[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 16 (Thursday, January 28, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1076-S1079]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 317. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
an exclusion for gain from the sale of farmland which is similar to the 
exclusion from gain on the sale of a principal residence, to the 
Committee on Finance.


             CAPITAL GAINS TAX FAIRNESS FOR FAMILY FARMERS

 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today Senator Hagel of Nebraska and 
I rise to introduce a bill to correct a fundamental flaw and inequity 
in the tax code that we need to fix immediately. This legislation is 
identical to a bill that I authored in the last Congress.
  Too often, family farmers are not able to take full advantage of the 
$500,000 capital gains tax break that city folks get when they sell 
their homes. Today, this inequity is particularly onerous for thousands 
of family farmers who are being forced to sell their farms due to 
depressed commodity prices, crop disease and failed federal farm 
policies. Once family farmers have been beaten down and forced to sell 
the farm they've farmed for generations, they get a rude awakening. 
Many of them discover, as they leave the farm, that Uncle Sam is 
waiting for them at the end of the lane with a big tax bill.
  One of the most popular provisions included in the major tax bill in 
1997 permits families to exclude from federal income tax up to $500,000 
of gain from the sale of their principal residences. That's a good 
deal, especially for most urban and suburban dwellers who have spent 
many years paying for their houses, and who regard their houses as both 
a home and a retirement account. For many middle income families, their 
home is their major financial asset, an asset the family can draw on 
for retirement. House prices in major growth markets such as 
Washington, D.C., New York, or California may start at hundreds of 
thousands of dollars. As a result, the urban dwellers who have owned 
their homes through many years of appreciation can often benefit from a 
large portion of this new $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion. 
Unfortunately this provision, as currently applied, is virtually 
useless to family farmers.
  For farm families, their farm is their major financial asset. 
Unfortunately, family farmers under current law receive little or no 
benefit from the new $500,000 exclusion because the IRS separates the 
value of their homes from the value of the land the homes sit on. As 
people from my state of North Dakota

[[Page S1077]]

know, houses out on the farmsteads of rural America are more commonly 
sold for $5,000 to $40,000. Most farmers plow any profits they make 
into the whole farm rather than into a house that will hold little or 
no value when the farm is sold. It's not surprising that the IRS often 
judges that homes far out in the country have very little value and 
thus farmers receive much less benefit from this $500,000 exclusion 
than do their urban and suburban counterparts. As a result, the capital 
gains exclusion is little or no help to farmers who are being forced 
out of business. They may immediately face a hefty capital gains tax 
bill from the IRS.
  This is simply wrong, Mr. President. It is unfair. Federal farm 
policy helped create the hole that many of these farmers find 
themselves in. Federal tax policy shouldn't dig the hole deeper as they 
attempt to shovel their way out.
  The Dorgan-Hagel bill recognizes the unique character and role of our 
family farmers and their important contributions to our economy. It 
expands the $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion for sales of principal 
residences to cover family farmers who sell their farmhouses or 
surrounding farmland, so long as they are actively engaged in farming 
prior to the sales. In this way, farmers may get some benefit from a 
tax break that would otherwise be unavailable to them.
  Our bill is not a substitute for larger policy reforms that are 
needed to restore the economic health of our farm communities. This tax 
relief measure is just one of a number of policy initiatives we can use 
to ease the pain for family farmers as we pursue other initiatives to 
help turn around the crippled farm economy.
  Specifically, the Dorgan-Hagel bill would expand the $500,000 tax 
exclusion for principle residences to cover the entire farm. This 
provision will allow a family or individual who has actively engaged in 
farming prior to the farm sale to exclude the gain from the sale up to 
the $500,000 maximum.
  What does this relief mean to the thousands of farmers who are being 
forced to sell off the farm due to current economic conditions?
  Take, for example, a farmer who is forced to leave today because of 
crop disease and slumping grain prices and sells his farmstead that his 
family has operated for decades. If he must report a gain of $10,000 on 
the sale of farm house, that is all he can exclude under current law. 
But if, for example, he sold 1000 acres surrounding the farm house for 
$400,000, and the capital gain was $200,000, he would be subject to 
$40,000 tax on that gain. Again, our provision excludes from tax the 
gain on the farmhouse and land up to the $500,000 maximum that is 
otherwise available to a family on the sale of its residence.
  We must wage, on every federal and state policy front, the battle to 
stem the loss of family farmers. Reforming tax provisions has grown 
increasingly important as a tool in helping our farm families deal with 
drought, floods, crop disease and price swings.
  We believe that Congress should move quickly to pass this legislation 
and other meaningful measures to get working capital into the hands of 
our family farmers in the Great Plains and all across the nation. Let's 
stop penalizing farmers who are forced out of agriculture. Let's allow 
farmers to benefit from the same kind of tax exclusion that most 
homeowners already receive. This is the right thing to do. And it's the 
fair thing to do.
 Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I rise with Senator Dorgan to 
introduce tax legislation that will help our family farmers cope with 
the economic crisis now affecting them.
  Our tax code is full of provisions that are unfair and punitive. We 
need to overhaul our tax code to make it flatter, fairer and simpler. 
However, until the present tax code is overhauled, it is important that 
we fix specific provisions of the tax code to ensure that all taxpayers 
are treated fairly and equally.
  In the 105th Congress we passed the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This 
legislation included capital gains tax and federal estate tax relief. 
It was a good first step, but we can't stop there. We have much more to 
do. We need more capital gains tax relief, and I will keep pushing for 
more cuts and the eventual elimination of the tax. The federal estate 
tax also needs to be abolished. The estate tax is a leading cause for 
the break-up of family-run businesses, including farming, and I will 
continue to work for its elimination. Additionally, we need to provide 
all American taxpayers with an across-the-board tax cut.
  We gave most Americans serious capital gains tax relief in 1997, but 
we neglected the family farmer. We now have the opportunity and 
obligation to correct this omission. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 
created a $500,000 exclusion for homeowners on the sale of a principal 
residence, but this does not adequately address the needs of family 
farmers. Most farmers put whatever profit they earn from their hard 
work back into the land, not their home. As a result, the $500,000 
exclusion for the sale of a principal residence does not provide the 
same level of relief to the family farmer as it does for the vast 
majority of others. So, when family farmers are forced to sell their 
farms due to economic downturns, not only are they out of the farming 
business, but the federal government is waiting to take a large portion 
in taxes on the sale of their home and farmland.
  The legislation that Senator Dorgan and I are introducing would help 
ease the financial burden associated with selling the farm. It would 
allow the family farmer to take advantage of capital gains tax relief. 
It expands the $500,000 capital gains tax exclusion for sales of 
principal residences to cover family farmers who sell their farmhouses 
and/or surrounding farmlands.
  This legislation is not a cure-all solution to the many problems now 
affecting our family farmers and ranchers. However, it will help. There 
are many other things that can be done including more tax relief in the 
areas of the estate tax and capital gains tax. We need to continue to 
open new markets for our commodities and knock down unilateral economic 
sanctions that are unfairly punishing our farmers. The future of U.S. 
agriculture lies in export expansion and trade reform. This tax 
legislation starts the process, but we must continue to push forward to 
help our family farmers and ranchers.
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 318. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
facilitate the immigration to the United States of certain aliens born 
in the Philippines or Japan who were fathered by United States 
citizens; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


            THE AMERASIAN IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT OF 1999

 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce 
legislation which amends Public Law 97-359, the Amerasian Immigration 
Act, to include American children from the Philippines and Japan as 
eligible applicants. This legislation also expands the eligibility 
period for the Philippines to November 24, 1992, the date of the last 
United States military base closure and the date of enactment of the 
proposed legislation for Japan.
  Under the Amerasian Immigration Act (Public Law 97-359) children born 
in Korea, Laos, Kampuchea, Thailand, and Vietnam after December 31, 
1950, and before October 22, 1982, who were fathered by United States 
citizens, are allowed to immigrate to the United States. The initial 
legislation introduced in the 97th Congress included Amerasians born in 
the Philippines and Japan with no time limits on their births. The 
final version enacted by the Congress included only those areas where 
the U.S. had engaged in active military combat from the Korean War 
onward. Consequently, Amerasians from the Philippines and Japan were 
excluded from eligibility.
  Although the Philippines and Japan were not considered war zones from 
1950 to 1982, the extent and nature of U.S. military involvement in 
both countries are not dissimilar to U.S. military involvement in other 
Asian countries during the Korean and Viet- nam conflicts. The role of 
the Philippines and Japan as vital supply and stationing bases brought 
tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel to these countries. As a 
result, interracial relations in both countries were common, leading to 
a significant number of Amerasian children being fathered by U.S. 
citizens. There are now more than 50,000 Amerasian children in the 
Philippines. According to the Embassy of Japan, there are 6,000 
Amerasian children in Japan born between 1987 and 1992.
  Public Law 97-359 was enacted in the hope of redressing the situation 
of

[[Page S1078]]

Amerasian children in Korea, Laos, Kampuchea, Thailand, and Vietnam 
who, due to their illegitimate or mixed ethnic make-up, their lack of a 
father or stable mother figure, or impoverished state, have little hope 
of escaping their plight. It became the ethical and social obligation 
of the United States to care for these children.
  The stigmatization and ostracism felt by Amerasian children in those 
countries covered by the Amerasian Immigration Act also is felt by 
Amerasian children in the Philippines and Japan. These children of 
American citizens deserve the same viable opportunities of employment, 
education and family life that are afforded their counterparts from 
Korea, Laos, Kampuchea, Thailand, and Vietnam.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 318

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     section 204(f)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1154(f)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(I)'' after ``born''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``subsection,'' the following ``(II) 
     in the Philippines after 1950 and before November 24, 1992, 
     or (III) in Japan after 1950 and before the date of enactment 
     of this subclause,''.
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 319. A bill to provide for childproof handguns, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                       the childproof handgun act

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation 
that will help prevent the tragedies that occur when children gain 
access to firearms.
  Each year, there are 10,000 injuries and deaths due to the accidental 
discharge or unauthorized use of a firearm. Many of these incidents 
involve children who have gained access to improperly stored guns.
  Recently, a family in my home state of New Jersey suffered this type 
of tragedy. Akeen Williams, a 4-year-old boy for Lawnside, was visiting 
a relative with his 5-year-old sister, Gabrielle, and their 6-year-old 
brother, Phillip. Eventually, the children were put in a bedroom for an 
afternoon nap. But they found a gun stored in the room, and Akeen and 
Gabrielle began playing with it. The gun accidentally discharged, and 
Akeen was hit in the face by the ricocheting bullet.
  Across the nation, similar stories have become all too common. 
Families in Jonesboro, Paducah, Pearl, Edinboro, and Springfield are 
still struggling to deal with the horrific shootings in their 
communities. We must find new ways to stop gun violence.
  In many other areas the federal government has taken steps to protect 
consumer safety: cars are now sold with seat belts and airbags; drug 
containers have childproof caps; and lawn mowers have guards and 
automatic braking devices. It is hard to understand how anyone can 
oppose similar safety measures for deadly weapons. The time has come to 
hold firearm manufacturers to a higher standard of safety.
  The bill I am introducing today will help prevent children from being 
killed or injured in firearm tragedies. My bill would require that all 
handguns be engineered so that they can only be fired by an authorized 
user. To give manufacturers time to comply, this requirement would not 
go into effect until 3 years after the bill is enacted. Additionally, 
to spur additional innovation and help lower the cost of the new 
handgun designs, my bill would also authorize the National Institute of 
Justice to provide grants for improvements in firearms safety. In order 
to prevent the unauthorized use of handguns and better protect children 
in the 3-year period before this regulation goes into effect, my bill 
would also require that, 90 days after enactment, all handguns be sold 
with a locking device and a warning concerning responsible firearm 
storage.
  Despite what some members of the gun lobby may say, the technology to 
make handguns childproof exists today. Since 1976, more than 30 patents 
have been granted for various technologies that will prevent a handgun 
from being fired by anyone except the authorized user. For example, the 
SafTLok company in Florida manufactures a push-button combination lock 
that is incorporated into the grip of a handgun. If the buttons are not 
pushed in the proper sequence, the gun will not fire. These locks sell 
for $80 each, and the Boston police department recently announced that 
these locks will be standard equipment for its officers.
  Similarly, the Fulton Arms company in Texas has developed a revolver 
that cannot be fired unless the user is wearing a magnetic ring. And 
Colt Manufacturing in Connecticut has designed a prototype handgun that 
emits a radio signal and cannot be fired unless the user is wearing a 
small transponder that returns a coded radio signal.
  In addition to making children safer, these technologies will also 
help law enforcement. Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
shows that about 16 percent of the officers killed in the line of duty, 
as many as 19 in a single year, are killed by a suspect armed with 
either the officer's firearm or that of another officer. Because of the 
potential to stop these ``take away'' shootings, the National Institute 
of Justice has funded studies of these technologies and supported 
development of the Colt prototype. However, in order to ensure that the 
police have the weapons they need to protect the public, law 
enforcement entities are exempt from the requirements in the bill.
  None of the provisions in this legislation will burden the vast 
majority of firearm owners who are already storing their handguns 
safely and securely. Of course, Congress cannot legislate 
responsibility. But we can and should take steps to lessen the 
likelihood that guns will fall into the wrong hands and be used 
improperly.
  I urge my colleagues to work with me to pass this measure and help 
make homes, school, and communities safer for our children.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 319

       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 ``Childproof Handgun Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. HANDGUN SAFETY.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(35)(A) The term `childproof' means, with respect to a 
     firearm that is a handgun, a handgun that incorporates within 
     its design and as part of its original manufacture technology 
     that--
       ``(i) automatically limits the operational use of the 
     handgun;
       ``(ii) is not capable of being readily deactivated; and
       ``(iii) ensures that the handgun may only be fired by an 
     authorized or recognized user.
       ``(B) The technology referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     includes--
       ``(i) radio tagging;
       ``(ii) touch memory;
       ``(iii) remote control;
       ``(iv) fingerprint;
       ``(v) magnetic encoding; and
       ``(vi) other automatic user identification systems that 
     utilize biometrics, mechanical, or electronic systems.
       ``(36) The term `locking device' means--
       ``(A) a device that, if installed on a firearm and secured 
     by means of a key or a mechanically, electronically, or 
     electromechanically operated combination lock, prevents the 
     firearm from being discharged without first deactivating or 
     removing the device by means of a key or mechanically, 
     electronically, or electromechanically operated combination 
     lock; or
       ``(B) a locking mechanism incorporated into the design of a 
     firearm that prevents discharge of the firearm by any person 
     who does not have access to the key or other device designed 
     to unlock the mechanism and thereby allow discharge of the 
     firearm.''.
       (b) Unlawful Acts.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the 
     following:
       ``(z) Childproof Handguns.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of the 
     Childproof Handgun Act of 1999, it shall be unlawful for any 
     licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer 
     to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other 
     than a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed 
     dealer, unless the handgun is childproof.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
       ``(A) the--
       ``(i) manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the 
     United States or a State or a department or agency of the 
     United States, or a State or a department, agency, or 
     political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or

[[Page S1079]]

       ``(ii) transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement 
     officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a 
     handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off-
     duty); or
       ``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police 
     officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or 
     commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State, 
     of a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or 
     off-duty).''.
       ``(aa) Locking Devices and Warnings.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     beginning 90 days after the date of enactment of the 
     Childproof Handgun Act of 1999, it shall be unlawful for any 
     licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer 
     to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun--
       ``(A) to any person other than a licensed manufacturer, 
     licensed importer, or licensed dealer, unless the transferee 
     is provided with a locking device for that handgun; or
       ``(B) to any person, unless the handgun is accompanied by 
     the following warning, which shall appear in conspicuous and 
     legible type in capital letters, and which shall be printed 
     on a label affixed to the gun and on a separate sheet of 
     paper included within the packaging enclosing the handgun:

     `` `THE USE OF A LOCKING DEVICE OR SAFETY LOCK IS ONLY ONE 
     ASPECT OF RESPONSIBLE FIREARM STORAGE. FIREARMS SHOULD BE 
     STORED UNLOADED AND LOCKED IN A LOCATION THAT IS BOTH 
     SEPARATE FROM THEIR AMMUNITION AND INACCESSIBLE TO CHILDREN.

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

     SEC. 3. GRANTS TO IMPROVE GUN SAFETY.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Grants.--Subject to the availability of appropriations, 
     the Attorney General, acting through the Director of the 
     National Institute of Justice (referred to in this section as 
     the ``Director''), shall make grants under this section for 
     the purpose specified in paragraph (2) to applicants that 
     submit an application that meets requirements that the 
     Attorney General, acting through the Director, shall 
     establish.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of a grant under this section 
     shall be to reduce violence caused by firearms through the 
     improvement of firearm safety technology, weapon detection 
     technology, or other technology.
       (3) Consultation.--In making grants under this section, the 
     Attorney General, acting through the Director, shall consult 
     with appropriate employees of the National Institute of 
     Justice with expertise in firearms and weapons technology.
       (b) Period of Grant.--A grant under this section shall be 
     for a period of not to exceed 3 years.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of Justice to carry out 
     this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 
     through 2002.
                                 ______