The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the Senate section on pages S8135-S8138 on July 14, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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 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 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).
____________________
