[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. JOHNSTON (for himself and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 1910. A bill to establish a national research program to improve 
the production and marketing of sweet potatoes and increase the 
consumption and use of sweet potatoes by domestic and foreign 
consumers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


      sweet potato research and production improvement act of 1994

 Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will 
have a significant and far-reaching impact on our Nation's sweet potato 
industry. This legislation is identical to legislation I introduced 
prior to the adjournment of the 102d Congress and will provide needed 
research which will help not only one of our country's fastest growing 
commodity industries, but also help assure foreign and domestic 
consumers receive a higher quality product that is more nutritious, 
produced with less pesticides, grown utilizing more environmentally 
responsible management practices, and more efficiently processed and 
brought to market.
  As my colleagues from sweet potato producing States know, sweet 
potatoes are not only delicious but highly nutritious, ranking at the 
top of the list in nutritional value when compared to other vegetables. 
However, while the U.S. production of sweet potatoes represents a $3 
million industry and one of our country's fastest growing commodities, 
we currently have very few research programs in place to address the 
needs of the industry in a variety of areas. To fill this need, this 
bill would establish a National Sweet Potato Research Program within 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Agricultural Research 
Service [ARS]. This small investment would go a long way toward 
ensuring that land-grant colleges and institutions throughout the 
country place a higher priority on research efforts designed to move 
the U.S. sweet potato industry forward and ensure consumers of a higher 
quality product. ARS would issue research grants on a competitive basis 
for this purpose.
  The research sponsored through the program would focus on seven major 
areas, each critically important to the future of the sweet potato 
industry. Areas targeted for research include crop disease and pest 
resistance, improved varieties, environmentally compatible management 
technologies, integrated crop management, environmentally responsible 
chemical usage, and technology for better and more efficient 
harvesting, grading, storage, marketing, and processing of sweet 
potatoes.
  Mr. President, the United States is by far the leader in agricultural 
research and technology. No other country has a safer, higher quality, 
or more abundant food supply than America. But the progress that we 
have made thus far has come from the investments we have made in 
improving this industry. We have the ability to go much, much further 
and should continue to strive to work toward that end. This bill will 
help us move forward at a very critical point for the sweet potato 
industry.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It will prove 
beneficial to producers and consumers of sweet potatoes as well as 
assist the American agricultural support industry as a whole by working 
to expand further the already growing market for sweet potatoes.
  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. 1910

       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 ``Sweet Potato Research and 
     Production Improvement Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL SWEET POTATO RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture, acting 
     through the Agricultural Research Service or through 
     cooperative agreements with land-grant colleges and 
     universities, shall conduct research regarding sweet 
     potatoes, including research to develop--
       (1) widely adapted, high-quality cultivars of sweet potato 
     with increased yields and improved levels of disease and pest 
     resistance for traditional markets and alternative uses;
       (2) environmentally compatible management technologies to 
     control diseases, nematodes, insects, and weeds that limit 
     sweet potato production in the United States, including 
     effective controls for sweet potato weevils in host and 
     nonhost crops;
       (3) detection and monitoring systems for male and female 
     sweet potato weevils in sweet potato storage facilities and 
     in field and seed bed plantings;
       (4) integrated crop management practices for sweet potatoes 
     that effectively combine cultural and biological controls, 
     environmentally rational chemical usage, and host resistance;
       (5) improved technology for more efficient harvesting, 
     grading, and storage of sweet potatoes;
       (6) improved technology for processing sweet potatoes for 
     both traditional and nontraditional food products; and
       (7) methods to increase sweet potato consumption and uses 
     while also removing possible barriers that limit sweet potato 
     use in both domestic and export markets.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of Agriculture to carry 
     out this section $2,400,000 for fiscal year 1994 and each 
     fiscal year thereafter. Of the amounts made available for a 
     fiscal year under this section--
       (1) not more than $400,000 shall be made available to carry 
     out research described in subsection (a)(1);
       (2) not more than $500,000 shall be made available to carry 
     out research described in paragraphs (2) and (3) of 
     subsection (a);
       (3) not more than $400,000 shall be made available to carry 
     out research described in subsection (a)(4);
       (4) not more than $400,000 shall be made available to carry 
     out research described in subsection (a)(5);
       (5) not more than $400,000 shall be made available to carry 
     out research described in subsection (a)(6); and
       (6) not more than $300,000 shall be made available to carry 
     out research described in subsection (a)(7).
                                 ______

      By Mr. GLENN:
  S. 1912. A bill for the relief of Ethel M. Roberts of Newark, OH; to 
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                   ethel roberts private relief bill

 Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I introduce a personal relief bill 
for Ethel Roberts of Newark, OH. Ethel Roberts was denied a survivor's 
pension by the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] and the Merit 
Systems Protection Board [MSPB] because her husband, Hoyt J. Roberts, 
did not inform OPM upon their remarriage. Unfortunately, Hoyt Roberts 
was bedridden with terminal cancer and was physically unable to contact 
OPM. The only way that Ethel Roberts can receive a survivor's pension 
is through personal relief legislation.
  Ethel Maxine Smith first married her husband, Hoyt J. Roberts, who 
was civil servant, on May 14, 1950. The couple was divorced in 1977. In 
early 1989, Mr. Roberts was diagnosed with terminal cancer. To control 
Mr. Roberts' pain, the doctors gave his daily injections of morphine. 
It was under this morphine flood that Hoyt Roberts asked Ethel Roberts 
to remarry him. Mr. Roberts believed by remarrying his former wife, he 
could ensure Mrs. Roberts' pension, thus protecting her financial 
future. Mr. and Mrs. Roberts remarried on July 15, 1989, less than 1 
month before Mr. Roberts' death.
  Unfortunately, both OPM and MSPB ruled that Mrs. Roberts is not 
entitled to former spouse annuity benefits or survivor benefits because 
Mr. Roberts failed to elect survivor benefits for his wife upon the 
remarriage. Unfortunately, Mr. Roberts could not inform OPM of the 
remarriage because he was bedfast and taking large doses of morphine to 
control the pain of his illness. In addition, Mrs. Roberts claims that 
she had no idea that the remarriage would place her former spouse 
annuity benefits or survivor benefits in jeopardy because she and Mr. 
Roberts had a biblical marriage, in which Mrs. Roberts took care of the 
household and Mr. Roberts handled the financial issues.
  In their rulings on Ethel Roberts' case, both OPM and MSPB states 
that Mrs. Roberts' entitlement to a former spouse annuity terminated 
with her remarriage (5 U.S.C. Sec. 8341(h)(3)(B)). Regarding Mr. 
Roberts' failure to elect survivor benefits for Mrs. Roberts upon their 
remarriage, both OPM and MSPB ruled that they had no administrative 
discretion to waive this rule for Mrs. Roberts even though Mr. Roberts 
was physically unable to contact OPM upon the remarriage.
  Because both OPM and MSPB ruled against Mrs. Roberts, her only course 
of action is personal relief legislation. The bill I am introducing 
today would entitle Ethel Roberts to a former spouse annuity by 
declaring her remarriage to Hoyt Roberts null abnitio. Mrs. Roberts 
would then be entitled to all moneys that she would have received upon 
Hoyt Roberts' death in July 1989.
  The extraordinary facts in this case lead me to believe that Mrs. 
Roberts' situation merits personal relief legislation. It has been 
almost 5 years since years since Mr. Roberts died, 5 years that Mrs. 
Roberts has had to go without this annuity. I hope that we can pass 
this legislation quickly.
  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. 1912

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
       Section 1. (a) Notwithstanding section 8341(h)(3)(B) or any 
     other provisions of chapter 83 of title 5, United States 
     Code, in the administration of such chapter the marriage of 
     Hoyt J. Roberts and Ethel M. Roberts (formerly Ethel Maxine 
     Smith) of Newark, Ohio on July 15, 1989, shall be deemed to 
     be null abnitio, and Ethel M. Roberts shall be entitled to a 
     former spouse annuity based her marriage to Hoyt J. Roberts 
     on May 14, 1950 and the election of such former spouse 
     annuity by Hoyt J. Roberts on January 1, 1988.
       (b) The provisions of subsection (a) may not be construed 
     to effect the application of any other Federal, State, or 
     local law with regard to the marriage of Hoyt J. Roberts and 
     Ethel M. Roberts on July 15, 1989.
       (c) The provisions of this subsection shall be effective on 
     and after July 15, 1989.
       Sec. 2. Nothing in this Act may be construed as an 
     inference of liability on the part of the United 
     States.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SIMON:
  S. 1914. A bill to allow holders of unclaimed postal savings system 
certificates of deposit to file claims for such certificates; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


       postal savings system certificates of deposit act of 1994

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that 
will allow holders of postal savings notes to redeem them with the U.S. 
Treasury Department.
  In 1911, the postal savings system was established to allow people to 
purchase savings notes at the post office, because many immigrants were 
accustomed to saving at the post office.
  In 1966, Congress terminated the system and transferred the unpaid 
deposits to the Treasury Department.
  In 1984, Congress passed legislation designed to sunset the postal 
saving system, giving any individual holding postal savings notes 1 
year to redeem them.
  Since that time, however, the Treasury Department has received over 
2,000 written inquiries and innumerable telephone inquiries from people 
wanting to cash in their notes.
  We should give people one last chance to redeem their notes. This 
legislation will extend the final date for redemption to December 31, 
1998.
  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. 1914

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS OF HOLDERS OF POSTAL SAVINGS 
                   SYSTEM CERTIFICATES.

       Section 1322(c)(3) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``more than one'' and all that follows 
     through the period and inserting ``after December 31, 
     1998.''.

     SEC. 2. PUBLICITY REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS.

       (a) Policy of Congress.--It is the policy of the Congress 
     that every individual holding unclaimed Postal Savings System 
     certificates of deposit should be able to redeem those 
     certificates. Since these certificates are more than 26 years 
     old and most of the individuals owning the certificates are 
     elderly, it is vital that information relating to the ability 
     to file claims pursuant to this Act be disseminated as widely 
     as possible.
       (b) Publicity Campaign.--In furtherance of the policy set 
     forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     prepare a plan relating to the dissemination of information 
     on the payment of claims filed pursuant to this Act. The plan 
     shall be designed so that the information will reach those 
     individuals most likely to own Postal Savings System 
     certificates of deposit. The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     consult with representatives of senior citizen organizations 
     in the design of this plan. The plan shall be put into 
     operation no later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

       Section 1322(c) of title 31, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking paragraph (4).
                                 ______

      By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Pressler, Mr. 
        Gorton, Mr. Burns, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Packwood, 
        and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 1915. A bill to require certain Federal agencies to protect the 
rights of private property owners; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.


               PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS BILL OF RIGHTS ACT

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to introduce today, a 
piece of legislation that addresses the liberty and security of every 
individual in this country.
  Mr. President, the bill that Senator Nickles and I are introducing is 
not about creating new rights. Rather, it is about preserving old 
rights.
  The private property owners bill of rights is intended to reaffirm 
and recognize a most basic purpose of government--the preservation of 
private property.
  And that purpose is twofold, Mr. President. Our Government not only 
has an affirmative constitutional duty to protect private property, but 
it also is restricted from taking private property for its own use 
without compensating the owner.
  And yet, even with such consensus and clarity on these constitutional 
guarantees and protections, the Federal Government continues to ignore 
the broader principles behind these guarantees every day.
  Through the application and implementation of laws like the 
Endangered Species Act and section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 
individuals are regularly deprived of the benefit and value of their 
labor, and denied the right to freely control, use or dispose of their 
property.
  Under these laws, the individual has no reasonable ability to appeal 
onerous agency actions, and the individual may be foreclosed from 
challenging decisions which effectively make his property valueless.
  Mr. President, our bill would reaffirm the Government's 
constitutional duty to protect private property by requiring that 
agencies and agents enforcing ESA and wetlands statutes obtain consent 
from land owners before entering their property, and allow property 
owners the ability to appeal decisions affecting the use and value of 
their property.
  The bill also ensures that the Federal Government protects the 
individual from uncompensated takings by requiring that the agency make 
a determination of whether an agency action under these statutes 
devalues the property by 50 percent or more--or eliminates any 
economically viable use of the land. If a positive determination is 
made, the agency must compensate the owner for the fair market value of 
the loss.
  The right to control, possess, and transfer property--they represent 
independent values in land ownership and can constitute independent 
compensable interests in property. The value of possessing property may 
be stripped if the right to sell the land is taken, just as the value 
of possessing the land is significantly depreciated if the owner can 
not improve or make use of his property.
  Mr. President, by restricting a farmer from tilling 100 acres of land 
because it is designated a beetle habitat--the Government has converted 
private property to public use. Thus, since protecting the beetle is 
found to be for the public good, so should the costs of that protection 
be shared by the public and not imposed on the individual property 
owner.
  I am convinced that in the coming years, the Federal Government will 
have to realistically address the impact of regulatory law on private 
property rights.
  There is a growing resistance in this country to mandates from 
Washington that place the cost of public good on private property 
owners. If we are going to pursue laudable public endeavors like 
preserving wetlands and endangered species, then the public at large 
cannot continue to shift the cost of enforcing these statutes to 
unfortunate property owners.
  Upholding the Constitution is not simply the duty of the courts, Mr. 
President. We are sworn as lawmakers to do the same. We should rectify 
our wrongs rather than waiting for the courts to do so for us.
  Indeed, Mr. President, we are compelled to do so, for as John Locke 
would eloquently remind us, ``whereas government has no other end but 
the preservation of property.''
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I must apologize to my colleagues today. 
Old Man Cold finally caught up with me, and I am about to lose my 
voice. When it comes to the auction business or to politicians, that is 
almost a disaster. It becomes a crisis for us.
  I rise today to join with Senator Shelby and Nickles in introducing 
the private property owners bill or rights. The Senator from Alabama 
was on the floor a while ago. I did not have my comments put together, 
but the purpose of this bill is to provide a consistent Federal policy 
to encourage, support, and promote the private ownership of property 
and to ensure the constitutional and legal rights of private property 
owners.
  Private property rights are protected under the fifth amendment of 
the Constitution of the United States. A lot of us lean a lot on that 
fifth amendment, yet we have seen some laws that go flying through this 
Congress and are signed by the President that are encroaching more and 
more on this right which is a basis, I believe, in a free society.
  The bill we are introducing today is very important to my State of 
Montana because it makes the Federal Government respect and protect 
private property rights when enforcing such acts as the Endangered 
Species Act and the Clean Water Act. Montana's private property owners 
have been greatly impacted by those two laws alone. I will give an 
example.
  In Montana last year, there was a headline that read like this: 
``Judge Says Grizzlies Have People Rights.''
  This article ran in an agricultural trade publication. The story was 
about a rancher, John Shuler, at Choteau, MT, who shot a grizzly bear 
in 1989 after he found three of these bears in his sheep corrals. He 
originally fired the shot to scare the bears away, but one bear did not 
scare and instead the bear charged him and he was forced to shoot the 
bear.
  For those of you who may not be aware, grizzly bears are protected 
under the Endangered Species Act. The judge ruled that the Endangered 
Species Act self-defense exception must meet the same requirements used 
in criminal law for humans. The judge ruled that since this rancher had 
stepped off his porch to protect his investment, he purposefully placed 
himself in the zone of imminent danger of a bear attack. According to 
this judge, the rancher did not have the right to protect his property. 
And, folks, that probably calls for an attitudinal change, but 
basically that is wrong.
  The private property owners bill of rights would create an 
administrative appeals process for affected property owners. And the 
bill establishes a framework so private property holders can seek and 
obtain compensation.
  In other words, it lays out some guidelines as to what is commonly 
referred to in this business as taking.
  Now, what changes your attitude about the Endangered Species Act? We 
had a person come to Montana, intent on studying grizzly bears. 
Instead, he ran into one. The bear got him down, put 28 holes in his 
skull. and I have never seen such an attitude change on bears as a 
protected animal. In fact, he made the statement there was some doubt 
as to who was on the endangered species list there for a little while.
  So those attitudes all change. That is why we need this law. That is 
why private property needs to have something said about it whenever we 
start talking about the Clean Water Act or the Endangered Species Act.
  In addition, before a Government official can enter your private 
land, with this piece of legislation they must have consent from the 
landowner. If information is selected on private property, this 
information cannot be used unless the private individual has full 
access to the information and has the right to dispute the accuracy of 
that information. The bill also establishes the right to 
administratively appeal decisions regarding wetlands and critical 
habitat of listed species.
  We believe that protecting private property is of the utmost 
importance. That has always been the cornerstone to a lot of arguments 
in my great State of Montana.
  This bill reinforces the Government's responsibility to protect 
property rights and will get the Federal Government off the backs of 
some people, the working men and women of this country. I strongly 
believe in every American's private property rights. This bill should 
be signed into law.
  There is nothing more basic to a free society than private ownership 
in this great country. That is the cornerstone.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, of all the freedoms we enjoy in this 
country, the ability to own, care for, and develop private property is 
perhaps the most crucial to our free enterprise economy. In fact, our 
economy would cease to function without the incentives provided by 
private property. So sacred and important are these rights, that our 
forefathers chose to specifically protect them in the fifth amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution, which says in part, ``nor shall private 
property be taken for public use, without just compensation.''
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, some Federal environmental, safety, and 
health laws are encouraging Government violation of private property 
rights, and it is a problem which is increasing in severity and 
frequency. We would all like to believe the Constitution will protect 
our property rights if they are threatened, but today that is simply 
not true. The only way for a person to protect their private property 
rights is in the courts, and far too few people have the time or money 
to take such action. Thus many citizens lose their fifth amendment 
rights simply because no procedures have been established to prevent 
Government takings.
  Mr. President, many people in the Federal bureaucracy believe that 
public protection of health, safety, and the environment is not 
compatible with protection of private property rights. I disagree. In 
fact, the terrible environmental conditions exposed in Eastern Europe 
when the cold war ended lead me to believe that the property ownership 
enhances environmental protection. As the residents of East Berlin and 
Prague know all too well, private owners are more effective caretakers 
of the environment than Communist governments.
  Yet the question remains, how do we prevent overzealous bureaucrats 
from using their authority in ways which threaten property rights?
  Mr. President, today I rise to join my colleague Senator Richard 
Shelby of Alabama in introducing legislation which will strengthen 
every citizens's fifth amendment rights. Our bill, the private property 
owners bill of rights, targets, two of the worst property rights 
offenders, the Endangered Species Act and the Wetlands Permitting 
Program established by section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
  Mr. President, our bill requires Federal agents who enter private 
property to gather information under either the Endangered Species Act 
or the Wetlands Permitting Program to first obtain the written consent 
of the landowner. While it is difficult to believe that such a basic 
right should need to be spelled out in law, overzealous bureaucrats and 
environmental radicals too often guaranteed the right of access to that 
information, the right to dispute its accuracy, and the right of an 
administrative appeal from decisions made under those laws.
  Most importantly, the private property owners bill of rights 
guarantees compensation for a landowner whose property is devalued by 
50 percent or more by a Federal action under the Endangered Species Act 
or Wetlands Permitting Program. An administrative process is 
established to give property owners a simple and inexpensive way to 
seek resolution of their takings claims. If we are to truly live up to 
the requirements of our Constitution, Mr. President, we must make this 
commitment. I believe this provision will work both to protect 
landowners from uncompensated takings and to discourage Government 
actions which would cause such takings.
  Mr. President, this legislation was originally conceived by 
Congressman Bill Tauzin of Louisiana and introduced in the House of 
Representatives on February 23, 1994. I compliment Representative 
Tauzin on his commitment to preserving the rights of private property 
owners, and I look forward to working closely with him and Senator 
Shelby to enact this legislation.
  Mr. President, the time has come for farmers, ranchers, and other 
landowners to take a stand against violations of their private property 
rights by the Federal bureaucracy. The private property owners bill of 
rights will help landowners take that stand.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SIMON (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 1916. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, 
to increase certain firearm license application fees and require the 
immediate suspension of the license of a firearm licensee upon 
conviction of a violation of that chapter, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


              additional gun dealer licensing reforms act

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today, Senator Lautenberg and I 
introduce four important additions to pending Federal firearm licensee 
reform legislation included in the Senate crime bill. The purpose of 
these measures is to strengthen Federal standards for licensing 
firearms dealers by removing loopholes in the law and by providing the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [ATF] enhanced enforcement 
capabilities. I am pleased that the Clinton administration is joining 
us in this effort.
  Over the past 2 years, firearms have killed 60,000 Americans, more 
than the number of United States soldiers killed in the Vietnam war. 
ATF estimates that there are potentially 200 million firearms in 
civilian hands--with nearly 4 million new firearms added each year. 
These statistics put the problem in perspective.
  And where are these firearms coming from? ATF has determined that 
there are over 280,132 gun dealers in this country, with 9,754 in 
Illinois alone. That means that there is 1 firearm dealer for every 
1,000 Americans, or 1 dealer for approximately every 200 firearm 
owners. The Violence Policy Center noted that there are more gun 
dealers in our country than there are gas stations.
  In 1991, ATF issued 270 licenses a day, for a grand total of 91,000 
new and renewed licenses that year. Only 37 of the 34,000 requests for 
new licenses that year were denied. Amazingly, fewer than 10 percent of 
applicants undergo an actual inspection in the form of a personal 
interview or on-site visit. This is because the number of investigators 
assigned to perform inspections has actually decreased 13 percent since 
1980. Bureau spokesman Jack Killorian noted that ``[T]he volume of 
licenses has outstripped our ability to keep up.''
  The importance of an initial inspection should not be overlooked. In 
New York City, where the ATF was able to go visit dealer applicants in 
conjunction with the local police department, many potential gun 
dealers dropped out of the application process. Similarly, when ATF 
agents in Pueblo, CO, worked hand-in-hand with local law enforcement 
agencies to inspect 165 gun dealers, 100 dealers surrendered their 
licenses. The 65 remaining licensees were found to be in strict 
compliance with all Federal, State and local laws. Unfortunately, 
programs such as these are at risk because resources are scarce.

  Although many have argued that changes in the law will not affect 
crime because criminals do not buy guns from legitimate dealers, the 
statistics indicate otherwise. A 1991 survey conducted by ATF found 
that more than 27 percent of State prison inmates had purchased their 
crime guns from retail gun dealers. Obviously, when the dealer is 
unscrupulous, the damage can be extensive. For example:

       For every month James Board, a federally licensed dealer in 
     Hammond, IN, was in business, he illegally sold at least 100 
     guns a month from a converted den in his home, including 800 
     low-caliber, semiautomatic pistols during one 9 month period. 
     So far, at least 60 of Board's guns ``have been confiscated 
     by Chicago police from murder suspects, drug dealers, and 
     gang members,'' (Chicago Tribune).

  Obviously, something must be done to ensure that gun licenses are not 
used for improper purposes. The measures Senator Lautenberg and I are 
introducing today will contribute significantly to this goal. 
Specifically, our proposal would:
  Increase the license fee for gun dealers to $600 per year; this 
provision would raise the annual Federal license fee for dealers to 
$600, and eliminate the $90 current reduced renewal fee. The purpose of 
this provision is to ensure that the taxpayers are not subsidizing the 
cost of establishing and maintaining a firearms business. Since Federal 
law restricts who can obtain a license and imposes a variety of 
regulatory and recordkeeping requirements on licensees, the 
Government's program costs must necessarily include application 
background investigations and periodic compliance inspections. The 
proposed fee increases would ensure that firearms licensees bear the 
burden of the Federal regulatory system.
  Allow the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to suspend the 
licenses of gun dealers convicted of firearms violations; currently, 
law requires that if a licensee is indicted for a Gun Control Act 
violation or any other felony, he or she may continue to operate during 
the term of the indictment and until any conviction becomes final, 
including the exhaustion of all appeals. The new provision will enable 
ATF to suspend the license of a licensee convicted of a Federal 
firearms violation during the course of any appeals. If the conviction 
is overturned, the suspension would end and operations could resume. If 
the conviction is upheld on appeal, the license would be automatically 
revoked.
  Increase the penalty for falsification of firearms records; this 
section would raise the maximum penalty for certain serious 
recordkeeping violations from misdemeanors to felonies. For example, 
failure to maintain records, falsifying records, or failing to note in 
the required records the name, age, and place of residence of a 
firearms purchaser, would be grouped with more serious offenses under 
18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(a)(1)(B) which allows up to 5 years imprisonment. 
Less serious recordkeeping offenses would continue to be treated as 
misdemeanors.
  Condition gun dealer licenses on compliance with all Federal laws 
relating to firearms. Under existing law, a license can be denied or 
revoked if the applicant has willfully violated the provisions of 18 
U.S.C. chapter 44. However, a license could not be denied or revoked 
where the applicant or licensee has willfully violated the other two 
major statutes governing firearms businesses, the National Firearms Act 
(26 U.S.C. chapter 53) relating to machineguns, sawed-off shotguns and 
rifles, destructive devices, and certain other weapons, and the Arms 
Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. Sec. 2778) governing the importation and 
exportation of firearms and other munitions. This section will ensure 
that licensees comply with all Federal laws regulating firearms.
  Senator Lautenberg and I believe that these provisions, taken 
together with the reforms already included in the Senate crime bill, 
will make an enormous difference in law enforcement's ability to 
control the use of weapons for illegitimate purposes. Dealers must be 
held accountable for their actions. I urge my colleagues to join us in 
this effort.
  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. 1916

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. INCREASE IN FIREARM LICENSE APPLICATION FEES.

       Section 923(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(B) by striking ``$50'' and inserting 
     ``$600'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)(C) by striking ``$10'' and inserting 
     ``$600''; and
       (C) in paragraph (2)(B) by striking ``$50'' and inserting 
     ``$600''; and
       (D) in paragraph (3)(B) by striking ``$200 for 3 years, 
     except that the fee for renewal of a valid license shall be 
     $90 for 3 years'' and inserting ``$600 per year''; and
       (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``$10'' and inserting 
     ``$50.''.

     SEC. 2. CONVICTED LICENSEE.

       Section 925(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b)'' and inserting ``(b)(1)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), when a licensed 
     importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed 
     collector is convicted of a violation of this chapter--
     Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or section 
     38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778)--
       ``(A) all licenses issued to the licensee under this 
     chapter shall be suspended immediately upon conviction and 
     shall remain under suspension until all direct appeals are 
     exhausted; and
       ``(B) if the conviction is upheld on final direct appeal, 
     all licenses issued to the licensee under this chapter shall 
     be automatically revoked.''.

     SEC. 3. KNOWING FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS BY LICENSEES.

       Section 924(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B) by striking ``(a)(4), (a)(6),'' and 
     inserting ``(a) (4) or (6), (b)(5),''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``knowingly--'' and all 
     that follows through the period at the end and inserting 
     ``knowingly violates section 922(m) shall be fined under this 
     title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.''.

     SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT THAT FIREARM LICENSEES COMPLY WITH ALL 
                   FEDERAL LAWS RELATING TO FIREARMS.

       Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(1)(C) by inserting ``, chapter 53 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or section 38 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778),'' after ``chapter''; and
       (2) in subsection (e)--
       (A) by inserting ``, chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 2778),'' after ``chapter'' the first place it 
     appears; and
       (B) by striking ``by the Secretary under this chapter'' and 
     inserting ``thereunder''.
 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with 
Senator Simon in introducing legislation to increase licensing fees and 
tighten regulation of firearm dealers.
  Mr. President, the current system of regulating firearm dealers is a 
joke. A bad joke.
  There now are more federally licensed firearm dealers than gas 
stations in this country. Currently, 287,000 have licenses, and the 
number is growing rapidly.
  Yet only about a quarter of these dealers, Mr. President, are 
operating legitimate storefront businesses. The rest, operating out of 
their homes or cars, are known as kitchen table dealers. Most of these 
people obtain licenses in order to obtain guns tax-free by mail at 
wholesale prices, and to evade waiting periods, gun purchase limits, 
and other firearm laws.
  Many firearms that are used in crimes are traceable to these kitchen 
table dealers. There are numerous examples of dealers who have provided 
huge numbers of guns to drug dealers, gang members, gun traffickers, 
terrorists, and other criminals.
  To provide one illustration, consider the case of one man who lived 
in the South Bronx. This individual reportedly had a long criminal 
record that included an indictment for murder. Nevertheless, he was 
able to obtain a Federal firearm dealer license. In less than 1 year, 
he bought more than 500 guns from wholesalers in other States. The guns 
were delivered by UPS in batches of up to 100 at a time. The man then 
sold the guns to drug dealers and other criminals.
  This is not an unusual case, Mr. President. It's typical. And it 
suggests the importance of tightening up our regulatory system, which 
is far too loose.
  Mr. President, becoming a kitchen table dealer is easy, quick, and 
very inexpensive. All you have to do is fill out a form and send in 
$200, which covers the $67 annual fee for 3 years. There's no hassle, 
no fuss, and, most likely, no ATF agent will call.
  That's generally not ATF's fault, either. The Bureau has simply 
lacked the resources to check out applicants, or to investigate many 
licensees. While the number of firearm dealers has increased by about 
65 percent since 1980, the number of ATF investigators assigned to 
inspect these dealers has been reduced by 13 percent. As a result, 
fewer than 10 percent of dealer applicants undergo an actual 
inspection. And then, once licensed, the average dealer is audited only 
once every 20 years.
  Clearly, Mr. President, the Bureau needs more agents and more funding 
to better police the system. And the best way to both provide those 
resources, and to limit the Bureau's burden, is to raise the licensing 
fee.
  Mr. President, it's bad enough that innocent Americans are being 
placed at risk because the system of licensing firearm dealers is so 
lax. But adding insult to injury, the current $67 annual licensing fee 
doesn't even come close to paying for the system. In effect, hard 
working taxpayers are being forced to subsidize firearm dealers. It's 
an outrage.
  A licensing fee should be sufficient to at least pay for the costs of 
administering the regulatory system. And, in my view, the social costs 
of dealing in firearms--such as the costs of crime and of health care 
for victims of gun violence--also should be factored in.
  Having said that, I also recognize the political realities of gun 
control legislation. The fact is, too few Members have been willing to 
stand up to the National Rifle Association and help put a stop to gun 
violence. I'm optimistic that with the enthusiastic support of Vice 
President Gore, with whom Senator Simon and I met today to discuss this 
issue, we can get approval of a $600 fee increase. While my own 
preference would be to go much higher, I appreciate that $600 may be 
the highest we can realistically hope for in the short term.
  Mr. President, tightening the regulation of firearm dealers can make 
a real difference in the battle against gun violence. But, clearly, we 
have to do more. We also need to adopt comprehensive gun control 
legislation along the lines of a bill I have proposed with Senator 
Metzenbaum. That bill would ban assault weapons and Saturday night 
specials, establish a system of licensing handgun purchasers, limit 
handgun purchases to one per month to attack gunrunning, and includes a 
wide variety of other measures.
  In closing, let me congratulate and thank Senator Simon for his 
outstanding leadership in this area. He and his excellent staff have 
devoted a great deal of time and effort to improving the regulation of 
firearm dealers, and they deserve great credit for their work. I am 
pleased to have had the opportunity to work with them on the 
initiative, and I look forward to continuing our joint efforts to raise 
the licensing fees for dealers, and to enact other measures to combat 
gun violence.
 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am proud to join with my 
colleagues today in introducing legislation that will improve the 
regulation of this nation's gun dealers.
  Under the current system, we have more than 284,000 gun dealers, most 
of whom operate from their homes, out of the sight of Federal, State 
and local authorities. Under the current system, it's cheaper to get a 
dealer's license than to buy two tickets to a play. Under the current 
system there is only one Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [BATF] 
agent for every 1,000 licensees. Mr. President, the current system must 
change.
  In my home State of California, where we have more than 20,000 gun 
dealers, we have learned first hand about the damage caused by these 
deadly loopholes. We have 1,100 gun dealers in the city of Los Angeles, 
but only 130 of them complied with a local ordinance requiring them to 
register, be fingerprinted and pay a $300 fee. In the counties of 
Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles, we have 4,000 gun dealers and 
only 12 Federal compliance inspectors. And, during a 6-month period in 
1990, a federally licensed dealer in Los Angeles purchased more than 
1,500 guns and sold them to gang members and others.
  Mr. President, I want to commend the senior Senator from Illinois 
[Mr. Simon,] for recognizing this critical problem and coming forward 
with common sense solutions to address it. With his amendment to the 
Senate-passed crime bill, Senator Simon started us down the path to 
real reform. Now, it's time for us, to come together and make even more 
progress.
  By increasing dealer licensing fees, suspending the licenses of 
convicted gun dealers, increasing the penalties for record 
falsification and requiring dealers to comply with all Federal firearms 
laws, this bill will go a long way toward addressing this critical 
problem.
  Mr. President, when we pass this legislation, we will help stop the 
abuses, close the loopholes and take another important step toward 
curbing the epidemic of gun violence in America.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SIMON (for himself and Ms. Moseley-Braun):
  S.J. Res. 167. A joint resolution to designate the week of September 
12, 1994, through September 16, 1994, as ``National Gang Violence 
Prevention Week''; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 national gang violence prevention week

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, for several years, the groups 
Parents Against Gangs and Broader Urban Involvement and Leadership 
Development have sponsored a Gang Awareness Week in Chicago. Based on 
the success of this week in raising awareness about the problems of 
gangs in Chicago and in our Nation, as well as encouraging parents and 
other community members to get involved in efforts to curb gang 
violence, I am introducing legislation to designate the week of 
September 12, 1994, as ``National Gang Violence Prevention Week.''
  Our young people need a great deal of support and encouragement to 
help prevent them from joining gangs. Many youth in our cities today 
believe that becoming a gang member is their most worthwhile option. 
The loyalty among gang members provides a seemingly secure family, and 
the profits from gang-related illegal activities such as drug 
trafficking are a powerful draw. However, the life of a gang member is 
often a very violent one. Gang-related crime and violence continue to 
increase at an alarming rate. In Chicago alone, gang-related homicides 
per year rose from 38 in 1980 to 101 by 1990. Already, many 
neighborhoods, both in urban and rural areas, are virtually controlled 
by gangs. At a hearing held in Chicago by the Office of Justice 
Programs, one mother testified that one of the few sentences her 2-
year-old child knows is: ``Get down, get down, they're shooting.'' In 
Chicago, it has come to this.
  Without preventing youth from becoming involved in gangs, we will see 
gang-related violence rise to even higher levels. We cannot afford to 
have thousands more American youth joining gangs. It is imperative that 
we take action now to prevent our youth from becoming involved in 
activities that destroy their opportunities to lead healthy and 
productive lives.
  In Chicago, Parents Against Gangs and Broader Urban Involvement, and 
Leadership Development are two groups that have taken action. During 
``Gang Awareness Week'', they sponsor the Parents Against Gangs Annual 
Conference, displaying the Victims of Violent Crime Remembrance Quilt, 
and holding a Victims of Violent Crime Memorial Service.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in designating the week of September 
12, 1994 as ``National Gang Violence Prevention Week'' because I 
believe that the rest of the Nation would benefit from similar 
programs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                             S.J. Res. 167

       Whereas the number of gang homicides has risen in Chicago 
     alone from 38 in 1980 to 101 in 1990;
       Whereas the number of gang-related homicides as of 1991 
     stood at 1,051;
       Whereas, in the past decade, gang-related homicides and 
     gang-related drug trafficking has increased and spread to 
     cities in all 50 States;
       Whereas, between the years 1989 and 1991, the number of 
     gangs and gang members in the Nation's 79 largest cities 
     doubled;
       Whereas the number of gangs as of 1991 stood at 4,881 which 
     includes 249,324 members;
       Whereas gangs are now part of the crime problem in 
     communities with populations as small as 8,000 citizens;
       Whereas many gangs are actively involved in drug 
     trafficking, and some Los Angeles gangs have been linked to 
     Colombian drug cartels;
       Whereas our youth are directly impacted by the rise in gang 
     membership, with the average age of gang members being 19; 
     and
       Whereas every effort needs to be made to reduce gang 
     violence and steer our young people away from gangs and every 
     citizen needs to be aware of the problem: Now, therefore, be 
     it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the week 
     of September 12, 1994, through September 16, 1994, be 
     designated as ``National Gang Violence Prevention Week'', and 
     the President is authorized and requested to issue a 
     proclamation calling on the people of the United States to 
     observe the week with appropriate ceremonies and 
     activities.

                          ____________________