[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SIMPSON.
  S. 2557. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
reinstate the 80-percent limitation on the deductible portion of meal 
expenses; to the Committee on Finance.


            THE BUSINESS MEAL TAX DEDUCTION RESTORATION ACT

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to 
restore the 80-percent tax deductibility on business meal expenses. I 
ask that Senators Reid and Cochran be included as co-sponsors.
  Mr. President, my colleagues are aware that the President's 1993 tax 
and budget plan reduced the tax deduction for business meals and 
entertainment from 80 to 50 percent. I believe that this was a mistake, 
for reasons that I shall outline in a moment. But unfortunately this 
session of Congress did not provide a suitable ``tax vehicle'' to 
reverse this decision. We have had a number of measures considered here 
with tax implications--NAFTA, health care, welfare reform, merchant 
marine, and shortly GATT--but these have mainly involved searches for 
new offsetting revenue, not opportunities to eliminate the more 
egregious provisions of the 1993 act.
  Thus, as we have failed to repair this situation, I am introducing 
legislation at the end of this session to serve notice that I trust 
that this issue can be revisited the first time the next Congress 
undertakes significant tax legislation.
  Mr. President, The adverse effects of the new limit on deductibility 
are well documented. The food industry, as well as travel and tourism--
meaning everyone who works in these sectors too--has taken a direct 
``hit.'' My colleagues, Senator Inouye, introduced legislation to 
restore the full deductibility on both business meals and entertainment 
expenses, for which I commend him. But there was significant reluctance 
here to restore that full amount because of an inaccurate perception 
that somehow the tax deduction represented a special benefit for ``fat 
cats'' wealthy lobbyists, and corporate executives.
  In my fine home State of Wyoming, certainly, this is simply not the 
case. I have many hard-working men and women of modest means in my home 
State--in the restaurant business, in the trucking industry, 
elsewhere--who are greatly harmed by this tax. They are certainly no 
``fat cats'' by any stretch of the imagination. Many truckers, for 
example, simply have no choice but to eat their meals out ``on the 
road.'' It is an honest expense incurred in the course of their work, 
and it is much more expensive for them than it is for other workers who 
at least can save money by preparing meals more inexpensively at home. 
These workers are not out there trying to ``live it up'' at the 
taxpayers' expense. Many of them would prefer a good home-cooked meal 
if only they were at home to enjoy it. But that is the nature of their 
work; it hits them with an unavoidable expense from which many of them 
require some kind of relief.

  My legislation, therefore, would restore the 80-percent deductibility 
for only the meals portion of these business expenses. By doing so, we 
would remove some of the recently added tax penalties on restaurants 
and tourism, and also prevent lower income individuals from being the 
unintended targets of the recent tax action which was initially aimed 
at those of higher income.
  I do think it would make darn good sense--as Senator Inouye has 
suggested--to restore the full deductibility for both business meals 
and entertainment. But I believe we have to be sensitive to public 
perceptions of this issue. ``Business entertainment'' is simply a 
different series of activities, and it conjures up images of special 
``recreations'' and benefits that normal working people do not get to 
enjoy. Business meals, however, are another matter entirely, in my 
view. I do not believe this measure would carry the same connotations 
of privilege, certainly not after a most basic reflection on the fact 
that many individuals simply have no choice but to ``eat out'' in the 
course of doing their life's work.
  I, therefore, introduce this legislation today and will work hard to 
see similar legislation enacted in the next session of Congress.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DOLE (for Mr. Stevens):
  S. 2558. A bill to provide for the World War II Home Front Council to 
reissue the World War II ``E'' award to the original recipients to 
commemorate the role of World War II home front veterans, including 
women, minorities, labor, and industry, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


            the world war ii home front veterans act of 1994

 Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President. 1995 marks the 50th anniversary of 
the Allied victory in World War II. That victory was made possible not 
only by the courageous efforts of American and Allied airmen, sailors, 
and soldiers, but also by the tireless and often forgotten efforts of 
millions of American men and women working on the home front in our 
factories and farms. Without the round-the-clock efforts of these 
dedicated citizens, the tremendous success of our Armed Forces would 
not have been possible. It was American industrial and agricultural 
might that produced the ships, planes, guns, boots, food, and thousands 
of other things that make victory in war possible.

  As a veteran of World War II I flew some of the planes that were 
built by Americans working on the home front. My life, and the lives of 
millions of other fighting men, depended on their skill and commitment 
to excellence. Fifty years later, the Nation is celebrating the many 
momentous events of World War II--primarily through ceremonies 
commemorating our most famous battles and campaigns. This bill would 
establish a commission to ensure that those working on the home front, 
on the farms, and in the factories, are remembered too.
  During the war the outstanding efforts of those on the home front 
were recognized by the presentation to businesses and individuals of 
the Army-Navy ``E'' award. A medal was presented, and businesses 
receiving the award flew a flag in recognition of their achievement. 
This bill would provide for the reissuance of the ``E'' award to those 
who originally received them. Scattered throughout the 50 States, many 
of these same businesses and individuals are still with us today, and 
deserve to be recognized for their part in winning the war. In 
addition, the commission is authorized and directed in this bill to 
design and implement other appropriate ceremonies to remember the home 
front.
  Mr. President, it is too late this year for Congress to take action 
on this bill. I am introducing this bill today so that all of us who 
are interested in giving recognition to these deserving citizens have a 
vehicle to debate and improve over the winter. I hope that all of my 
colleagues will join me in reintroducing this bill early I the new 
congress, and passing a bill in record time so that appropriate 
ceremonies may take place in the late spring and over next 
summer.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. 
        Craig):
  S. 2560; considered and passed.


                 cooperative work trust fund amendments

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will help 
restore and maintain the biological vitality and integrity of our 
national forests.
  For 80 years nonprofit organizations and individuals have been 
donating time, money, and technical expertise to improve biological 
resources on our national forests. In 1993, nonprofit organizations 
donated over $15 million in private funds through the Challenge Cost 
Share Program for improvements to fish, wildlife, and rare plants on 
our national forests--this is 14 percent of the annual National Forest 
System fish, wildlife, and rare plant management budget.
  Organizations are able to make these contributions through the 
authority provide in the act of June 30, 1914. Last year nearly 3,000 
partners completed 2,275 different habitat improvement projects on 
national forests and grasslands. Through these efforts, many species 
have returned to habitats that were once abandoned, rare plant 
communities have been protected, countless other projects have been 
completed, and tax dollars have been saved.
  Vermont conservation groups and agencies have taken advantage of the 
challenge cost-share program as much as anyone. Four chapters of Trout 
Unlimited, the Federation of Fly Fishers, Friends of the Mad River, the 
Green Mountain Club, Green Mountain Fly Tyers, Hand Chevrolet, New 
England Wildflower Society, the Ruffed Grouse Society, Snowridge, Inc., 
Stratton Corp., the Nature Conservancy, the town of Weston, several 
colleges, several State agencies, and five individuals have contributed 
to forest improvements. These groups and individuals donated $60,000 
and many hours toward 29 projects on the Green Mountain National 
Forest.
  This kind of effort makes me especially proud of Vermont. Private 
donations have helped us make the Green Mountain National Forest a 
better place for anglers, hunters, birdwatchers, hikers, and others. 
Most importantly, these groups have made the forest a better place for 
our children to grow up in and enjoy. Both Vermont groups and national 
organizations help to pass on both the heritage of our natural 
resources and the tradition of environmental stewardship.
  As part of saying thank you to all these groups, Congress should make 
it easier for groups to make this kind of donation. My bill allows the 
Forest Service to welcome this assistance on more favorable terms--
terms that benefit the organizations that make these valuable 
contributions.
  Ironically, when a for-profit group like timber and mining interests 
come to take resources off of the forest, the company makes its 
payments in regular installments after the work has been completed. 
When a nonprofit organization comes to restore forest resources, they 
must pay in full, up front. In doing this, they forego interest accrued 
from the time when the agreement is finalized to when the work is 
finished. In some cases the money sits for over 2 years. This is the 
wrong way to go about the business of welcoming voluntary contributions 
and my bill changes this.
  The bill which I am introducing today changes the terms by which 
nonprofit organizations donate funds to cooperative projects. Through 
this bill, the Forest Service is authorized to fund the projects with 
appropriated moneys provided that there are written terms with the 
cooperator that protect the Forest Service's investment. The 
cooperators will reimburse the Forest Service for costs as work is 
completed.
  The bill also adds several technical corrections including the clear 
authority to do cooperative work and management throughout the National 
Forest System. Finally, the bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture 
to establish written rules regarding the acceptance of contributions.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 2561. A bill to provide for the extension of the Farmers Home 
Administration Program under section 515 of the Housing Act of 1949 and 
other programs relating to housing and community development; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


               THE HOUSING PROGRAMS EXTENSION ACT OF 1994

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Senate version of 
the Housing Programs Extension Act of 1994. This bill is a very simple 
reauthorization bill that, among other things, reauthorizes the section 
515 Multifamily Housing Production Program and provides HUD with 
authority to extend expiring section 8 project-based contracts for up 
24 months under the same conditions and requirements. Both are 
important provisions and I will be disappointed if we are not able to 
take action on these simple and straightforward extenders. I am 
committed to enacting these extenders either today, in November, or at 
the beginning of the new session in 1995.
  I state my concern with H.R. 5245, the House-version of the Housing 
Programs Extension Act of 1994. This bill is problematic because it 
goes beyond a simple housing reauthorization extender bill and provides 
for a significant number of special purpose provisions that are, for 
the most part, from the House housing reauthorization bill. Although 
many of these provisions have merit, I emphasize that a clean bill is 
what is needed at this time of the session and a clean bill is what I 
support.
  Finally, I emphasize my concern over FmHA's belief that a new 
authorization is needed to run the section 515 program, despite the 
appropriation of $220 million for fiscal year 1995 for the section 515 
program. I believe that the appropriation represents authority for FmHA 
to continue to administer this program to the extent funding remains 
available.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SIMON:
  S. 2562. A bill to clarify certain matters relating to Presidential 
succession; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.


             THE PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION CLARIFICATION ACT

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I introduce the Presidential 
Succession Clarification Act.
  Much has been said and written about the laws of succession following 
the death of a sitting President. In general, these laws provide clear 
and precise rules for administering the transfer of Presidential power.
  The laws of succession, however, do not adequately address the 
possibility that a Presidential candidate might die during the voting 
period itself--by that I mean during the period beginning roughly with 
the popular election in mid-November and ending with the formal naming 
of the President-elect in early January.
  A candidate's death during this 2-month period could seriously 
disrupt the voting process and raise doubts about the election results. 
The seriousness of these problems would depend on the precise point in 
time at which the death occurred. I will take only a moment to mention 
a few possible scenarios here, but I intend to provide a more detailed 
analysis of these issues next year in the 104th Congress.
  Broadly speaking, the act addresses three distinct situations:
  First, let us suppose that a Presidential candidate dies after the 
electoral delegates have cast their votes but before those votes are 
counted. If the deceased would have won the election, who is now 
president-elect? Scholars disagree on the answer.
  Second, suppose that a major party candidate dies immediately before 
the popular election, or immediately prior to the time that the 
electoral college delegates vote. Would it not make sense to give the 
voters a couple of weeks to adjust to this unsettled situation?
  Third, suppose that no candidate wins a majority of the electoral 
votes, and that the election is thrown into the House of 
Representatives as a result. If one of the candidates should die at 
this point, is the House permitted to consider an alternative 
candidate?
  The act provides answers for each of these, admittedly complex, 
questions. None of these scenarios, of course, is likely to occur 
during any election cycle. But any one of them could lead to confusion 
and uncertainty at a time when clarity and stability would be vital. 
Prudence dictates that we should act now, while we have the time for 
calm reflection, rather than wait for a possible crisis to catch us 
unprepared.

                          ____________________