[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 31 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2207-S2209]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin and Mr. Chaffe):
  S. 428. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, 
to improve the safety of handguns; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                   the CHILD SAFETY LOCK ACT OF 1997

 Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce an important piece 
of legislation, The Child Safety Lock Act of 1997. Our measure will 
save thousands of children's lives by curtailing the senseless deaths 
that occur when improperly stored and unlocked handguns come within the 
reach of children. Let me tell you about the tragic death of 4 year-old 
Dylan Pierce of Eaton, WI, which illustrates why we need this law.
  Last August, Dylan and his 8-year-old brother Cody stumbled upon an 
unlocked cabinet while their parents were at work. The cabinet 
contained a .357-magnum handgun and several rifles. Although the boys' 
parents told them not to play with the guns, the children were 
naturally curious. The boys loaded the handgun with ammunition that was 
kept separate from the guns and began playing with the loaded handgun. 
While Dylan was handling the gun, it fired, shooting him in the head. 
Dylan was instantly killed by the bullet. Now, the lives of this family 
are forever changed, forever damaged.
  Unfortunately, statistics show that the Pierce family's tragedy 
represents part of an everincreasing trend in the United States. 
Currently, children in the United States are 12 times as likely to die 
because of a firearm than children in the other 25 largest 
industrialized countries. Even more startling, the Centers for Disease 
Control recently reported that nearly 1.2 million latch-key children 
alone have access to loaded firearms. These figures become even more 
disturbing when you account for the tragedies that could have been 
prevented by safety locks.
  And while most gun owners properly store their firearms, the sad fact 
is that a substantial number do not, leaving their guns loaded and 
within the reach of children.
  Mr. President, children's natural curiosity should not lead to their 
unnatural deaths. We need to ensure that young people who stumble upon 
handguns do not meet the same fate as Dylan Pierce or the many other 
children who have died or been injured in handgun accidents. This 
legislation is especially necessary as long as some adults continue to 
carelessly store their guns, and in places where children may reach 
them. Preventing these tragic accidents is the sole purpose of the 
Child Safety Lock Act.
  Our legislation is simple, effective and straightforward. First, it 
requires that whenever a handgun is sold, a child safety device--or 
trigger lock--is also sold. These devices vary in form, but the most 
common resemble a padlock that wraps around the gun trigger and 
immobilizes it. Trigger locks are already used by thousands of 
responsible gun owners to protect their firearms from unauthorized use, 
and they can be purchased in virtually any gun store for less than ten 
dollars.
  Second, the measure requires that a warning be enclosed with the 
purchase of every firearm. This warning serves as a wake up call to 
make gun owners aware of the risks associated with improper storage, 
and it also makes them aware of potential state civil and criminal 
penalties for failing to use child safety devices.
  Mr. President, this bill is not a panacea, but it will help prevent 
the tragic accidents and deaths associated with unauthorized, unlocked 
firearms. And it will help ensure that American children do not die as 
a result of adult carelessness. President Clinton challenged us to 
enact child safety lock legislation in his State of the Union Address: 
Today we respond to his challenge.
  Senators Boxer, Durbin, and Chafee join me as cosponsors of this 
bipartisan bill. We ask our other colleagues to join as well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 428

       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 ``Child Safety Lock Act of 
     1997''.

[[Page S2209]]

     SEC. 2. HANDGUN SAFETY.

       (a) Definition of Locking Device.--Section 921(a) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(34) The term `locking device' means--
       ``(A) a device that, if installed on a firearm and secured 
     by means of a key or a mechanically-, electronically-, or 
     electromechanically-operated combination lock, prevents the 
     firearm from being discharged without first deactivating or 
     removing the device by means of a key or mechanically-, 
     electronically-, or electromechanically-operated combination 
     lock; or
       ``(B) a locking mechanism incorporated into the design of a 
     firearm that prevents discharge of the firearm by any person 
     who does not have access to the key or other device designed 
     to unlock the mechanism and thereby allow discharge of the 
     firearm.''.
       (b) Unlawful Acts.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (x) the 
     following:
       ``(y) Locking Devices and Warnings.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     beginning 90 days after the date of enactment of the Child 
     Safety Lock Act of 1997, it shall be unlawful for any 
     licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer 
     to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun--
       ``(A) to any person other than a licensed manufacturer, 
     licensed importer, or licensed dealer, unless the transferee 
     is provided with a locking device for that handgun; or
       ``(B) to any person, unless the handgun is accompanied by 
     the following warning, which shall appear in conspicuous and 
     legible type in capital letters, and which shall be printed 
     on a label affixed to the gun and on a separate sheet of 
     paper included within the packaging enclosing the handgun:

     `` `THE USE OF A LOCKING DEVICE OR SAFETY LOCK IS ONLY ONE 
     ASPECT OF RESPONSIBLE FIREARM STORAGE. FIREARMS SHOULD BE 
     STORED UNLOADED AND LOCKED IN A LOCATION THAT IS BOTH 
     SEPARATE FROM THEIR AMMUNITION AND INACCESSIBLE TO CHILDREN.
     `FAILURE TO PROPERLY LOCK AND STORE YOUR FIREARM MAY RESULT 
     IN CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER STATE LAW. IN ADDITION, 
     FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS THE POSSESSION OF A HANDGUN BY A MINOR 
     IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES.'
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
       ``(A) the--
       ``(i) manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the 
     United States or a State or a department or agency of the 
     United States, or a State or a department, agency, or 
     political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
       ``(iii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law 
     enforcement officer employed by an entity referred to in 
     clause (i) of a handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether 
     on or off-duty); or
       ``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police 
     officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or 
     commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of 
     a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off-
     duty).''.
       (c) Civil Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and 
     inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Penalties Relating to Locking Devices and Warnings.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Suspension or revocation of license; civil 
     penalties.--With respect to each violation of subparagraph 
     (A) or (B) of section 922(y)(1) by a licensee, the Secretary 
     may, after notice and opportunity for hearing--
       ``(i) suspend or revoke any license issued to the licensee 
     under this chapter; or
       ``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount 
     equal to not more than $10,000.
       ``(B) Review.--An action of the Secretary under this 
     paragraph may be reviewed only as provided in section 923(f).
       ``(2) Administrative remedies.--The suspension or 
     revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty 
     under paragraph (1) does not preclude any administrative 
     remedy that is otherwise available to the 
     Secretary.''.
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:

  S. 429. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
certain cash rent farm landlords to deduct soil and water conservation 
expenditures; to the Committee on Finance.


                            TAX LEGISLATION

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I introduce important tax legislation to 
improve our Nation's soil conservation and water quality. This measure 
will extend the conservation expense income tax deduction to farmers 
who improve soil and water conservation and need to rent that farmland 
to family members on a cash basis. This legislation builds upon an 
existing and successful income tax provision that applies to similar 
improvements on sharecrop rentals. I encourage my colleagues to 
cosponsor this legislation and thereby endorse an environmental tax 
policy that uniformly encourages conservation improvements on our 
Nation's farms.
  Across all of our Nation's farmland, 4 out of 5 acres rely on private 
landowners and tenants to care for the natural resources. Even though 
all farmers should be encouraged to become good stewards of the land, 
current tax policy does not provide incentives to encourage all private 
landowners and tenants to make conservation improvements that are 
consistent with good environmental policy. On the one hand, farm 
landlords operating on a sharecrop basis are rewarded with an income 
tax deduction for soil and water conservation improvements. However, 
cash rent landlords who make the same conservation improvements are 
denied a similar income tax deduction. My legislation will eliminate 
this inequality.

  Mr. President, 43 percent of our Nation's farmland is rented. Of that 
farmland, 35 percent is rented on a sharecrop basis, and 65 percent is 
rented on a cash basis. Sharecrop rentals are arrangements where 
landlords typically contribute the real estate and improvements, and 
tenants contribute the labor. Cash rentals are also arrangements where 
landlords usually contribute the real estate and improvements. However, 
the landlords also contribute labor since these agreements exist many 
times within a family farm environment.
  To further compare, sharecrop landlords may deduct certain costs paid 
or incurred for the treatment or moving of earth for soil and water 
conservation, including the leveling, conditioning, grading, and 
terracing of farmland. Likewise, sharecrop landlords may also deduct 
costs incurred to build and maintain drainage ditches and earthen dams. 
Cash rentals, however, are not provided a tax deduction even though 
they practice similar conservation methods. In other words, though the 
substance of these rentals is similar, the tax treatment of 
conservation expenses is vastly different.
  Mr. President, it may surprise you to know that many family farmers 
are cash rent landlords. The life cycle of a family farm is one where 
aging parents gradually pass the family farm to their sons or 
daughters. In many cases, because the children cannot initially afford 
to purchase the family farms from their parents, a parent-child 
business relationship often starts out as a rental. Sometimes it is a 
sharecrop rental, other times they agree to a cash rent relationship.
  Unfortunately, our tax and environmental policy toward these two 
relationships remains irrational. If a landlord sharecrops with a 
stranger, then that landlord can deduct conservation expenditures. 
However, if a widowed farm wife cash rents farmland to her daughter and 
watches over the grandchildren while the daughter works the crops in 
the field, the grandmother cannot deduct conservation expenditures. 
Similarly, a retired father who cash rents to his son and provides 
labor assistance during harvest is likewise denied a conservation tax 
deduction.
  I believe that our tax policy should encourage and reward sound soil 
conservation practices regardless of the situation of the farmers. At a 
minimum, our tax policy should reward family farmers who make long term 
soil conservation improvements to any of their farmland. In fact, these 
sound conservation practices have already aided many farmers in 
reducing our level of soil erosion. The USDA reported in its 1992 
Natural Resources Inventory that soil erosion has decreased by 1 
billion tons annually. The USDA attributes one half of that decrease to 
improved conservation efforts by farmers. Nonetheless, our Nation's tax 
policy requires that family farmers on a cash rent basis bear much of 
the expense of this successful environmental policy. My legislation 
fixes this problem. Surely, it will yield even further soil and water 
conservation of our nation's most valuable nonrenewable resource: 
farmland.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to cosponsor this important 
legislation.
                                 ______