[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 51 (Friday, April 25, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3727-S3736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GRAMS (for himself and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 651. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
that the conducting of certain games of chance shall not be treated as 
an unrelated trade or business; to the Committee on Finance.


THE UNRELATED BUSINESS INCOME TAX CHARITABLE GAMBLING EXEMPTION ACT OF 
                                  1997

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 651, a bill to 
amend the Internal Revenue Code to exempt charitable gambling 
activities from Federal unrelated business income tax [UBIT].
  Charitable gambling consists mostly of games such as pull tabs and 
raffles. The difference between charitable and regular gambling is 
where and how the profit is spent. Most of the income derived from 
charitable gambling games are spent in communities to fund activities 
such as Boy and Girl Scouts, Head Start, and city and school programs.
  In fact, charitable gambling and bingo games have become one of the 
most important sources to provide funding for many activities in 
communities for people of all ages. In my home State, Minnesota, 
charitable gambling pumped up $77.5 million in profits into a variety 
of community and charitable causes in 1995. The beneficiaries include 
youth recreation and eduction, as well as organizations serving the 
sick, handicapped, retarded and disabled and many other community 
programs.
  Many charitable gambling games are set up solely for the purpose of 
raising money for public projects, thus reducing the burden on 
taxpayers. For example, Minnesota Belle Plaine Friends of the Library 
charitable gambling was started 4 years ago for the purpose of helping 
fund a new library in town. Today, they have donated more than $105,000 
to the library project.

  In 1978, President Carter signed into law a bill that classified 
bingo income as related business income. As a result, this charitable 
game is not subject to the Federal UBIT. But the law did not include 
other forms of charitable gambling. Consequently, the income of these 
charitable gambling games is taxed under the UBIT.
  Taxes take a big bite out of charitable gambling income. It has 
seriously undermined nonprofit organizations' ability to provide 
financial assistance for local activities. Here is an example of the 
revenue loss. Last year, the Minnesota American Legion donated $103,000 
to the Cancer Research Center at the University of Minnesota. However, 
under current law, the income is subject to the UBIT. Only $5,150 of 
the $103,000 was a deductible contribution, and $97,850 was taxed at 
rates up to 38 percent.
  This is simply not fair. Charitable donations should be encouraged, 
not penalized, to fund more local initiatives, projects and programs 
that benefit our communities. That's what the bill is all about.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAMS (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 652. A bill to facilitate recovery from the recent flooding of the 
Red River of the North and its tributaries by providing greater 
flexibility for depository institutions and their regulators, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.


         THE DEPOSITORY INSTITUTION DISASTER RELIEF ACT OF 1997

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to speak about a subject this 
morning dealing with the flood situations back in Minnesota, and North 
Dakota and South Dakota as well.
  Mr. President, as you know, over the past several weeks, towns and 
farms in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota have been battered 
by the flood waters of the Red River and Minnesota River. It is 
impossible to describe the devastation the floods are causing in 
Minnesota and North Dakota because the enormity of the damage is far, 
far beyond what anyone has ever had to put into words.
  As I made my third trip into the flood disaster area this week, 
traveling with President Clinton and my colleagues in the Minnesota and 
North Dakota congressional delegations, I found myself searching for 
adjectives but finding none that could reflect the loss and heartache 
inflicted upon our neighbors. Their lives have been shattered. Entire 
communities--homes, schools, churches, hospitals, libraries--have 
literally been washed away. Thousands of residents have no home to go 
home to, so they crowd into shelters, unsure what the river will leave 
behind when it finally releases its hold. Many cannot sleep because 
there is so much uncertainty. They cannot bathe because there is no 
running water. They cannot make plans because there are so many 
unanswered questions.

  At the moment, it does not seem like much of a life. By nature, 
Minnesotans are a stoic people. In a land where the temperatures can 
plunge to 30 degrees below zero in mid-winter and soar past a hundred 
in the summer, we have learned how to get on with life without too much 
complaining. But for many, the veneer is wearing a little thin. It is 
hard to be stoic when you have lost your home and your job. It is hard 
to look forward to tomorrow when all you have got is a cot on the floor 
of an airplane hanger, where you may be living for weeks.
  Mr. President, I am working with the Governor of Minnesota and my 
fellow Senators in the flood area to assess

[[Page S3728]]

how to address the needs of these deserving people. Part of our effort 
will be to get the funds and assistance to rebuild through the 
supplemental appropriations bill that we will pass next week. Part of 
it will be the efforts of myself and my staff to listen to the concerns 
of our constituents, and to make sure they get speedy assistance from 
the agencies that are administering the State and Federal relief 
efforts.
  I would like to announce this morning that I am opening a new, 
temporary office in Crookston, with FEMA and other members of our 
delegation, and my staff will be immediately available to help out in 
the flood relief projects that are currently underway.
  While I will be involved in many efforts to ease the suffering of my 
constituents, I am here today to introduce--with my colleague from 
South Dakota, Senator Johnson--the Depository Institution Disaster 
Relief Act. This bill will complement the other relief efforts by 
making it easier for farmers, homeowners, small businesses, and local 
governments to rebuild from the devastation brought by the floods.
  The Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act will help speed up the 
pace of recovery for the flooded farms and towns. Our legislation will 
permit homeowners, farmers, and small businesses to have faster access 
to a larger pool of credit from the banks and credit unions that serve 
their communities, by ensuring that there will be no regulatory 
roadblocks to local lending. It will permit Federal banking and credit 
union regulators to make temporary exceptions to current laws that act 
to reduce access to banks and credit unions in disaster areas. It will 
also permit Federal regulators to provide temporary relief from 
regulations so that it is easier for flood victims to get loans.
  The temporary regulatory relief offered by this bill is strictly 
limited to those counties in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota 
that have been declared Federal disaster areas. Because of its targeted 
scope and limited duration, it will permit flood victims to rebuild 
their homes, farms, and businesses without compromising the integrity 
of our banking system.
  When I served in the House of Representatives, I authored similar 
legislation in 1993 during the Mississippi River flooding. My 
legislation received bipartisan support, and was signed into law by 
President Clinton as part of the supplemental appropriations bill for 
disaster relief. Since this legislation worked well to help flooded 
communities rebuild in 1993, I will ask Chairman Stevens to include 
this bill as part of the emergency supplemental that the Senate will 
likely be considering next week. I urge my colleagues to support my 
effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill's 
provisions be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act of 1997


                                Purpose

       Over the past several weeks, towns and farms in Minnesota, 
     North Dakota and South Dakota have been demolished by the 
     flood waters of the Red River of the North. Because of the 
     extreme level of flood damage, President Clinton has declared 
     these areas to be eligible for federal disaster relief 
     pursuant to Section 401 of the Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act.
       The Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act (``DIDRA'') 
     will significantly speed up the pace of recovery for the 
     flooded farms and towns. DIDRA will permit homeowners, 
     farmers, small-businesses and local governments in the flood 
     disaster areas to have faster access to a larger pool of 
     credit from the banks, thrifts and credit unions that serve 
     their communities. DIDRA will do this by permitting federal 
     financial institution regulators to make temporary exceptions 
     to current laws that (l) hamper the ability of banks, thrifts 
     and credit unions to reopen their doors to depositors, (2) 
     slow down the lending process and (3) reduce the availability 
     of credit.


                         Summary of Provisions

                      Section 1--Title of statute

       The bill is called the ``Depository Institution Disaster 
     Relief Act of 1997'' (DIDRA). This bill contains provisions 
     that are substantially identical to temporary emergency 
     relief legislation that was signed into law in 1992 and 1993.

            Section 2(a)--Exceptions to Truth in Lending Act

       The Federal Reserve Board may make exceptions to the Truth 
     In Lending Act (TILA) for loans given by a bank, thrift or 
     credit union that is in the disaster area. The exceptions 
     must be made within 180 days of enactment of DIDRA, and may 
     only last a maximum of one year. For example, this permits 
     the Federal Reserve Board to permit consumers to receive the 
     proceeds from their loans 3 days faster by permitting them to 
     sign preprinted forms that waive their 3 day right of 
     rescission period pursuant to Section 125 of TILA (15 U.S.C. 
     1635).

      Section 2(b)--Exceptions to Expedited Funds Availability Act

       The Federal Reserve Board may make exceptions to the 
     Expedited Funds Availability Act (EFAA) to any bank, thrift 
     or credit union in the disaster areas, so that they may 
     restart their check processing operations sooner. The 
     exception must be made within 180 days of enactment of DIDRA, 
     and may only last for a maximum of one year. For example, 
     this permits the Federal Reserve Board to let a bank, thrift 
     or credit union restart serving its customers even though the 
     disruption from the flooding makes it need more than one 
     business day to process cash deposits and government checks 
     as required by Section 603 of EFAA (12 U.S.C. 4002).

Section 3--Exception to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to Permit the 
             Deposit of Insurance Proceeds in Bank Accounts

       Farms, businesses and local governments in the flood 
     disaster areas will be receiving large amounts of insurance 
     proceeds. This money will invariably be deposited in banks, 
     thrifts and credit unions for a short duration until the 
     money is used for rebuilding. Unfortunately, the depositing 
     of large amounts of insurance proceeds may cause banks and 
     thrifts to be deemed undercapitalized pursuant to Section 38 
     of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) (12 U.S.C. 
     1831o). This could cause credit to dry up in the disaster 
     areas, as Section 38 would automatically require a depository 
     institution to file a capital restoration plan with the FDIC, 
     even if the insurance proceeds were invested in assets 
     creating little additional risk to the depository 
     institution. Section 38 of the FDIA would compel a depository 
     institution to obtain formal approval from the FDIC in order 
     not to be restricted in its lending policies. Section 3 of 
     DIDRA permits the OCC, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC 
     and the OTS to subtract insurance proceeds from the 
     depository institution's assets when they calculate whether 
     the depository institution meets the FDIA's minimum leverage 
     standards (i.e., equity capitalization requirements). Any 
     exception that the regulators make to Section 38 of FDIA will 
     expire after 18 months.

    Section 4--Authority of Regulators to Act Quickly to Facilitate 
                       Recovery in Disaster Areas

       Within 180 days after the enactment of DIDRA, a qualifying 
     regulatory agency is given the flexibility to take any 
     actions permitted under its existing statutory authority to 
     facilitate recovery in the disaster area without being 
     delayed or impeded by (1) having to provide a general notice 
     of proposed rule-making in the Federal Register, (2) having 
     to hold a hearing, (3) being restricted by time limits with 
     respect to agency action or (4) having to meet certain 
     publication requirements. However, within 90 days of taking 
     an action, the qualifying regulatory agency must publish in 
     the Federal Register a statement that (1) describes what it 
     did and (2) explains the need for the action.

 Section 5--Sense of Congress re: Exceptions to Appraisal Requirements

       The Depository Institutions Disaster Relief Act of 1992 (PL 
     102-485, Oct. 23, 1992) amended the Financial Institutions 
     Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) to give 
     regulators the authority to waive certain appraisal standards 
     in disaster areas. The waiver of certain appraisal standards 
     for real estate loans in disaster areas will (1) permit homes 
     to be rebuilt faster by expediting the lending process and 
     (2) lower the cost of receiving loans to rebuild such homes. 
     Section 1123 of FIRREA (12 U.S.C. 3353) currently permits the 
     OCC, OTS, FDIC, Federal Reserve Board and NCUA to waive such 
     appraisal standards for 3 years in disaster areas.
       Section 5 of DIDRA states that it is the sense of the 
     Congress that these federal regulators should exercise their 
     authority under Section 1123 of FIRREA to temporarily waive 
     such standards.

                     Section 6--Limitation of DIDRA

       DIDRA shall not limit the authority of any federal agency 
     under any other provision of law.

                         Section 7--Definitions

       This section defines certain terms used in DIDRA: (1) 
     appropriate federal banking agency, (2) Board, (3) Federal 
     financial institutions regulatory agency, (4) insured 
     depository institution, (5) leverage limit, and (6) 
     qualifying amount attributable to insurance proceeds.

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, we need to assure the people of Minnesota 
and North Dakota that the Senate stands behind them,. . . . and that 
the entire Congress and the President stand behind them as well.
  I urge swift action on my legislation and the emergency supplemental 
appropriations, which I expect will have the overwhelming, bipartisan 
support of my colleagues when it comes to the floor.
  Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson and his staff have been here in 
Washington these past two days, working

[[Page S3729]]

with my staff and that of my colleagues to ensure Federal officials are 
doing everything in their power to help our residents put their lives 
back together.
  Director James Witt and his team at FEMA have been outstanding. I can 
say with confidence that everyone here understands the gravity of the 
situation and the magnitude of the work that remains.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I am proud to be an original 
sponsor, along with my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Grams, of the 
Depository Institution Relief Act of 1997. This act represents a small 
measure that we in Congress can undertake to help alleviate some of the 
suffering caused in South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota by the 
natural disasters of this past winter and spring.
  South Dakotans are a hearty stock, and during my years serving the 
people of South Dakota, I have repeatedly witnessed their ability to 
overcome any obstacle Mother Nature throws their way. However, I don't 
believe I have ever seen South Dakotans rise to the occasion in quite 
the manner they are right now. I recently toured the disaster areas of 
South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota with both President Clinton 
and Vice-President Gore and viewed terrible scenes of cattle stranded 
in fields, dead cattle across the area, flooded highways, communities 
lining up to pile sandbags, and people forced to stay in motels because 
their homes are in such danger. The devastation caused to Grand Forks, 
ND will not soon be forgotten by those who witnessed nature's awesome 
fury first-hand. The situation in South Dakota also was far worse than 
I expected. During my recent tour, I saw a compelling combination of 
the furor of Mother Nature and the determination of South Dakotans, 
North Dakotans, and Minnesotans to survive yet another battle with this 
awesome force. Mother Nature--as only she can do--had changed the rules 
of the game and given the residents of our region more water than 
initially anticipated and more than we could safely handle.
  But, through it all--through all the heart-wrenching, indiscriminate 
loss of property, possessions, and livestock--folks in our South Dakota 
communities have pulled together. The scene in my home State, and 
across the region, is something that nearly defies description, but 
clearly will not be forgotten for many years to come. As the flood 
waters begin to recede, and these hard-working folks begin to rebuild 
shattered lives, I rise to seek the support of my colleagues in 
providing certain regulatory relief that will greatly enable this 
process. As we did in response to previous tragic flooding along the 
Mississippi River in 1992 and 1993, let us now undertake to do for the 
residents of South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota through the 
Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act of 1997.
  This act will enable lending institutions--banks, credit unions, and 
thrifts--to help the people most severely affected by this disaster to 
begin the arduous process of recovery. The bill permits the regulatory 
agencies to waive some of the regulations which delay the procedures 
for helping these people. The major provisions will allow consumers to 
receive loan proceeds 3 days faster than they ordinarily would, helps 
lending institutions reopen for business quicker even though the 
disruption from the flooding may require more than 1 day to process 
cash deposits and government checks, and loosens capitalization 
requirements that will be buffeted by the large amounts of insurance 
deposits that will shortly be flowing through the region. We also call 
upon Federal regulators to use their ability to waive certain appraisal 
standards for real estate loans in the disaster areas. These actions 
will enable the regulating agencies to work with the primary lending 
institutions to make it easier for the impacted citizens to begin the 
strenuous and extremely difficult process of recovery.
  Mr. President, my region has just suffered a 500-year flood right on 
the heels of the worst winter in memory. As the valiant residents of 
South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota begin to rebuild their lives 
and homes, I urge the Congress to take these minimal steps to help that 
process.
  The Depository Institution Disaster Relief Act of 1997 represents an 
immediate, concrete step we can and should take in that direction. I 
urge my colleagues to support our efforts to attach this important 
disaster relief bill to the supplemental appropriations bill which will 
be considered by the Senate in the near future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 653. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
deduction from gross income for home care and adult day and respite 
care expenses of individual taxpayers with respect to a dependent of 
the taxpayer who suffers from Alzheimer's disease or related organic 
brain disorders; to the Committee on Finance.


                        alzheimer's legislation

                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 654. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the 
dependent care credit refundable, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                 dependent care tax credit legislation

                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 655. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
require States to adopt and enforce certain guardianship laws providing 
protection and rights to wards and individuals subject to guardianship 
proceedings as a condition of eligibility for receiving funds under the 
Medicaid Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


        the guardianship rights and responsibilities act of 1997

 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I introduce a package of three 
bills which will have a significant impact on the lives of American 
families.

  The first bill I am reintroducing today provides a tax credit for 
families caring for a relative who suffers from Alzheimer's disease. 
Today, ``Alzheimer's'' is a household term. But it was not always so. 
For many years, victims of Alzheimer's disease and their families 
struggled in isolation against this illness. However, President 
Reagan's poignant disclosure in 1994 that Alzheimer's disease was 
attacking him as he entered the ``twilight years'' of his life captured 
the collective heart of our Nation, and brought new attention to this 
devastating disease. We have come a long way from when I first came to 
Congress over 18 years ago, when there was not a single piece of 
legislation devoted to Alzheimer's disease. Thankfully, that has 
changed.
  Alzheimer's disease is now the most expensive uninsured illness in 
America. The financial costs are staggering. Alzheimer's will consume 
more of our national wealth--approximately $1.75 trillion--than all 
other illnesses except cancer and heart disease. The number of 
Americans affected by Alzheimer's is rising and will continue to rise 
dramatically, from 4 million today to over 14 million by the middle of 
the 21st century.
  In addition to the significant financial costs related to caring for 
a family member with Alzheimer's disease, there is also a tremendous 
emotional cost as well. It is a cost born by the millions of spouses, 
children, relatives, and friends of Alzheimer's victims who see their 
loved ones slowly overwhelmed by the disease.
  We can, however, lessen both the emotional and financial costs of 
this disease by passing the bill I am reintroducing today which will 
provide some relief to Alzheimer's patients and their families. My bill 
would allow families to deduct the cost of home care and adult day and 
respite care provided to a dependent suffering from Alzheimer's 
disease.
  The second bill I am reintroducing today will strengthen the 
dependent care tax credit and restore Congress' original intent to 
provide the greatest benefit of tax credit to low-income taxpayers. My 
legislation expands the dependent care tax credit, makes it applicable 
for respite care expenses, and makes it refundable.
  The increase in women entering the work force and the aging 
population have brought a corresponding increase in the need for both 
child and elder care. Expenses incurred for such care can significantly 
strain a family's budget. In 1993, full-time child care costs averaged 
approximately $4,000. Managing these costs is difficult for many 
families, but is exceptionally burdensome for those in lower income 
brackets.

[[Page S3730]]

  In 1976, Congress enacted the dependent care tax credit to help low- 
and moderate-income families alleviate the burden of employment-related 
dependent care. Over the years, the DCTC has provided significant 
Federal assistance to millions of families with child and adult 
dependent care expenses.
  Under current law, parents can deduct up to $2,400 annually for 
employment-related child care expenses for one children, and up to 
$4,800 for two or more children. Parents can deduct an amount equal to 
30 percent of their child care expenditures if they have earnings below 
$10,000, with the percentage decreasing on a sliding scale to 20 
percent if their income is above $28,000. The credit is nonrefundable, 
meaning that an individual can only receive the credit if he or she 
pays taxes.
  Unfortunately, the value of the dependent care tax credit for low- 
and moderate-income families has eroded in recent years. This is 
largely due to the lack of inflationary indexing and refundability.
  The Tax Reform Act of 1986 provided for inflationary indexing of all 
the basic provisions of the Internal Revenue Code that determine tax 
liability except for DCTC. As a result, fewer and fewer families with 
incomes low enough to take advantage of the maximum credit amount, 30 
percent, have any tax liability.
  The result is a shift in DCTC benefits away from low-income families 
and toward moderate-income families. Fewer and fewer low-income 
family's annual income reach the tax threshold necessary to receive the 
tax credit; and those low-income individuals who do reach the threshold 
lose out on the maximum credit available. Therefore, rather than 
helping low-income families with dependent care expenses, which was 
Congress' original intent, the DCTC is evolving into assistance for 
less needy middle-income families.
  I believe it is critical to get the DCTC back on track helping those 
families most in need in our country. If we do not address these issues 
now, each year increasing tax thresholds will prevent more and more 
low-income individuals from benefiting from the DCTC.
  The legislation I am reintroducing would make the adjustments 
necessary to restore this important benefit to low-income individuals 
and families. It indexes the DCTC to inflation, and makes it refundable 
so that those who do not reach the tax thresholds still receive Federal 
assistance for their dependent care expenses.

  My legislation, however, goes even further to help families 
struggling with dependent care expenses. Recognizing the realistic 
costs of dependent care, my bill raises the DCTC sliding scale from 30 
to 50 percent of work-related dependent care expenditures for families 
earning $15,000 or less. The scale would then be reduced by 1 
percentage point for each additional $1,000 more of income, down to a 
credit of 20 percent for persons earning $45,000 or more.
  Finally, this legislation expands the definition of dependent care to 
include respite care, thereby offering relief from this additional 
expense. A respite care credit would be allowed for up to $1,200 for 
one qualifying dependent care and $2,400 for two qualifying dependents. 
The credit for respite care expenses would be available regardless of 
the caregiver's employment status.
  Congress intended the dependent care tax credit to help low- and 
moderate-income families manage the costs of dependent care assistance 
which is vital to so many families' economic livelihood. However, each 
year that we do not address the issues of inflationary indexing and 
refundability, we deny those very families assistance, and, instead, 
help families with greater financial means.
  The third bill I am reintroducing today is the Guardianship Rights 
and Responsibilities Act of 1997, which establishes a bill of rights 
for adults who, because of physical or mental incapacity, become wards 
of the courts.
  Wards are individuals whose legal rights, decisionmaking authority, 
and possessions have been transferred to the control of a guardian or 
conservator based on a judgment that the person is no longer capable of 
handling these affairs. This legal system severely limits an 
individual's personal autonomy and has considerable problems and 
widespread abuses. Horror stories abound about guardians who force 
unnecessary nursing home care, embezzle assets or otherwise abuse their 
wards.
  The Guardianship Rights and Responsibilities Act of 1997 would 
require States to adopt and enforce laws to provide basic protection 
and rights to wards as a condition of receiving Federal Medicaid funds. 
It would assure due process protections such as counsel, the right to 
be present at their proceedings, and to appeal decisions. Also required 
would be: Clear and convincing evidence to determine the need for a 
guardianship; adequate court monitoring; and standards, training, and 
oversight for guardians.
  This legislation will help to protect the most vulnerable elderly and 
disabled from exploitation, and will help to assure them the highest 
possible autonomy. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting 
these important bills.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Enzi, 
        Mr. Helms, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Roth, and Mr. Sessions):
  S. 656. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
exclude from the definition of employee firefighters and rescue squad 
workers who perform volunteer services and to prevent employers from 
requiring employees who are firefighters or rescue squad workers to 
perform volunteer services, and to allow an employer not to pay 
overtime compensation to a firefighter or rescue squad worker who 
performs volunteer services for the employer, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


         the volunteer firefighter and rescue squad worker act

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to once again introduce the 
Volunteer Firefighter and Rescue Squad Worker Act.
  The purposes of this legislation, which was S. 324 in the 104th 
Congress, are to preserve the spirit of volunteerism in our communities 
and to assist our volunteer firefighters and rescue squad workers in 
their mission to provide vital life-saving and property protection 
services in their communities.
  Under current law, it is illegal for a firefighter or rescue squad 
worker to work on a volunteer basis for the same community which 
employs him or her during the workweek. My bill would amend the Fair 
Labor Standards Act of 1938 to reflect the realities of the work force 
of the 1990's by excluding from the definition of ``employee'' 
firefighters and rescue squad workers who are performing volunteer 
services, thus removing the need to pay these volunteers overtime pay 
for those hours volunteered.
  The need for this legislation stems from a 1993 U.S. Department of 
Labor ruling that a career firefighter cannot serve as a volunteer 
firefighter within the same county in which he or she is employed. My 
legislation would allow professional firefighters and rescue squad 
workers to volunteer their services during off-duty hours and to waive 
overtime pay. The bill specifically prohibits employers from requiring 
firefighters and rescue squad workers to volunteer when they would 
otherwise be entitled to receive overtime compensation, and it requires 
that any agreement by such employees to waive their right to overtime 
compensation be put in writing. I have also added new anticoercion 
language to the bill to specifically define behavior that would be 
considered coercive.
  Historically, volunteer fire and rescue services have played an 
important role in our communities. Millions of people, at some point in 
their lives, have depended upon the services of such volunteers to 
protect life and property. In many cases, it is the professional 
firefighters and rescue workers who volunteered their expertise and 
training to their communities as a way of giving something back to 
their friends and neighbors. The current law, in comparison, does not 
even allow a firefighter or rescue worker to respond to an emergency 
without FLSA regulation.
  Moreover, many municipalities and counties rely upon volunteer 
services because they lack the funds to operate a full-time 
professional and rescue service. I am concerned that until this bill is 
passed, many of our citizens will lack the level of protection that 
would voluntarily be provided by these professionals. This problem is 
especially

[[Page S3731]]

acute for rural areas where fire and rescue units are less common and 
more remote.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senators Cochran, Enzi, Helms, 
Hutchinson, Roth, Sessions, and Thomas, who are cosponsors of this 
legislation. I hope my other colleagues will support this important 
legislation to return an important resource to localities to protect 
the property, and indeed the very lives, of Americans across our great 
nation.
  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. 656

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

     SECTION 2. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Volunteer Firefighter and 
     Rescue Squad Worker Act''.

     SEC. 2. FIREFIGHTER AND RESCUE SQUAD SERVICES.

       Section 3(e)(4) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 203(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(C) The term `employee' does not include a firefighter or 
     a member of a rescue squad during the period in which the 
     firefighter or rescue squad member volunteers to perform 
     firefighting or rescue squad services at a location where the 
     firefighter or member is not then or regularly employed.''.

     SEC. 3. WAIVER OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION.

       The employer of a firefighter or member of a rescue squad 
     shall not be required to pay the firefighter or member 
     overtime compensation under section 7 of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207) for a period during 
     which the firefighter or member--
       (1) volunteered to perform services for the employer; and
       (2) signed a legally binding waiver of such compensation.

     SEC. 4. LIMITATIONS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF VOLUNTEER SERVICES.

       (a) Overtime Compensation Requirement.--Section 7 of the 
     Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(r) No employer may require (directly or indirectly) an 
     employee who is a firefighter or member of a rescue squad to 
     volunteer the employee's firefighting or rescue squad 
     services during any period in which the employee would be 
     entitled to receive compensation for overtime employment 
     under subsection (a).''.
       (b) Prohibition Against Coercion.--
       (1) In general.--An employer shall not directly or 
     indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to 
     intimidate, threaten, or coerce, an employee who is a 
     firefighter or member of a rescue squad for the purpose of 
     requiring the employee to volunteer the employee's 
     firefighting or rescue squad services.
       (2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``intimidate, 
     threaten, or coerce'' includes promising to confer or 
     conferring any benefit (such as appointment, promotion, or 
     compensation) or effecting or threatening to effect any 
     reprisal (such as deprivation of appointment, promotion, or 
     compensation).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 657. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit 
retired members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected 
disability to receive military retired pay concurrently with veterans' 
disability compensation; to the Committee on Armed Services.


               the military retirement equity act of 1997

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, current law--grounded in a century-old 
statute--requires individuals in receipt of disability compensation 
from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, to offset by an equal 
amount any retired military pay for which they are eligible. The offset 
requirement discriminates unfairly against disabled career soldiers by 
requiring them, in effect, to fund their own disability benefits.
  To correct this gross inequity, Senator Jeffords and I are 
introducing legislation today that would eliminate the offset on a 
graduated scale based on the inverse of the retiree's disability 
rating.
  For example, a veteran who is 80 percent disabled would have to 
offset his retirement pay by the amount equal to 20 percent of his 
total VA disability. This compromise would establish the right of a 
disabled military retiree to receive at least a portion of his earned 
military retirement.
  Current law is problematic because it ignores the proper distinction 
between military retirement and disability compensation entitlements. 
Whereas the former is paid to recognize a soldier who has dedicated 20 
or more of his or her years to our country's defense, the latter is 
designed to compensate a veteran for injury incurred in the line of 
duty. Because the two types of compensation serve two entirely 
different purposes, receipt of one should not displace receipt of the 
other.
  Concurrent receipt is fundamentally a fairness issue. The present law 
simply discriminates against career military personnel. Career military 
retirees are the only group of Federal retirees who are required to 
waive their retirement pay in order to receive VA disability pay.
  The unequal gap between the compensation received by disabled 
servicemembers who choose different career paths is patently clear.
  Disabled veterans who choose careers in military service will see, 
upon retirement, their earned retirement benefits reduced proportionate 
to their receipt of VA disability payments. Conversely, disabled 
veterans who elect to leave military service and go into either other 
Federal employment or the private sector will, upon retirement, 
continue to receive their full disability payments, along with any 
earned retirement benefits.
  This inequity needs to be corrected. Over the past several years, the 
Congress and the Department of Defense have sought to deal with this 
issue in a variety of ways. In the past, many attempts to rectify this 
situation have been accompanied by staggering cost estimates. This 
legislation represents an effort to ease the offset burden on retired 
disabled servicemembers while avoiding significant deficit expansion.
  It is also supported by veterans service organizations, including the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, the American 
Legion, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. Although these 
organizations would prefer a complete elimination of the offset, they 
all welcome this effort as a step in the right direction.
  We now have an opportunity to show a measure of our gratitude to all 
those remarkable men and women who have sacrificed in the name of 
freedom and democracy.
  These dedicated servicemembers deserve our special commendation, both 
for having suffered while serving our country and for continuing to 
work in the Armed Forces until retirement. It is time for Congress to 
reverse the law that prohibits career military personnel who are 
wounded or injured during service to our country from receiving earned 
retirement benefits. I hope the Senate will consider this legislation 
expeditiously and end, at long last, this unfairness by finally passing 
this bill, or something like it, into law in the near future.
  Mr. President, this legislation represents an honest attempt to 
correct an injustice that has existed for too long. By allowing 
disabled veterans to receive military retired pay and veterans 
disability compensation concurrently, with an offset that is inversely 
related to the degree of disability, we can restore some fairness to 
Federal retirement policy in a cost-effective manner. Common sense 
tells us that this is the right thing to do.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Military Retirement 
Equity Act of 1997 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 657

       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 ``Military Retirement Equity 
     Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. CONCURRENT PAYMENT OF RETIRED PAY AND COMPENSATION.

       (a) Limitation on Duplication of Benefits.--Chapter 71 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1413. Concurrent payment of retired pay and veterans' 
       disability compensation

       ``(a) Concurrent Payment.--Subject to subsection (b), a 
     person entitled to retired pay may be paid that pay 
     concurrently with the payment of veterans' disability 
     compensation for a service-connected disability if the 
     person's entitlement to retired pay is based solely on--
       ``(1) the person's age;
       ``(2) the length of the person's service in the uniformed 
     services; or
       ``(3) both the person's age and the length of such service.
       ``(b) Offset of Disability Compensation.--In the case of a 
     person who is receiving both retired pay and veterans' 
     disability

[[Page S3732]]

     compensation, the amount of retired pay paid such person 
     shall be reduced (but not below zero) based on the rating of 
     the person's disability for veterans' disability compensation 
     purposes as follows:
       ``(1) If and while the disability is rated 10 percent, by 
     the amount equal to 90 percent of the amount of the 
     disability compensation paid such person.
       ``(2) If and while the disability is rated 20 percent, by 
     the amount equal to 80 percent of the amount of the 
     disability compensation paid such person.
       ``(3) If and while the disability is rated 30 percent, by 
     the amount equal to 70 percent of the amount of the 
     disability compensation paid such person.
       ``(4) If and while the disability is rated 40 percent, by 
     the amount equal to 60 percent of the amount of the 
     disability compensation paid such person.
       ``(5) If and while the disability is rated 50 percent, by 
     the amount equal to 50 percent of the amount of the 
     disability compensation paid such person.
       ``(6) If and while the disability is rated 60 percent, by 
     the amount equal to 40 percent of the amount of the 
     disability compensation paid such person.
       ``(7) If and while the disability is rated 70 percent, by 
     the amount equal to 30 percent of the amount of the 
     disability compensation paid such person.
       ``(8) If and while the disability is rated 80 percent, by 
     the amount equal to 20 percent of the amount of the 
     disability compensation paid such person.
       ``(9) If and while the disability is rated 90 percent, by 
     the amount equal to 10 percent of the amount of the 
     disability compensation paid such person.

     The retired pay of a person entitled to disability 
     compensation may not be reduced under this subsection if and 
     while the disability of such person is rated as total.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Retired pay.--The term `retired pay' includes 
     retainer pay and emergency officers' retirement pay.
       ``(2) Veterans' disability compensation.--
     The term `veterans' disability compensation' has the meaning 
     given the term `compensation' in section 101(13) of title 
     38.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item

``1413. Concurrent payment of retired pay and veterans' disability 
              compensation.''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND PROHIBITION ON RETROACTIVE 
                   BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on October 1, 1997.
       (b) Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits shall be paid to any 
     person by virtue of this Act for any period before the 
     effective date of this Act.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, current law requires retired military 
personnel individuals in receipt of disability compensation from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, to offset any retired military pay 
for which they become eligible. Today Senator Daschle and I are 
introducing legislation that would gradually eliminate this offset 
based on the inverse of the retiree's disability rating. This offset 
requirement unfairly discriminates against career soldiers who become 
disabled by requiring them to fund their own disability benefits.
  As an example, a veteran with 60-percent service-connected disability 
would have to offset his retirement pay by the amount equal to 60 
percent of his total VA disability. This compromise legislation would 
establish the right of a disabled military retiree to receive at least 
a portion of his earned military retirement while avoiding an 
insurmountable cost that, under budget rules, would require an offset 
in other funding areas of the Department of Defense.
  Current law does not take into account the obvious distinction 
between military retirement and disability compensation entitlements. 
Military retirement is paid to recognize a soldier who has dedicated 20 
or more of his or her years to our country's defense. Disability 
benefits are intended to compensate a veteran for injury for injury 
incurred in the lined of duty. Because these two types of compensation 
serve two different purposes, receipt of one should not prevent a 
veteran from receiving the other.
  Congress has sought to deal with this issue over the years in a 
number ways--most of these attempts have brought with them unreasonable 
cost estimates. This legislation would ease the offset burden on 
retired disabled service members and still avoid significant expansion 
in the deficit. Also, because career military retirees are the only 
group of Federal retirees who are required to waive their retirement 
pay in order to receive VA disability, the need to change current law 
is especially pressing. Inversely, disabled veterans who elect to leave 
military service and go into either other Federal employment or the 
private sector will, upon retirement, continue to receive their full 
disability payments, along with any earned retirement benefits.
  This bill is supported as a step in the right direction by the 
Nation's veterans service organizations, including the American Legion, 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, and the 
Paralyzed Veterans of America.
  Congress should move quickly to reverse this law prohibiting career 
military personnel who are wounded or injured during their service from 
receiving earned retirement benefits. I hope the Senate will act to end 
this unfairness once and for all by passing legislation to ease the 
offset. In allowing disabled veterans to receive military retired pay 
and veterans disability compensation concurrently, with an offset that 
is inversely related to the degree of disability, we will restore some 
fairness to Federal retirement policy cost-effectively. Our veterans 
have earned that and much more.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 658. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit 
gunrunning, and provide mandatory minimum penalties for crimes related 
to gunrunning; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                  THE GUN KINGPIN PENALTY ACT OF 1997

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague 
from Illinois Senator Durbin, to introduce the Gun Kingpin Penalty Act 
of 1997. In introducing this bill, Senator Durbin and I hope that our 
colleagues will soon join us in sending a clear and strong signal to 
gunrunners--your actions will no longer be tolerated.
  Mr. President, recent numbers gathered by the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms clearly demonstrate what many of us already knew 
all too well--several key North-South highways in this country have 
become pipelines for merchants of death who deal in illegal firearms.
  My own State of New Jersey is proud to have some of the toughest gun 
control laws in the Nation. But for far too long, the courageous 
efforts of New Jersey citizens in enacting these tough laws have been 
weakened by out of State gunrunners who treat our State like their own 
personal retail outlet.
  We learned from the ATF data that in 1996, New Jersey exported fewer 
guns used in crimes, per capita, than any other State--less than 1 gun 
per 100,000 residents, or 75 total guns. In contrast, Mississippi 
exported 29 of these guns per capita last year.
  Meanwhile, an incredible number of guns used to commit crimes in New 
Jersey last year came from out of State--944 guns were imported and 
used to commit crimes compared to only 75 exported--a net import of 869 
illegal guns used to commit crimes against the people of New Jersey. In 
fact, the top six exporters of illegal guns used to commit crimes in 
New Jersey supplied 62 pecent of the guns--585--and only one of those 
six States--North Carolina--has strong gun control laws.
  This represents a one way street--guns come from States with lax gun 
laws straight to States, like New Jersey, with strong laws.
  It is clear that New Jersey's strong gun control laws offer criminals 
little choice but to import their guns from States with weak laws. We 
must act on a Federal level to send a clear message that this cannot 
continue and will not be tolerated.
  Mr. President, once again this year Senator Lautenberg and I have 
introduced our one-gun-a-month bill, which would go a long way toward 
preventing bulk sales and massive trafficking in firearms.
  But today's bill is the next logical step--hitting illegal 
traffickers where it hurts with tough mandatory minimum sentences that 
will get these gunrunners off our streets.
  The Gun Kingpin Penalty Act of 1997 would create a new Federal 
gunrunning offense for any person who, within a 12-month period, 
transports more than five guns to another State with the intent of 
transferring all of the weapons to another person. The act would 
establish mandatory minimum penalties for gunrunning as follows:
  A mandatory 3-year minimum sentence for a first offense involving 5 
to 50 guns; a mandatory 5-year minimum

[[Page S3733]]

sentence for second offense involving 5 to 50 guns; and a mandatory 15-
year minimum sentence for any offense involving more than 50 guns.
  Additionally, the bill contains two blood-on-the-hands provisions, 
which will significantly increase penalties for a gunrunner who 
transfers a gun subsequently used to seriously injure or kill another 
person. A mandatory 10-year minimum sentence is required if one of the 
smuggled guns is used within 3 years to kill or seriously injure 
another person. And a mandatory 25-year minimum sentence must be 
imposed if one of the smuggled guns is used within 3 years to kill or 
seriously injure another person and more than 50 guns were smuggled.
  Finally, our bill adds numerous gunrunning crimes as RICO predicates, 
and authorizes 200 additional Treasury personnel to enforce the act--
Congress must provide law enforcement with the resources to enforce the 
laws we pass.
  The fight against gun violence is a long-term, many-staged process. 
We succeeded in enacting the Brady bill and the ban on devastating 
assault weapons. Last year, we told domestic violence offenders that 
they could no longer own a gun.
  And these laws have been effective: 186,000 prohibited individuals 
have already been denied a handgun due to Brady background checks. Some 
70 percent of these people were convicted or indicted felons.
  Traces of assault weapons have plummeted since the ban, and prices 
have gone up. And not a single law enforcement officer has been killed 
with an assault weapon in over a year.
  Mr. President, I will soon be introducing a companion piece to this 
legislation--the Gun Kingpin Death Penalty Act of 1997. That bill, 
modeled after the drug kingpin legislation passed by Congress several 
years ago, will allow for the Federal death penalty if a gunrunning 
kingpin commits murder in the course of his or her operations. As I 
said before, this is a many-staged fight, and we can never rest when it 
comes to gun violence.
  This problem will not just go away, and we cannot standby and watch 
as innocent men, women, and children die at the hands of criminals 
armed with these guns. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I 
ask that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record 
following this statement. I yield the floor to my friend from Illinois 
Senator Durbin.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New 
Jersey and join him today in introducing the Gun Kingpin Penalty Act of 
1997.
  Mr. President, Interstate 55 runs straight through Mississippi to 
Memphis and St. Louis before veering northeast into Springfield and 
Chicago. And, in addition to carrying cars with their passengers and 
trucks with their cargo, I-55 is a firearm freeway into my home State. 
Gunrunners ship trunkloads of guns up I-55 for use by criminals.
  Two years ago, one of those guns--that probably came into Illinois 
via I-55--was used to shoot Chicago Police Officer Daniel Doffyn in the 
head. Officer Doffyn was fresh out of the police academy. He was out on 
a burglary call, and a Tec-9 from Mississippi killed him.
  The legislation Senator Torricelli and I introduce today lets 
everyone know that we are committed to closing down the illegal 
gunrunning operations that put that Tec-9 into the hands of the man who 
killed Daniel Doffyn.
  And let no one underestimate the deadly impact of gunrunning across 
State lines. My home State of Illinois has tough gun laws. The local 
firearms dealers, police, and licensing authorities work hard to make 
sure that felons cannot go into a store and buy guns. They also work 
hard to keep the illegal gun market under control.
  But we have learned that one State alone cannot overpower the illegal 
gun market. Earlier this year we obtained data from the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms detailing the results of their efforts to 
trace guns used in crimes. We analyzed that data and produced a report. 
That report concluded that:
  First, guns used in crimes are most likely to come from just a few 
States with relatively weak gun control laws. Of the traceable guns 
used nationwide in crimes, 16,635 of the 47,068, or 35 percent, were 
out-of-State guns.
  Second, in States with strong gun laws, criminals obtain many of 
their guns from other States with weaker gun laws.
  Third, in States with lax gun laws, criminals obtain the majority of 
their guns from their home State.
  Fourth, the trafficking of guns moves primarily in one direction; 
from States with weak gun laws to States with tough gun laws.
  Fifth, when neighboring States have different levels of gun control 
laws, the State with lax laws floods its stricter neighbor with guns.
  In Illinois we can see how these conclusions play out. Illinois is a 
net traced-guns importer. In 1996, Illinois accounted for a total of 
399 crime guns traced in all the other States combined. However, 1,596 
guns from out of State were traced to crimes in Illinois. Thirty-five 
percent of the guns traced from crimes in Illinois were from out of 
State. And 10 percent of the guns traced from crimes in Illinois were 
from Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. Mississippi is the top supplier 
of out-of-State guns to Illinois, 306, and Wisconsin, 75. In contrast, 
Illinois exported only two guns traced to crime in Mississippi.
  In Mississppi, 268 guns involved in a crime were traced right back to 
Mississippi. In contrast, 306 Mississippi guns were traced to crimes in 
Illinois. Overall, Illinois pays a heavier price for Mississippi's lax 
gun control laws than Mississippi does.
  In contrast to the weak gun law States, Illinois has tough gun laws. 
That's why per capita, Illinois barely plays a role in the gunrunning 
business. States with laxer gun control laws are acting as exporters to 
Illinois. Illinois accounted for 2 percent of the gun exports traced in 
crimes in other States. In contrast, Texas and Florida accounted for 
almost 14 percent of those gun exports.
  Mr. President, I believe that it is time to shut down the firearms 
freeway to Illinois. That is why I am happy to sponsor this bill. This 
measure will let everyone know that we are quite serious about this, 
that the gunrunning black market is not just a harmless little business 
venture. People who run trunkloads of guns into another State are doing 
so for the sole purpose of making money off selling guns to people they 
know intend to use the gun in crime. This bill provides for a 3-year 
mandatory minimum for gunrunners. And the penalties will go up with the 
number of guns. If you run 50 guns, the penalty is 15 years. This 
legislation also makes gunrunning a RICO or racketeering predicate. 
With this tool in place, we can shut down entire gunrunning syndicates.
  I believe that we should all easily support this measure. It is aimed 
at taking guns out of the hands of criminals.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
additional material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 658

       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 ``Gun Kingpin Penalty Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST GUNRUNNING.

       Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after subsection (x) the following:
       ``(y) It shall be unlawful for a person not licensed under 
     section 923 to ship or transport, or conspire to ship or 
     transport, 5 or more firearms from a State into another State 
     during any period of 12 consecutive months, with the intent 
     to transfer all of such firearms to another person who is not 
     so licensed.''.

     SEC. 3. MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES FOR CRIMES RELATED TO 
                   GUNRUNNING.

       Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(p)(1)(A)(i) Whoever violates section 922(y) shall, 
     except as otherwise provided in this subsection, be 
     imprisoned not less than 3 years, and may be fined under this 
     title.
       ``(ii) In the case of a person's second or subsequent 
     violation described in clause (i), the term of imprisonment 
     shall be not less than 5 years.
       ``(B) If a firearm which is shipped or transported in 
     violation of section 922(y) is used subsequently by the 
     person to whom shipped or transported, or by any person 
     within 3 years after the shipment or transportation, in an 
     offense in which a person is killed or

[[Page S3734]]

     suffers serious bodily injury, the term of imprisonment for 
     the violation shall be not less than 10 years.
       ``(C) If more than 50 firearms are the subject of a 
     violation of section 922(y), the term of imprisonment for the 
     violation shall be not less than 15 years.
       ``(D) If more than 50 firearms are the subject of a 
     violation of section 922(y) and 1 of the firearms is used 
     subsequently by the person to whom shipped or transported, or 
     by any person within 3 years after the shipment or 
     transportation, in an offense in which a person is killed or 
     suffers serious bodily injury, the term of imprisonment for 
     the violation shall be not less than 25 years.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court 
     shall not impose a probationary sentence or suspend the 
     sentence of a person convicted of a violation of this 
     subsection, nor shall any term of imprisonment imposed on a 
     person under this subsection run concurrently with any other 
     term of imprisonment imposed on the person by a court of the 
     United States.''.

     SEC. 4. CRIMES RELATED TO GUNRUNNING MADE PREDICATE OFFENSES 
                   UNDER RICO.

       Section 1961(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``section 922(a)(1)(A) (relating to 
     unlicensed importation, manufacture, or dealing in firearms), 
     section 92(a)(3) (relating to interstate transportation or 
     receipt of firearm), section 922(a)(5) (relating to transfer 
     of firearm to person from another State), or section 
     922(a)(6) (relating to false statements made in acquisition 
     of firearm or ammunition from licensee), section 922(d) 
     (relating to disposition of firearm of ammunition to a 
     prohibited person), section 922(g) (relating to receipt of 
     firearm or ammunition by a prohibited person), section 922(h) 
     (relating to possession of firearm or ammunition on behalf of 
     a prohibited person), section 922(i) (relating to 
     transportation of stolen firearm or ammunition), section 
     922(j) (relating to receipt of stolen firearm or ammunition), 
     section 922(k) (relating to transportation or receipt of 
     firearm with altered serial number), section 922(y) (relating 
     to gunrunning), section 924(b) (relating to shipment or 
     receipt of firearm for use in a crime),'' before ``section 
     1028''.

     SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT.

       The Secretary of the Treasury may hire and employ 200 
     personnel, in addition to any personnel hired and employed by 
     the Department of the Treasury under other law, to enforce 
     the amendments made by this Act, notwithstanding any 
     limitations imposed by or under the Federal Workforce 
     Restructuring Act.
                                  ____


 War Between the States: How Gunrunners Smuggle Weapons Across America


  summary of ``war between the states: how gunrunners smuggle weapons 
                            across america''

       This report examines the deadly commerce practiced by 
     interstate gunrunners. These profiteers legally buy weapons 
     in a state with mild gun laws, and then sell them illegally 
     in another state with tough rules.
       When these smugglers load up their car trunks with piles of 
     lethal merchandise, they transfer countless weapons from 
     legitimate commerce to the black market--and the guns often 
     end up in criminals' hands.
       A handful of states like Mississippi and Florida are 
     typical shopping stops for the nation's gunrunners, who then 
     sell the weapons in states like New York, New Jersey, and 
     Illinois--the losers in this deadly game of firearms 
     smuggling.
       The five worst offenders per capita are Mississippi, South 
     Carolina, West Virginia, Nevada, and Kansas.
       Several interstate highways are ``firearms freeways''--
     favorite smuggling routes for gunrunners. Illegally 
     transported guns head north up I-95 from Florida, Georgia and 
     South Carolina to New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, or 
     north from Mississippi along I-55 to Illinois.
       This independent analysis of data on 1996 firearms traces 
     makes several trends crystal clear:
       1. Gunrunners' bazaars: Guns used in crimes are most likely 
     to come from just a few states with relatively weak gun 
     control laws. Just the top four states--Florida, Texas, South 
     Carolina, and Georgia--account for a quarter of the traces. 
     This trend is even more stark when analyzed based on 
     population: several small states provide far more than their 
     share of guns to criminals, and these states have 
     particularly weak laws.
       2. Home sweet home: In states with strong gun laws, 
     criminals obtain the majority of their guns from other 
     states; in states with weaker gun laws, criminals obtain the 
     majority of their guns locally.
       3. One-way streets: Illicit traffic along the ``firearms 
     freeways'' moves only in one direction: from states with less 
     gun control to those with more.
       4. Love thy neighbor: When neighboring states have 
     different approaches to firearms regulation, the state with 
     lax laws floods its stricter neighbor with guns that are used 
     in crime.
       These clear patterns show the urgent need for a nationwide 
     effort to stop gun smuggling between states. In particular, 
     Congressman Schumer is proposing tough new federal penalties 
     for gunrunning crimes and increased resources for 
     investigations of firearms trafficking.


               findings: gunrunning is a national problem

       The tables that follow this page tell the story of a 
     thriving illegal trade that crisscrosses the nation. The 
     customers for this business are street gangs and murderers, 
     drug dealers and muggers. The salespeople are interstate 
     gunrunners who exploit the discrepancies in different states' 
     gun laws to supply weapons on the black market. And the 
     suppliers are states where gun laws get a failing grade.

                   Table 1: Guns crossing State lines

       Table 1 shows how many guns sold in a particular state were 
     traced to crimes in other states by the federal Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in 1996.
       The table demonstrates how lopsided these figures are. The 
     two states that provide the most guns to criminals in other 
     states--Florida (1,243) and Texas (1,068)--account for almost 
     14% of all such traces, and the top four states account for a 
     quarter. A majority of the out-of-state guns (54.2%) come 
     from just the top ten states--more than the other 40 states 
     and Washington, DC combined.
       Note that the numbers in Table 1 account for all guns 
     recovered by law enforcement and traced, not all guns used in 
     crimes. In reality, these states are selling far more guns to 
     criminals than indicated on the table.

             Table 2: Guns crossing State lines per capita

       Table 2 adjusts for population, more clearly demonstrating 
     the link between weak gun laws and the sale of guns used in 
     other states' crimes.
       The ``export rate'' shows how many guns were traced from 
     crimes elsewhere per 100,000 state residents. In other words, 
     for every 100,000 Mississippi residents, 29 guns were sold in 
     Mississippi and traced to crimes in another state. For every 
     100,000 New Yorkers, 1.19 guns were sent to out-of-state 
     criminals.
       Each state was rated on how strongly its rules crack down 
     on gunrunners' easy access to weapons. The ratings of state 
     gun laws are explained more fully in an appendix. Overall, 27 
     of the states are rated ``very weak'' because they have no 
     significant restrictions beyond those required under federal 
     regulation, such as the Brady Law. Four of the states were 
     rated ``weak,'' four ``moderate,'' six ``strong,'' and ten 
     ``very strong.''
       By controlling for population, Table 2 underscores the 
     dramatic impact of state gun laws on gun trafficking 
     patterns. None of the top ten states on Table 2 had 
     ``strong'' or ``very strong'' ratings. Six of the ten are 
     ``very weak.''

             TABLE 1.--CRIME GUNS CROSSING STATE LINES--1996
 [State-by-State breakdown of guns used in out-of-State crimes by place
                             of origination]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Total
            Rank                            State                exports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  Florida.........................     1,243
2...........................  Texas...........................     1,068
3...........................  South Carolina..................       992
4...........................  Georgia.........................       939
5...........................  Virginia........................       924
6...........................  California......................       828
7...........................  Ohio............................       823
8...........................  Mississippi.....................       782
9...........................  North Carolina..................       752
10..........................  Indiana.........................       665
11..........................  Pennsylvania....................       532
12..........................  Alabama.........................       516
13..........................  Arizona.........................       487
14..........................  Maryland........................       457
15..........................  Kentucky........................       428
16..........................  Illinois........................       399
17..........................  Kansas..........................       364
18..........................  Louisiana.......................       339
19..........................  Tennessee.......................       317
20..........................  West Virginia...................       286
21..........................  Arkansas........................       279
22..........................  Oklahoma........................       262
23..........................  Nevada..........................       230
24..........................  Wisconsin.......................       224
25..........................  Washington......................       223
26..........................  Colorado........................       216
27..........................  New York........................       215
28..........................  Michigan........................       200
29..........................  Missouri........................       155
30..........................  New Mexico......................       152
31..........................  Connecticut.....................       134
32..........................  Oregon..........................       116
33..........................  Minnesota.......................       106
34..........................  Iowa............................        99
35..........................  Idaho...........................        94
36..........................  Massachusetts...................        90
37..........................  New Hampshire...................        79
38..........................  New Jersey......................        75
39..........................  Delaware........................        74
40..........................  Utah............................        69
41..........................  Alaska..........................        68
42..........................  Maine...........................        62
43..........................  Montana.........................        58
44..........................  Nebraska........................        54
45..........................  Vermont.........................        46
46..........................  South Dakota....................        45
47..........................  Wyoming.........................        31
48 (Tie)....................  District of Columbia............        18
                              Rhode Island....................        18
50 (Tie)....................  North Dakota....................        15
                              Hawaii..........................        15
                             -------------------------------------------
                                    U.S. total exports........   16,663
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.


       TABLE 2.--CRIME GUNS CROSSING STATE LINES--PER CAPITA--1996
 [Number of guns used in out-of-State crimes by place of origination per
                           100,000 residents]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Export
       Rank                   State                 Rating         rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................  Mississippi...............  VW                  29.00
2................  South Carolina............  M                   27.01
3................  West Virginia.............  VW                  15.65
4................  Nevada....................  VW                  15.03
5................  Kansas....................  VW                  14.19
6................  Virginia..................  W                   13.96
7................  Georgia...................  VW                  13.04
8................  Alabama...................  M                   12.13
9................  Arizona...................  VW                  11.55
10...............  Indiana...................  M                   11.45
11...............  Alaska....................  VW                  11.26
12...............  Arkansas..................  VW                  11.23
13...............  Kentucky..................  VW                  11.09
14...............  North Carolina............  VS                  10.45
15...............  Delaware..................  VW                  10.32
16...............  Maryland..................  S                    9.06
17...............  New Mexico................  VW                   9.02
18...............  Florida...................  VW                   8.65
19...............  Idaho.....................  VW                   8.08
20...............  Oklahoma..................  VW                   7.99

[[Page S3735]]

 
21...............  Vermont...................  VW                   7.86
22...............  Louisiana.................  VW                   7.81
23...............  Ohio......................  VW                   7.38
24...............  New Hampshire.............  W                    6.88
25...............  Montana...................  VW                   6.67
26...............  Wyoming...................  VW                   6.46
27...............  South Dakota..............  VW                   6.17
28...............  Tennessee.................  W                    6.03
29...............  Colorado..................  VW                   5.76
30...............  Texas.....................  VW                   5.70
31...............  Maine.....................  VW                   5.00
32...............  Pennsylvania..............  M                    4.41
33...............  Wisconsin.................  VW                   4.37
34...............  Washington................  W                    4.11
35...............  Connecticut...............  VS                   4.09
36...............  Oregon....................  VW                   3.69
37...............  Utah......................  VW                   3.54
38...............  Iowa......................  S                    3.48
39...............  Illinois..................  VS                   3.37
40...............  Nebraska..................  S                    3.30
41...............  District of Columbia......  VS                   3.25
42...............  Missouri..................  S                    2.91
43...............  California................  S                    2.62
44...............  North Dakota..............  VW                   2.34
45...............  Minnesota.................  VS                   2.30
46...............  Michigan..................  VS                   2.09
47...............  Rhode Island..............  S                    1.82
48...............  Massachusetts.............  VS                   1.48
49...............  Hawaii....................  VS                   1.26
50...............  New York..................  VS                   1.19
51...............  New Jersey................  VS                   0.94
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                         U.S. Average........  ................     6.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rating Legend: VS: Very Strong; S: Strong; M: Moderate; W: Weak; VW:
  Very Weak.
 
Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

trend 1: gunrunners' bazaars--states with weak laws supply the bulk of 
                               crime guns

       Many states with weak gun control laws are giant bazaars 
     for gunrunners--and those with tough laws sell very few guns 
     used in other states' crimes. The medium-sized and large 
     states that dominate the top of Table 1 are responsible for a 
     vast proportion of the guns traced to crimes across the 
     country.
       The top two states, Florida and Texas, supplied 14% of the 
     guns traced to crime in other states. These two states along 
     with South Carolina and Georgia account for a quarter of the 
     traces.
       A majority of the guns traced across state lines in 1996 
     (54.2%) came from just the top ten states--more than the 
     other 40 states and Washington, DC combined. Five of these 
     states have gun laws rated ``very weak'' (Florida, Texas, 
     Georgia, Ohio, and Mississippi).
       In contrast, New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Minnesota, 
     four very large states with strong gun laws, accounted for 
     only 3.6% of those out-of-state guns.
       Top-ranked Florida dealers sold about as many guns traced 
     to crime in other states (1,243) as did ten other medium-
     sized or large states combined: New York (215), Michigan 
     (200), Missouri (155), Connecticut (134), Oregon (116), 
     Minnesota (106), Iowa (99), Massachusetts (90), New Jersey 
     (75), and Nebraska (54).
       By controlling the data for population, Table 2 
     demonstrates how weak gun laws attract gunrunners. Analyzing 
     the data on a per capita basis demonstrates that even quite 
     small states can be mother lodes for gunrunners--if their 
     laws are accommodating.
       Adjusted for population, Mississippi supplied the most guns 
     traced to other states' crimes. The explanation: except for 
     some limitations on juveniles, Mississippi has no significant 
     gun control laws of its own. Mississippi was closely followed 
     as a gun-providing state by South Carolina, West Virginia, 
     Nevada, and Kansas. Three of these four states have gun 
     control laws just as weak as Mississippi.
       On a per capita basis, the fewest out-of-state guns came 
     from New Jersey, New York, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode 
     Island, Michigan and Minnesota. All these states except Rhode 
     Island were rated ``very strong;'' Rhode Island's laws are 
     ``strong.''
       A gun traced to crime is twenty-five times more likely per 
     capita to come from Mississippi or South Carolina than from 
     New York or New Jersey.
       Although New York's population is seven times larger than 
     Mississippi, Mississippi had three times more out-of-state 
     traces than New York.


TREND 2: HOME SWEET HOME--In States With Lax Laws, More Crime Guns Come 
                             From In-State

       In states with weak gun laws, criminals can shop at their 
     neighborhood gun store. By contrast, criminals in states with 
     tough gun control laws must obtain out-of-state guns on the 
     black market to perpetrate violent crimes.
       More than three quarters of the gun traces from crimes in 
     South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Kansas, Ohio 
     and Texas lead back to dealers in the same state.
       Less than one quarter of the guns traced from crimes in New 
     York (23.5%), New Jersey (21.2%) were bought in these states, 
     which have strict laws.
       A majority (53%) of the crime guns traced to states with 
     ``very strong'' laws were purchased out-of-state. There were 
     13,760 guns traced to crimes in these 10 states (New Jersey, 
     New York, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, the District of 
     Columbia, Illinois, Connecticut, and North Carolina).
       Less than a quarter (23%) of the crime guns traced to 
     states with ``very weak'' laws were purchased out-of-state. 
     There were 15,046 guns traced to crimes in 26 of these states 
     (data for West Virginia was incomplete and not included in 
     this figure).


    TREND 3: ONE-WAY STREETS--``Firearm Freeways'' Move In Only One 
                               Direction

       The data shows how gunrunners use major interstate highways 
     as their smuggling routes. It also shows how those routes 
     move primarily in one direction--from states with less 
     stringent gun control to those with stricter rules.
       I-95: The Most Travelled Highway in America Extends from 
     Southern Florida to Northernmost Maine:
       North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida--the 
     four southernmost states on I-95--were the source of 1,199 
     guns traced to crimes in the nine northeast states from 
     Pennsylvania to Maine. These same nine northeastern states 
     accounted for a total of just 64 guns traced to the four 
     southeastern states--95% fewer.
       702 guns bought in South Carolina, Georgia, or Florida were 
     traced to crimes in New York or New Jersey. On the other 
     hand, just 11 guns bought in New York or New Jersey were 
     traced to crimes in South Carolina, Georgia, or Florida.
       Despite distance of 1,200 miles, Florida was the largest 
     supplier of out-of-state guns traced to crimes in 
     Massachusetts (40 gun traces). In contrast, just three guns 
     from Florida crimes came from Massachusetts. Georgia was the 
     second biggest source for Massachusetts, sending 30 guns to 
     the Bay State, while not a single trace from any Georgia 
     crime led back to Massachusetts.
       I-55: Beginning in New Orleans, I-55 Runs Alongside the 
     Mississippi River to Jackson, Memphis and St. Louis before 
     Veering East to Springfield and Chicago:
       Mississippi is the top supplier of out-of-state guns to 
     Illinois (306) and Wisconsin (75). Illinois and Wisconsin are 
     home to only four guns traced to crime in Mississippi.
       Of all the guns traced to Mississippi, there were more 
     linked to crimes hundreds of miles away in Illinois (306) 
     than at home in Mississippi (268).
       Louisiana sold 89 guns traced to crimes in Illinois, 
     Michigan, Missouri, and Wisconsin. These four states combined 
     sent just six guns down to Louisiana.


  trend 4: love thy neighbor--the borders between some states are hot 
                          zones for gunrunners

       When a state with loose gun laws borders on one with 
     stricter rules, the lax state floods the tough neighbor with 
     firearms.
       Kansas: Dealers in Kansas sold 238 guns that were traced to 
     crime in Missouri. Missouri, which has a gun permit 
     requirement rated ``strong,'' sent only three crime guns back 
     across the border to Kansas.
       South Carolina: Dealers in South Carolina sold 430 guns 
     that were traced to crimes in North Carolina. North Carolina, 
     which has much stricter gun control laws, is home to only two 
     guns traced to crimes in South Carolina.
       Ohio: Ohio is perhaps the gunrunners' favorite northern 
     state, spreading firearms to criminals throughout the region. 
     Ohio sold 235 guns that went north to Michigan criminals, but 
     only 26 traces went the other way from Michigan dealers to 
     Ohio criminals. Similarly, Ohio was the source of 226 guns 
     traced to crimes in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, New 
     Jersey and the District. These five jurisdictions were the 
     source of just 24 guns traced to crimes in Ohio.
       Indiana: While 306 guns from Indiana were traced to crimes 
     in Illinois, only 41 Illinois guns were traced to crimes in 
     Indiana. Hoosier gun dealers also sold 50 guns traced from 
     Wisconsin (which sent 22 to Indiana) and 77 to Michigan 
     (which sent 17 to Indiana).


                            notes on sources

       This study analyzes the 47,068 guns which the federal 
     Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) traced to a 
     final retail purchaser in 1996. ATF traces firearms at the 
     request of law enforcement agencies; not all firearms seized 
     in crimes are traced, and some are traced by local 
     authorities rather than by ATF. ATF supplied raw data at 
     Congressman Charles Schumer's request and did not contribute 
     to the analysis contained in this report.
       Of all the traces, 16,663--35%--were used in crimes outside 
     of the state where they were bought. This subset was used for 
     analysis on ``out-of-state'' guns.
       Handgun Control, Inc. provided summaries of state laws on 
     gun control, but bears no responsibility for the rankings. 
     Supplementary information was obtained from law enforcement 
     authorities or government offices in various states.
       Population data was based on the 1995 Census as reported in 
     the ``Statistical Abstract of the United States.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GLENN (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. DeWine, 
        Ms. Moseley-Braun, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 659. A bill to amend the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration 
Act of 1990 to provide for implementation of recommendations of the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contained in the Great Lakes Fishery 
Restoration Study Report; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.


       the great lakes fish and wildlife restoration act of 1997

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, this week our nation celebrates the 27th 
anniversary of Earth Day. In 1970, the inaugural year of Earth Day, the 
Nation's consciousness was raised about the plight of our environment. 
The Great

[[Page S3736]]

Lakes were held up as some of the worst examples of human abuse; Lake 
Erie was given up for dead, the victim of unrestrained pollution and 
the misuse of its precious natural resources. The Cuyahoga River caught 
fire and phosphate-based soap suds washed up on shorelines throughout 
the Nation. The Great Lakes region responded to the alarm with 
unprecedented vigor.
  In 1971 I headed the Governor's Task Force on Environmental 
Protection in Ohio, a forerunner to today's Ohio EPA. In a spirit of 
regional cooperation, the surrounding States, Native American Tribes, 
and Canada entered into collective agreements that recognized the Great 
Lakes as a set of shared resources within a single ecosystem. Important 
environmental legislation was designed and implemented to combat 
pollution and clean up the environment.
  Since that time, water quality has improved dramatically and 
fisheries scientists are witnessing recovery of fish populations in 
each of the lakes. Lake Erie is experiencing rebounds in lake whitefish 
populations thought impossible just 10 years ago. This past summer, the 
Fish and Wildlife Service announced that lake trout populations in Lake 
Superior are now self-sustaining, needing no further stocking. There 
are many success stories in the Great Lakes, suggesting the ecological 
health of our lakes is on the mend, but the job is not yet complete. 
Degraded habitats, reduced fish and wildlife populations, and the 
threat from nonindigenous species still imperil the well being of our 
lakes.
  Today my colleague from the House of Representatives, Congressman
La Tourette of Ohio, and I will introduce a bill into the House and 
Senate that will continue the recovery process of the Great Lakes and 
their associated natural resources. This bill, the Great Lakes Fish and 
Wildlife Restoration Act of 1997 builds upon the Great Lakes Fish and 
Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990. The 1990 act authorized the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service to undertake a comprehensive study to first, 
assess the status of fishery resources and their habitats and second, 
to gauge the effectiveness of management strategies used to protect 
these resources. The study's findings recommend a definite course of 
action for the continued restoration of the region's natural resources. 
The full implementation of the strategic plan for management of Great 
Lakes fisheries and the institution of a comprehensive and standardized 
ecological monitoring system for all lakes are just 2 of 32 specific 
recommendations set forth by the study.
  The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act represents a new 
generation of environmental legislation, one that recognizes the 
complexity and interrelatedness of ecosystems. This act seeks to 
address natural resource management in a comprehensive and 
conscientious manner by building partnerships among the Great Lakes 
States, United States and Canadian Governments, and Native American 
tribes. Through regional cooperation, I believe we can address the 
environmental and economic concerns of the Great Lakes basin and 
continue the recovery that began some 27 years ago. By supporting this 
legislation, we in the Congress will be taking the right next step 
toward responsible stewardship of the Great Lakes as we venture into 
the new millenium.

                          ____________________