[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 6 (Tuesday, February 1, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BOND (for himself and Mrs. Kassebaum):
S. 1813. A bill to make additional funds available to repair damage
from the Midwest Floods of 1993 through the wetlands reserve program,
to make certain non-Federal levees are eligible for assistance under
the Federal levee rehabilitation program, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
midwest floods act of 1994
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, most Missourians could probably
understand the tragedy that stuck Californians this month better than
most Americans. It was only this past summer that we tangled with
Mother Nature and suffered her wrath. The devastating consequences look
all too familiar to the people of the Midwest: families trying to
reunite with loved ones; homes and workplaces destroyed; and long lines
at disaster centers to get help. Our hearts go out to those earthquake
victims in California, and we realize that they need and deserve our
help. We feel your pain; we understand your hardship.
But I must share a word of warning with the Senators from California
after my experiences seeking Federal aid for Midwesterners. There is a
different spirit in the Senate and the Nation than prevailed 4 years
ago when Californias sought our help for their last earthquake or 3
years ago when you sought our help for riots in your streets. It's a
chilling, heartless attitude that disaster victims should fend for
themselves, that they may even be to blame for their tragedies.
In previous disasters, emergency aid was sent with haste, without
strings, to meet the victims' needs. When one of our neighbors needed
our help we did not hesitate nor we tell them how they should live
their lives. It was neighbor helping neighbor. When Hurricane Andrew
and Hugo hit the east coast, we sent help. When the last earthquake hit
California, we helped out.
In the middle of our natural crisis, that neighborly spirit changed.
Many demanded that the emergency aid be offset with cuts in other
spending. Some fought against our disaster funds. Others have used the
tragedy as an excuse to try to tell us how to live our lives. Worst of
all, we have been left completely vulnerable to more tragedy and
suffering this spring, if it's Mother Nature's whim again. The Senators
from California may be confronted by that cold, new attitude this year,
and they should be prepared.
The able Senators from California understand the need for vigilant
attention to the Government's efforts, but my recent experiences make
me believe that there is an even greater need for their persistence
now. Recovering from a natural disaster is a long, difficult process.
What takes Mother Nature a few brief moments to destroy, takes men and
women months, and even years, to rebuild. When the Nation's and the
Federal Government's attention has turned elsewhere, the hard work of
putting people's lives back in order goes on.
Unnoticed by people far from the Midwest, particularly in our
Nation's capital, our Federal Government has quietly abandoned many
Missourians and has left tens of thousands more in jeopardy. This
spring, when the snows melt and the rains come, my State will likely
flood again. The National Weather Service predicts there will be
excessive moisture and thus flooding again this spring.
For months, I have pleaded with the Clinton administration to help us
prevent another tragedy from occurring, but they have turned away. Now
it is too late to save many communities from devastation and homes from
ruin, but there's still time to prevent entire sections of Missouri
from becoming wastelands.
Today I am introducing legislation that would increase funding by $50
million for the Emergency Wetlands Reserve Program [EWRP] and an
additional $50 million to rebuild levees.
Four months after the flood, on December 20, the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch reported that the Army Corps of Engineers had only completed
emergency repairs on 19 of the more than 500 flood-gouged levees in the
Midwest. Now on February 1, that number has increased to 43 levees.
As many as 271 levees remain ineligible for Federal assistance. I
introduced an amendment last session that would have allowed ineligible
levees to come into the Federal program and make repairs before the
spring floods. But the Army Corps of Engineers and OMB said they did
not have enough money to fix these levees. I then crafted an amendment
to cap spending at $150 million, they still said it cost too much.
Thus, with the help of the administration, the corps and
environmentalist, my plan was rejected.
Unfortunately, it is not a lack of money that is keeping the
administration and the corps from rebuilding. In the President's
rescission package, that has now been passed by the House of
Representatives, he cut $97,319,000 from the Army Corps of Engineers
general construction budget. Almost a $100 million that the corps says
they don't need and the administration is saying to cut. The people in
the Midwest need the help to protect themselves from spring floods, not
excuses why they can't get help.
The Federal Government's plan for levee repair makes no sense. Let me
show you a map of levee repair in Missouri.
The legislation I am introducing provides $50 million for the repair
of publicly sponsored non-Federal levees under the levee rehabilitation
program. It sets up a 75 to 25 cost share program instead of the normal
80 to 20 cost share. It will provide some much needed assistance to
Midwest landowners and the second half of the legislation provides for
a balanced approach.
The other key part to my legislation also adds $50 million for the
Emergency Wetlands Reserve Program.
As a result of the great flood of 1993, millions of acres of fertile
farmland are covered with sand. In Missouri alone, 455,000 acres, or 60
percent of the Missouri River bottom lands are damaged by sand deposits
and scouring. Nearly 60,000 acres are covered with more than 2 feet of
sand. In some places it has been reported that there is as much as 11
feet of sand covering farmland.
The current funding for EWRP is $15 million. Unfortunately, the
existing funds will meet little more than half of the demand for EWRP.
It has been reported that 43,000 acres of Midwest river bottom land has
been offered into the EWRP and that, almost 22,000 acres was offered in
Missouri alone. Of that 43,000 offered, 25,000 acres is expected to be
accepted into the EWRP. In some cases, whole levee districts have
submitted applications to participate in the program.
Increasing funds for EWRP will not only help farmers facing
huge economic losses but will accomplish several things: First,
wetlands will be restored, the environment enhanced and future flooding
could be lessened, and second, farmers will have voluntary option
instead of just bringing flood-damaged land back into production. This
is a win-win for the environment and for our farmers and landowners. We
need a balanced approach and this program is a step in the right
direction.
We need a balanced approach to river bottom lands. We can't just
focus on long-term or short-term approaches; there has to be balance.
The legislation that I am introducing today takes a much needed
balanced approach. It provides options for landowners to either rebuild
or turn lands into wetlands. The key is, landowners have options.
In conclusion, there will be much talk in the coming days of human
compassion for the victims of the California earthquake. They have
suffered natural consequences and call out for our aid. But where will
be the human compassion for the midwesterners who still have their
lives in shambles? They cannot return to their homes and lands, because
their flood protection is destroyed and the administration refuses
help.
I will try to help them. We do not ask for more than we need, but we
need all for which we ask. I intend to seek $100 million in aid--$50
million to convert damaged lands to wetlands and $50 million to repair
damaged levees. I will link this balanced assistance package to Senate
passage of emergency California earthquake relief and plan to use the
means necessary to win its enactment.
I do not take this course of action lightly, but only after months of
futility and frustration. We have pleaded for this assistance from this
administration, but it has not come. Midwesterners are hardy people who
are used to fighting Mother Nature's disasters. But floods this spring
would be a manmade disaster, and it's clear who would be held
accountable. I intend to fight that and to ensure that no parts of my
State are left wastelands.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Boren, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Kohl, Mr.
Dole, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Durenberger):
S. 1814. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
that a taxpayer may elect to include in income crop insurance proceeds
and disaster payments in the year of the disaster or in the following
year; to the Committee on Finance.
tax treatment of disaster assistance act of 1994
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today
to address unnecessary inflexibility in a Tax Code provision that
affects farmers who receive disaster assistance.
The importance of this issue is highlighted by the fact that I am
joined in this effort by a number of my colleagues, many of whom serve
with me on the Senate Finance Committee. Identical legislation is being
introduced in the House of Representatives today, as well.
The legislation makes a permanent change to the Tax Code and impacts
farmers who received disaster payments as a result of losses sustained
from the flooding last year. Due to a number of factors, many of those
farmers did not receive their disaster assistance payments until 1994.
This may have serious tax consequences for them if they normally would
have recognized the income from the crops that were destroyed on their
1993 tax return. Receipt of the disaster payment in 1994 may prevent
them from reporting it as income on their 1993 return. This, in turn,
will result in a bunching of income on their 1994 return, possibly
pushing them into a higher tax bracket than would otherwise be the
case. It may also cause them to lose the benefit of personal exemptions
and certain nonbusiness itemized deductions.
Ironically, Internal Revenue Code section 451(d) permits a farmer who
happened to receive his disaster payment in 1993 to defer recognition
of that income for tax purposes until 1994, if that is the year in
which he would otherwise have recognized the income from the crops that
were destroyed.
The legislation we are introducing today would simply permit the
converse result. That is, a farmer who did not receive his disaster
payment until 1994 may recognize the payment as income on his 1993
return, if that is when he would otherwise have recognized the income
from the crops that were destroyed.
Let me emphasize again that the change made by this legislation would
apply to future disasters and disaster payments, not just those arising
out of the 1993 flooding.
Mr. President, there really is no reason why the Tax Code should
allow flexibility for farmers who want to recognize disaster payments
in the year following the disaster, but not for those who receive their
payments in the latter year and want to recognize them in income in the
year of the disaster. In either case, the farmer would be required to
show that he would have received the income from the destroyed crops in
the year he is choosing to report the disaster assistance income.
Without this two-way rule, we will be imposing significant financial
burdens on the very people we sought to assist when we passed the 1993
disaster assistance legislation.
I would also like to make clear that no one is pointing fingers here.
The fact is that this situation can arise circumstantially, without
fault on anyone's part. The timing of the disaster, the volume of
applicants for disaster assistance, and many other factors could result
in farmers receiving disaster assistance payments the year after the
disaster. This situation was bound to arise sooner or later, and it
makes sense to correct it as soon as possible for those who are
affected.
It is my intention to aggressively pursue passage of this measure.
And I am sure that motivation is shared by those who are joining me in
introducing it. We hope that the rest of our colleagues will be
sympathetic to the urgency of this issue and join us in seeing that it
is passed expeditiously.
______
By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Specter,
Mr. Durenberger, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Gorton, and Mr.
Moynihan):
S. 1815. A bill to authorize matching funds for State and local
firearm buy-back programs; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
federal firearm buy-back initiative act
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, very often the best ideas spring from the
grassroots * * * and those of us in Congress should take notice.
One idea that has taken off at the local level involves buying back
guns * * * for toys, for clothes, even for tickets to sporting events.
In Chicago, more than a thousand weapons, including a projectile
launcher that was featured on the front-page of the Chicago Tribune,
were recently exchanged in a guns-for-shoes program sponsored by the
Foot Locker Co. and the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce. Last
Christmas, America cheered a young man named Fernando Mateo, a New York
City carpet store owner who initiated his own toys-for-guns effort.
And in many other cities throughout the country, local governments
and private and community groups have initiated similar gun repurchase
programs.
Today, I am introducing legislation that will lend a helping hand to
these local initiatives by establishing a Federal gun buy-back program,
to be administered by the Attorney General.
description of program
Under this program, the Federal Government, acting through the
Attorney General, will match local and State gun buy-back efforts on a
dollar-for-dollar matching basis. To be eligible for the Federal funds,
the local program must guarantee that any firearms exchanged are, in
fact, destroyed. The Attorney General may set other conditions to
ensure that the buy-back program is operated in an efficient manner and
consistent with the interests of law enforcement.
The Federal gun-buy-back program will only provide funds to those
local initiatives that offer merchandise and other noncash incentives
to individuals who want to turn in their firearms. In other words, a
local cash-for-guns program will not be eligible for Federal assistance
for the reason we have learned that some turn in their old guns for
cash to go out and buy a new gun. So it is limited to in-kind.
The purpose of the Federal program is not to supplant State and local
efforts, but rather to assist them with supplemental funding --$15
million for fiscal year 1994 and another $15 million for fiscal year
1995. Once the local effort gets off the ground, the Federal Government
can step in with the additional resources.
funding
Funding for the Federal program will be provided through the $22
billion Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, which was Established in
the anticrime bill passed by the Senate last November. In the weeks
ahead, I intend to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to ensure that the Federal program is considered during the upcoming
Senate-House conference on anticrime legislation.
a small step
Mr. President, will the Federal buy-back program end crime, or
substantially reduce it. Of course not.
In fact, the most effective way to reduce crime is to arrest the bad
guys, put them in prison, and keep them there by padlocking the
revolving prison door. The simple truth is that a violent criminal kept
behind bars will not terrorize a single law-abiding citizen.
That is why Senate Republicans have insisted that any anticrime bill
worthy of the name must devote substantial resources for incarceration.
The anticrime bill recently passed by the Senate does just that--$500
million in State grants to build and operate detention facilities for
violent juveniles; $3 billion in grants for State prisons, city and
county jails, and boot camps; and another $3 billion for 10 new
regional prisons to which States can send their most violent criminals.
These are the big steps. But that does not mean the small steps are
not worth taking, too. In fact, if my calculations are right, the
Federal gun buy-back initiative--working together with State and local
initiatives--could result in removing one million guns from our streets
within the next 2 years. Of course, that is still going to leave a
hundred-and-some million guns, but it is a small step.
Obviously, the jury is still out on whether these gun buy-back
efforts actually reduce crime. That is why we sunsetted it. But, as
skeptical New York City Police Chief Raymond Kelly explained last
December: ``I've converted. I'm a believer.''
Mr. President, I am prepared to be a convert and a believer, too.
That's why the bill I am introducing today directs the Attorney General
to report to Congress on the impact the gun buy-back programs have on
the crime rate in those areas in which they are operated. The Attorney
General must submit this report to Congress no later than December 31,
1995.
If the programs work, then Congress can reauthorize the Federal buy-
back initiative. But if they do not work, then the Federal initiative
should not be renewed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the
Federal Firearm Buy-Back Initiative Act be reprinted 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 ``Federal Firearm Buy-Back
Initiative Act.''.
SEC. 2. MATCHING FUNDS FOR STATE AND LOCAL FIREARM BUY-BACK
PROGRAMS.
(a) Federal Contribution.--The Attorney General shall
establish a program under which the Attorney General will
enter into agreements to contribute, and will contribute, up
to 50 percent of the funds needed to provide merchandise,
certificates that may be used to acquire merchandise or
services, or other non-cash incentives to individuals to turn
in firearms to firearm buy-back programs operated by State or
local governments or private entities.
(b) Qualifications, Terms, and Conditions.--In an agreement
under subsection (a), the Attorney General--
(1) may agree to contribute to a firearm buy-back program
an amount that is not greater than the amount of State and
local public funds and private funds committed to the program
at the time of the agreement;
(2) shall require that all firearms that are turned in to
the program will be destroyed;
(3) shall require that the program agree to provide only
merchandise, certificates that may be used to acquire
merchandise or services, or other incentives other than cash
to individuals who turn in firearms; and
(4)(A) may set such other qualifications, terms, and
conditions as may be appropriate to ensure that the program
is operated in an efficient and bona fide manner consistent
with the interests of law enforcement; but
(B) may not prescribe the terms under which the program
will accept firearms in exchange for any offered incentive.
(c) Termination.--The program under subsection (a) shall
terminate on September 30, 1995.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, out of the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund to be established under
section 1115 of title 31, United States Code, as added by
section 1353 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1993, $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1994 and
1995.
(e) Report.--Not later than December 31, 1995, the Attorney
General shall submit to Congress a report assessing the
effect that operation of the firearm buy-back programs funded
under this Act has had in reducing the incidence of crime in
the jurisdictions in which the programs were operated.
______
By Mr. LEAHY:
S. 1816. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to protect
against trafficking in food instruments and other frauds in connection
with the special supplemental food program for women, infants, and
children [WIC], and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
wic fraud prosecution act of 1994
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have today introduced
legislation--the WIC Fraud Prosecution Act of 1994--to protect the
Women, Infants and Children Food Program, commonly called WIC, from
criminals who would traffick in WIC food vouchers.
This bill disqualifies stores from the WIC Program if the
storeowners, managers, or officials are involved in trafficking in WIC
coupons. This is in addition to any jailtime and fines imposed on the
guilty individuals. However, where store disqualification would mean
that low-income families could not use WIC benefits a $20,000 fine per
violation could be imposed.
The bill imposes severe criminal penalties on storeowners or officers
involved in the trafficking of WIC coupons including jail sentences of
up to 10 years and fines of up to $100,000; or both.
It also imposes criminal penalties on anyone involved in trafficking
of WIC vouchers. The bill provides authority to the court to disqualify
the person from WIC participation for 2 years in addition to any
criminal fines or jail sentences which are imposed.
It also provides for the forfeiture of any property to the Federal
Government used in the commission of a WIC trafficking crime, and for
the forfeiture of any property purchased with the proceeds of any
trafficking transaction.
And finally, the bill requires States, as a condition of
participation in the program, to provide to USDA a detailed plan to
detect and punish trafficking in WIC food instruments or access devices
by storeowners or WIC food vendors. States are required to target
higher risk stores and vendors.
Each State agency will be required to fully cooperate with the
State's attorney general, county or parish attorneys, law enforcement
officers, and Federal prosecutors or law enforcement personnel in any
investigation of trafficking in WIC food instruments or access devices.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in passing this important
legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks and the text
of the bill be placed in the Record as if read.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1816
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 ``WIC Fraud Prosecution Act of
1994''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the special supplemental food program for women,
infants, and children (WIC) established under section 17 of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786) provides
vital and nutritious foods to vulnerable Americans;
(2) the improper diversion of WIC benefits by stores and
other food vendors authorized to accept WIC food instruments
harms the entire WIC program; and
(3) severe penalties should be imposed on store owners and
managers and WIC clinic employees engaged in trafficking in
WIC food instruments
SEC. 3. DISQUALIFICATION AND CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES FOR WIC
FOOD VENDORS; CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
Section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C.
1786) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(q)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any food
vendor authorized to participate in the program authorized
under subsection (c)(1) (referred to in this subsection as
the `program') shall be permanently disqualified from further
participation in the program, on a finding, made in
accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary, that any
owner, officer, supervisor, or manager of the vendor
intentionally--
``(A) trafficked in program food instruments or otherwise
obtained program food instruments by buying the instruments
at a discount in an unlawful manner;
``(B) obtained benefits purchased at a discount through the
improper use of a program access device; or
``(C) sold or purchased firearms, ammunition, explosives,
or controlled substances (as defined in section 102(6) of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6))) in exchange
for, or with, program food instruments.
``(2) If the Secretary determines that disqualification of
a food vendor would cause hardship to persons participating
in the program, in lieu of disqualification under paragraph
(1), the Secretary may impose on the vendor a civil money
penalty of up to $20,000 for each violation described in
paragraph (1).
``(3) Any owner, officer, supervisor, or manager of a
program food vendor or any employee of a program clinic who
intentionally traffics in program food instruments or
otherwise obtains program food instruments by buying the
instruments at a discount in a manner not permitted by law
shall be guilty of a felony and shall be fined not more than
$100,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
``(4)(A) At any time after imposing a money penalty under
this subsection, the Secretary may request the Attorney
General to institute a civil action to collect the penalty
against a person subject to the penalty in a district court
of the United States for any district in which the person is
found, resides, or transacts business.
``(B) The court shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide
the action.
``(C) In the action, the validity and amount of the penalty
shall not be subject to review.
``(5)(A) The Secretary may impose a fine against any person
not approved by the Secretary to accept program food
instruments who violates this subsection or a regulation
issued under this subsection, including a violation
concerning the acceptance of program food instruments and
including such violations by employees of program clinics.
``(B) The amount of the fine shall be established by the
Secretary and may be assessed and collected in accordance
with regulations issued under this subsection separately or
in combination with any fiscal claim established by the
Secretary.
``(C) The Attorney General may institute judicial action in
any court of competent jurisdiction against the person to
collect the fine.
``(6) Whoever presents, or causes to be presented, a
program food instrument, or who uses a program access device,
knowing that the instrument or device to have been received,
transferred, or used in violation of this subsection or the
regulations issued under this subsection shall be guilty of a
felony and--
``(A) on the first conviction of the felony, shall be fined
not more than $20,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5
years, or both; and
``(B) on the second and any subsequent conviction of the
felony, shall be imprisoned for not less than 1 year and not
more than 5 years and may also be fined not more than
$30,000.
``(7) In addition to other penalties imposed under this
subsection, any person convicted of a violation of this
subsection may be suspended by a court from participation in
the program for a period of up to 2 years.
``(8)(A) The Secretary may subject to forfeiture and denial
of property rights any nonfood item, money, negotiable
instrument, security, vendor property (including a building),
or other item of value that is furnished or intended to be
furnished by any person in exchange for a program food
instrument or program access device, or anything of value
obtained by use of an access device, or program food
instruments, or which item or property is used in
facilitating such trafficking, in any manner that violates
this subsection or a regulation issued under this subsection.
``(B) Any forfeiture and disposal of property forfeited
under this subsection for a violation described in
subparagraph (A) shall be conducted in accordance with
procedures specified in regulations issued by the Secretary.
SEC. 4. DETECTION OF TRAFFICKING IN WIC FOOD INSTRUMENTS OR
ACCESS DEVICES.
Section 17(f)(1) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42
U.S.C. 1786(f)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (xii);
(B) by redesignating clause (xiii) as clause (xiv); and
(C) by inserting after clause (xii) the following new
clause:
``(xiii) a detailed plan for the detection and punishment
of store owners or program food vendors for trafficking in
food instruments or access devices used in connection with
the program authorized subsection (c)(1), subject to
subparagraph (F); and''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F)(i) The plan described in subparagraph (C)(xiii) shall
target higher risk stores or vendors.
``(ii) The State agency shall set aside funds for carrying
out subparagraph (C)(xiii).
``(iii) The State agency shall fully cooperate with the
attorney general of a State, county attorneys, law
enforcement officers, and Federal prosecutors or law
enforcement personnel in any investigation of trafficking in
food instruments or access devices used in connection with
the program authorized under subsection (c)(1).''.
____________________