Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 51 (Friday, April 25, 1997)

[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.

____________________