[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23727-23729]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

[[Page 23728]]

  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,

[[Page 23729]]

but there is in Idaho. This will continue to be the case until relief 
arrives 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.

                          ____________________