,000 of profit
from the sale. Joint files are not taxed on the first $500,000 of
profit they make from selling their principal residence. The taxpayer
must meet two requirements to qualify for this tax relief: One, they
must own the home for at least two of the five years preceding the
sale; and two, they must live in the home as their main home for at
least two of the last five years.
Unfortunately, the second part of this eligibility text
unintentionally and unfairly prohibits men and women in the Armed
Forces, Foreign Service, and U.S. employees working abroad from
qualifying for this beneficial tax relief. This was not the intent of
the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
This bill remedies the inequality in the 1997 law. The bill amends
the Internal Revenue Code so that military members, Foreign Service
members, and U.S. employees working abroad are not penalized by
suspending the five-year determination period. The member is still
required to own and live in the home for at least two years. This
change was previously passed by Congress as part of the 1999 Taxpayer
Relief and Refund Act, which was vetoed by President Clinton for
unrelated reasons.
The 1997 home sale provision unintentionally discourages home
ownership for U.S. members serving abroad which is bad fiscal policy.
Home ownership has numerous benefits for communities and individual
homeowners. Owning a home provides Americans with a sense of community
and adds stability to our nation's neighborhoods. Home ownership also
generated valuable property taxes for our nation's communities.
We cannot afford to discourage U.S. citizens from working and living
abroad by penalizing them with higher taxes merely because they are
doing
[[Page S12313]]
their job. Enacting this remedy will grant equal and fair tax relief to
those U.S. citizens working abroad.
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. 1755
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULE FOR MEMBERS OF UNIFORMED SERVICES AND
FOREIGN SERVICE, AND OTHER EMPLOYEES, IN
DETERMINING EXCLUSION OF GAIN FROM SALE OF
PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE.
(a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 121 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exclusion of gain
from sale of principal residence) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraphs:
``(9) Members of uniformed services and foreign service.--
``(A) In general.--The running of the 5-year period
described in subsection (a) shall be suspended with respect
to an individual during any time that such individual or such
individual's spouse is serving on qualified official extended
duty as a member of the uniformed services or of the Foreign
Service.
``(B) Qualified official extended duty.--For purposes of
this paragraph--
``(i) In general.--The term `qualified official extended
duty' means any period of extended duty as a member of the
uniformed services or a member of the Foreign Service during
which the member serves at a duty station which is at least
50 miles from such property or is under Government orders to
reside in Government quarters.
``(ii) Uniformed services.--The term `uniformed services'
has the meaning given such term by section 101(a)(5) of title
10, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the
enactment of this paragraph.
``(iii) Foreign service of the united states.--The term
`member of the Foreign Service' has the meaning given the
term `member of the Service' by paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4),
or (5) of section 103 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, as
in effect on the date of the enactment of this paragraph.
``(iv) Extended duty.--The term `extended duty' means any
period of active duty pursuant to a call or order to such
duty for a period in excess of 90 days or for an indefinite
period.
``(10) Other employees.--
``(A) In general.--The running of the 5-year period
described in subsection (a) shall be suspended with respect
to an individual during any time that such individual or such
individual's spouse is serving as an employee for a period in
excess of 90 days in an assignment by such employee's
employer outside the United States.
``(B) Limitations and special rules.--
``(i) Maximum period of suspension.--The suspension under
subparagraph (A) with respect to a principal residence shall
not exceed (in the aggregate) 5 years.
``(ii) Members of uniformed services and foreign service.--
Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an individual to whom
paragraph (9) applies.
``(iii) Self-employed individual not considered an
employee.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term
`employee' does not include an individual who is an employee
within the meaning of section 401(c)(1) (relating to self-
employed individuals).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to sales and exchanges after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 1757. A bill to authorize an additional permanent judgeship in the
district of Idaho, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation, on behalf
of myself and my fellow Idaho Senator, Mike Crapo, creating a new
Federal judgeship for the State of Idaho. This is a matter of great
urgency to the citizens of Idaho, and our bill is aimed at heading off
a looming crisis for the Federal bench in our State.
Idaho has two Federal district judgeships, created in 1890 and 1954.
It is one of only three States in the Union with two Federal District
judgeships. Because of he State's sheer size, its extraordinary
increase in population, and tremendous growth in caseload over nearly
five decades, the current situation is becoming increasingly
unworkable.
For that reason, Senator Crapo and I are seeking an additional
judgeship to ensure that there are adequate resources for the
administration if justice in our State. I am gratified to note that we
have the strong support of Idaho's sitting Federal judges in this
effort.
Let me take a moment to explain my State's problem in greater detail.
Idaho has three distinct and widely distant geographical areas: the
Southeast, the Southwest, and the North. A district judge must travel
up to 450 miles between division offices. This distance is greater than
that traveled in other rural district courts, including those Montana,
Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, or eastern Washington. In fact,
only a district judge in Alaska has a greater distance to travel, when
comparing these rural district courts.
The sheer size of Idaho, the geographical barriers, and the
distribution of population make it a time-consuming, expensive and
physically draining process for two judges to serve the entire State.
As our current Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill has pointed out, if
there is a trial in southwest Idaho and a trial in southeast Idaho,
``there is no district judge to serve the needs of northern Idaho.'' In
addition, as Judge Winmill has stated, the ``mountainous terrain and
two-land highway system in northern Idaho make [that] area particularly
difficult to serve.''
Some Federal districts have the advantage of being able to call upon
senior judges to help out by taking half-caseloads. Idaho has no senior
judges and therefore does not have the flexibility that other districts
have in relation to managing cases. Consequently, for example, when
district Judge Edward J. Lodge was involved in a 6-month trial on a
complex matter, Idaho was forced to request that the Ninth Circuit
Judicial Council authorize the use of judges from the Eastern District
of Washington. These judges assisted our district by handling close to
50 cases in the last year. While this action may have eased Idaho's
crisis temporarily, it cannot reasonably be considered an acceptable
permanent solution to borrow judges from another state and district.
The population of Idaho has increased 28.5 percent in the past
decade, giving Idaho the third fastest-growing population in the
country. In the past year alone, Idaho was the fifth fastest-growing
State in the Nation. Population growth is traditionally a controlling
factor in increasing a district's judgeships, and yet Idaho has not
gained a judge in nearly half a century.
The District of Idaho's caseload continues to grow. During the 12-
month period ending September 30, 2000, the District of Idaho's civil
filings increased 26.9 percent, ranking second in the country in the
percentage increase. Our district also ranks 25th in the Nation in the
number of trials completed. The gap between the number of new civil
filings and the number completed is spreading ever wider, and is
already a broad chasm into which too many cases are already dropping.
There are currently 23 assistant U.S. attorneys in Idaho, which is
more than Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and
eastern Washington. With filings for the period ending September 30,
2000 weighted at 447 cases per judge, this number exceeds the 430 which
the Judicial Conference uses to indicate the need for additional
judgeships. Combining this excess number of cases with the travel
distances in Idaho makes the caseload even more burdensome for Idaho's
two judges.
Additionally, according to Idaho's new U.S. Attorney Tom Moss, there
has been an increase in criminal cases initiated, and he is expecting
the ``caseloads to increase significantly,'' especially in Idaho's five
Indian reservations.
Although this bill is being introduced late in the year, the effort
to secure an additional judgeship has been underway for many months. We
have had member-to-member and staff-to-staff discussions with the
Senate Judiciary Committee about including an additional judgeship for
Idaho in any legislation that the committee considers, creating new
judgeships. Indeed, Idaho's chief district judge even traveled to
Washington, DC, to visit personally with members of the committee and
make the case for a new Idaho district judgeship.
I greatly appreciate the advice that we have received in this effort
from Chairman Leahy, Senator Hatch, and their staff, as well as other
Judiciary Committee members, and it is because they suggested it that
we are taking the step of filing this very simple bill, to put the
issue formally before the Judiciary Committee and the Senate.
There should not be a waiting list for people to obtain justice in
our courts, but there is in Idaho. This will continue to be the case
until relief arrives
[[Page S12314]]
in the form of a third judge. I hope the Senate will support this
measure and protect the interests of justice in the State of Idaho.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Miller, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Durbin, and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 1758. A bill to prohibit human cloning while preserving important
areas of medical research, including stem cell research; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today Senators Kennedy, Boxer, Miller,
Corzine, Durbin, Clinton, and I are introducing legislation to make the
cloning of a human being a crime. Unlike other bills, our bill would
not criminalize cloning that could provide treatments for diseases,
known as therapeutic cloning.
On November 25, scientists at Advanced Cell Technology, a
Massachusetts biotechnology firm, announced that they had created the
first human embryos ever produced by cloning. I believe that this
announcement raises serious concerns and we are proposing a bill to
address this development.
The bill we introduce today would: 1. permanently ban human
reproductive cloning, the cloning of a human being; and 2. allow
therapeutic cloning, that is, allow the use of somatic cell nuclear
transfer or other cloning technologies to create stem cells for
treating diseases.
I support a ban on the cloning of human beings because I believe it
is scientifically unsafe, morally unacceptable, and ethically flawed.
Our bill would allow cloning for therapeutic or treatment purposes.
It would not allow cloning for reproductive purposes, for creating a
human being. Specifically, it prohibits the implantation of the product
of nuclear transplantation into a uterus. Nuclear transplantation is
also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer.
There is broad agreement in the public, in the Congress, in the
scientific community, in the medical community, and in the religious
community that the cloning of a human being should be prohibited. This
bill does just that.
The view that we should not clone human beings is held by many groups
and authorities, including the National Bioethics Advisory Commission,
NBAC, which concluded that it is unacceptable for anyone in the public
or private sector to create a child using somatic cell nuclear transfer
technology. The Commission said,
At this time, it is morally unacceptable for anyone in the
public or private sector, whether in a research or clinical
setting, to attempt to create a child using somatic cell
nuclear transfer cloning.
The difference between our bill and several others including H.R.
2505, the bill passed by the House of Representatives is whether the
bills protect valuable medical research that some day could provide
cures for many dreaded diseases, diseases like cancer, diabetes, cystic
fibrosis, and heart disease; and conditions like spinal cord injury,
liver damage, arthritis, and burns. This research may some day develop
replacement cells and tissues to restore bodily function and treat
diseases. Therapeutic cloning is particularly promising because the
rejection of implanted tissues is less likely since the tissues would
exactly match those of the person who donated the somatic cell nucleus.
To criminally prohibit this kind of research would be a big setback
for science. Here's what some of the experts say about the promise of
therapeutic cloning: The Association of American Medical Colleges:
Therapeutic cloning technology could provide an invaluable
approach to studying how cells become specialized, which in
turn could provide new understanding of the mechanisms that
lead to the development of the abnormal cells responsible for
cancers and certain birth defects. Improved understanding of
cell specialization may also provide answers to how cells age
or are regulated--leading to new insights into the treatment
of cure of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, or other
incapacitating degenerative diseases of the brain and spinal
cord. The technology might also help us understand how to
activate certain genes to permit the creation of customized
cells for transplantation or grafting. Such cells would be
genetically identical to the cells of the donor and could
therefore be transplanted into that donor without fear of
immune rejection, the major biological barrier to organ and
tissue transplantation at this time.
The Society for Women's Health Research wrote me on November 28:
Barring all therapeutic cloning would more likely drive
research underground and guarantee that only the most
unscrupulous would advance these technologies.
The National Health Council said:
Making reproductive human cloning unlawful must be done in
a way that does not deprive those suffering from debilitating
chronic diseases, potential relief and possible cures.
The Alliance for Aging Research wrote on November 28,
Scientists who utilized therapeutic cloning techniques in
the conduct of important scientific research would be labeled
as criminals. The consequence would be that important
research, research intended to save lives and reduce
suffering of tens of millions Americans, would be stopped in
its tracks.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wrote on
November 1, 2001:
Therapeutic cloning may hold the key for repairing or
creating new tissues or organs that could alleviate myriad
medical conditions: diabetes, heart disease, spinal cord
injury and Parkinson's, to name just a few. This technology
is key to the ability to create ``customized tissues'' using
a patient's own DNA to avoid rejection problems, and at this
time, appears promising.
Other bills would make it a crime to clone cells that are used for
therapeutic purposes that some day will save lives and suffering. I
cannot support that approach, to criminalize legitimate medical
research that could some day treat diseases and save human lives. That
would be very short-sighted.
In summary, I believe that the cloning of human beings is wrong and
should be outlawed. I believe that therapeutic cloning holds great
medical promise and should not be prohibited. This bill will make it a
crime to create human beings, but protect important scientific research
that can save human lives and relieve human suffering.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered printed in the
Record.
Summary of the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001
Findings: Cites findings by the National Bioethics Advisory
Commission and other respected bodies, which have recommended
that Congress enact legislation prohibiting anyone from
conducting or attempting human cloning but not unduly
interfering with important areas of research, such as somatic
cell nuclear transfer or nuclear transplantation.
Prohibitions: Makes it unlawful for any person: To conduct
or attempt to conduct human cloning; to ship the product of
nuclear transplantation in interstate or foreign commerce for
the purpose of human cloning; or to use federal funds for
these activities.
Definitions: ``Human cloning'' is asexual reproduction by
implanting or attempting to implant the product of nuclear
transplantation into a uterus.
``Nuclear transplantation'' is transferring the nucleus of
a human somatic (body) cell into an oocyte (egg) from which
the nucleus or all chromosomes have been or will be removed
or rendered inert.
Penalties: Makes violators liable for a criminal fine and/
or up to 10 years in prison as well as a civil penalty of
$1,000,000 or three times the gross profits resulting from
the violation, whichever is greater.
Protection of Medical Research: Clarifies that the bill
does not restrict therapeutic cloning, stem cell research or
other forms of biomedical research such as gene therapy.
Ethics Requirements: Applies to nuclear transplantation
research the ethics requirements currently used by the
National Institutes of Health. These include informed
consent, an ethics board review, and protections for the
safety and privacy of research participants. Imposes a
$250,000 civil penalty for violation of the ethics
requirements.
____________________