[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 73 (Tuesday, June 13, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5027-S5030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                THE HOME OWNERSHIP MADE EASY (HOME) ACT

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Home 
Ownership Made Easy (HOME) Act, which will expand home ownership 
opportunities for low- and moderate-income, first-time home buyers.
  Providing affordable, fair, and quality housing for all people is 
important. Home ownership is not only the American Dream, it also 
increases pride in community, schools, and safety. Too often, however, 
American workers who make too much money to qualify for public 
assistance and too little money to afford a home on their own are stuck 
in the middle. These families are stuck in substandard housing or in 
neighborhoods that are far from their jobs. Fortunately, in the early 
1980's, Congress established the Mortgage Revenue Bond (MRB) program, 
which allowed state and local governments to issue tax-exempt bonds to 
finance mortgages at below-market interest rates to first-time home 
buyers. Unfortunately, as sometimes happens in government programs, 
administrative barriers have rendered the program less effective in 
recent years.
  The Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development have been unable to collect and maintain statistical data 
on average area purchase prices in all states. In Arkansas for 
instance, the MRB Program is based on an average area purchase price 
that was established in 1993. This means that, while housing prices are 
going up, the

[[Page S5028]]

threshhold for homeowners to qualify for an MRB loan has stayed the 
same.
  The HOME Act reduces the administrative burden on the Internal 
Revenue Service and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It 
will allow state and local housing finance agencies to use a multiple 
of income limits, which are readily available and updated annually. 
Relying on already established MRB income requirements is a natural fit 
because families generally purchase homes within their income range.
  The Mortgage Revenue Bond program is a state administered program 
that works. The HOME Act will continue to expand the MRB's track record 
and success.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 
legislation be printed in full in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2714

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

     SECTION 1. INCREASE IN PURCHASE PRICE LIMITATION UNDER 
                   MORTGAGE SUBSIDY BOND RULES BASED ON MEDIAN 
                   FAMILY INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 143(e) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to purchase price 
     requirement) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--An issue meets the requirements of this 
     subsection only if the acquisition cost of each residence the 
     owner-financing of which is provided under the issue does not 
     exceed the greater of--
       ``(A) 90 percent of the average area purchase price 
     applicable to the residence, or
       ``(B) 3.5 times the applicable median family income (as 
     defined in subsection (f)(4)).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TORRICELLI:
  S. 2715. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect 
to ballistic identification of handguns; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                  ballistics fingerprints act of 2000

 Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
``Ballistics Fingerprints Act of 2000'' which will help reduce gun 
violence in our communities. Despite recent progress in reducing gun 
violence, the number of people killed or injured each year in this 
country remains too high. Each year more than 32,000 Americans are 
killed by gunfire. This means that each day, almost 90 Americans, 
including almost 12 young people under the age of 19, die from gunshot 
wounds. For each fatal shooting, three more people are injured by 
gunfire. These grim statistics require all of us to do more to further 
reduce gun violence.
  History has shown that coordinated law enforcement strategies 
involving the public and private sector are the most effective tools in 
reducing gun violence. This includes targeting the illegal shipment of 
firearms and implementing strategies to keep guns out of the hands of 
criminals. It also includes using advanced technologies, such as 
computer ballistic imaging, to assist law enforcement in investigating 
and identifying violent criminals.
  Like fingerprints, the barrel of a firearm leaves distinguishing 
marks on a bullet and cartridge case and no two firearms leave the same 
marks. Computer ballistic imaging technology allows these 
distinguishing marks or characteristics to be maintained in a database 
where they can be rapidly compared with evidence from a crime scene for 
possible matches. The ATF and FBI have been using this technology since 
1993 to help state and local crime laboratories across the country link 
gun-related crimes and recently these agencies entered into an 
agreement to create one unified system. In 1999 alone, a total of 2,026 
matches were made with this unified system which represents the linkage 
of at least 4,052 firearm related crimes.
  The ``Ballistice Fingerprints Act'' would take this innovative 
approach to crime fighting one step further by creating a national 
registry of ballistic fingerprints. Under this legislation, every gun 
manufacturer will be required to obtain the ballistic fingerprints or 
identifying characteristics for every gun manufactured prior to 
distribution so that guns used in the commission of a crime can be 
easily traced and identified. The bill also requires the Department of 
Treasury to inspect this information and create a national registry of 
ballistic fingerprints. With the help of this information, police will 
be better able to locate and identify the guns used in criminal 
activity and to prosecute the criminals who use these guns.
  The saturation of guns in American communities and the frequency of 
gun related violence calls upon all us to do more to combat gun related 
violence. Common sense tells us that one way to further reduce firearm 
violence is to identify the guns used in committing these crimes so 
that the criminals who use these can be brought to justice. Regardless 
of where one stands on gun control, we all should be able to unite 
behind this simple but highly effective crime fighting tool. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to see this legislation enacted 
into law.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the 
legislation appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2715

       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 ``Ballistic Fingerprints Act 
     of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. HANDGUN BALLISTIC IDENTIFICATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 923 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(m) Handgun Ballistic Identification.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `projectile' means the part of handgun 
     ammunition that is, by means of an explosion, expelled 
     through the barrel of a handgun; and
       ``(B) the term `shell casing' means the part of handgun 
     ammunition that contains the primer and propellant powder to 
     discharge the projectile.
       ``(2) Inclusion of handgun identifiers in manufacturer 
     shipments.--A licensed manufacturer shall include, in a 
     separate sealed container inside the container in which a 
     handgun is shipped or transported to a licensed dealer--
       ``(A) a projectile discharged from that handgun;
       ``(B) a shell casing of a projectile discharged from that 
     handgun; and
       ``(C) any information that identifies the handgun, 
     projectile, or shell casing, as may be required by the 
     Secretary by regulation.
       ``(3) Requirements relating to dealers.--A licensed dealer 
     shall--
       ``(A) upon receipt of a handgun from a licensed 
     manufacturer, notify the Secretary regarding whether the 
     manufacturer complied with the requirements of paragraph (2); 
     and
       ``(B) upon the sale, lease, or transfer of a handgun 
     shipped or transported in accordance with paragraph (2), 
     transfer to the Secretary the sealed container included in 
     the container with the handgun pursuant to that paragraph.
       ``(4) Duties of secretary.--The Secretary shall establish 
     and maintain a computer database of all information 
     identifying each projectile, shell casing, and other 
     information included in a sealed container transferred to the 
     Secretary under paragraph (3).''.
       (b) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     promulgate final regulations to carry out the amendment made 
     by subsection (a).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date on which the Secretary of the 
     Treasury promulgates final regulations under subsection 
     (b).
                                 ______
                                 

                            By Mr. CAMPBELL:

  S. 2716. A bill to prohibit the Secretary of Transportation and the 
Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Administration from taking 
action to finalize, implement, or enforce a rule relating to the hours 
of service of drivers for motor carriers; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


                 the motor carrier fairness act of 2000

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Motor Carrier 
Fairness Act of 2000. This legislation would prohibit the Secretary of 
Transportation and Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration from taking action to finalize, implement, or enforce a 
rule relating to the hours of service of drivers for motor carriers.
  Trucking is the backbone of the U.S. economy. The industry transports 
approximately 80 percent of the nation's freight, and well over 70 
percent of communities in the United States depend solely on trucking 
to deliver their goods. The hours of service are arguably the single 
most important rule

[[Page S5029]]

governing how trucking companies and truck drivers operate. However, 
the Department's proposed rules fail to consider the impact of the 
proposal on the nation's economy as well as the drivers.
  The fundamental change in hours is a shift from an 18 hour, to a 24-
hour clock. Under DOT's proposed rules, a driver's basic workday would 
be 12 hours on, 12 hours off with mandatory two consecutive days off. I 
was amazed to find out that by imposing these changes and increasing 
the number of off-duty hours DOT creates the need for a 50 percent 
increase in the number of refrigerated and dry van trucks. This in turn 
translates into an additional 180,000 drivers and trucks on already 
crowded roads, just to keep the current economy moving. I know, from 
speaking to freight carriers in my home state of Colorado, that the job 
market is already short approximately 80,000 drivers, and these 
trucking companies are experiencing substantial problems finding the 
necessary number of drivers for their operations.
  There are many reasons why this bill is necessary. For example DOT's 
proposals would:
  Reduce driver's salaries since they are paid per mile. By reducing 
the overall working time from 15 to 12 hours, salaries will also 
decrease. A 12-hour day will not allow drivers to take advantage of 
income opportunities that fluctuating freight volumes provide. 
Furthermore, as an article in the Denver Post reported today, the 
mandatory weekend time off could result in thousands of dollars of lost 
income per year for drivers.
  Overcrowded rest stops. There are an estimated 187,000 parking stalls 
in truck stops around the country and the 2.5 to 3 million Class 8 
trucks, and the result is overcrowded rest stops. Most drivers will be 
forced to use public rest stops, gas stations or even highway ramps to 
comply with the proposed rules. In fact the DOT held a field hearing 
yesterday at the Jefferson County Fairgrounds in Colorado. Truckers 
there specifically warned of the re-emergence of thieves, scam artists, 
and prostitutes who linger around truck stops, preying on resting 
truckers.

  These rules would inevitably crowd the highways with more trucks. 
Since waiting time at loading docks is considered ``on-duty'' hours, 
refrigerated carriers will need 70 percent more trucks in order to meet 
delivery times and dry-freight haulers another 50 percent. This means 
that 600,000 to 700,000 more trucks will be needed in order to keep 
with the current delivery pace. In another example from the afore 
mentioned article, a mozzarella cheese maker in Denver will have to add 
23 new truck tractors in order to compensate for the down time of 
drivers forced to idle because of these new rules. I might also add 
that this proposal claims to reduce the number of highway fatalities, 
but as we can see the need to add more trucks to our roads will only 
increase the possibility of highway accidents occurring. The number of 
truck related accidents has actually decreased 34 percent in the last 
10 years, so we should not allow the DOT to reverse this trend through 
its proposed rule.
  Another area of concern regards the issue of the ``electronic onboard 
recorders'' that will track the drivers hours. The cost of equipping 
Type I and II long haul trucks with these devices is most certainly 
going to be passed on for the companies to bear. These devices, at 
approximately $1,000 apiece, could put some smaller hauling companies 
out of business.
  Mr. President, I have been and still am a trucker. In fact, I just 
renewed my commercial drivers license last year. I understand first 
hand the concerns that most workers in this industry have with the 
proposed regulations. The trucking industry provides millions of 
Americans with on-time delivery. Our economy is dependent on this, and 
I believe that these proposed rules have not taken the impact of this 
aspect into consideration.
  The cost of DOT's plan is not limited to the trucking industry as a 
whole, but will disrupt our nation's supply chain which consequentially 
will have a ripple effect on the rest of our economy, not to mention 
American jobs. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join in support of 
this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2716

       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 ``Motor Carrier Fairness Act 
     of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF ACTION TO FINALIZE, IMPLEMENT, OR 
                   ENFORCE RULE ON HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS.

       Neither the Secretary of Transportation nor the 
     Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration may take any action to finalize, implement, or 
     enforce the proposed rule entitled ``Hours of Service of 
     Drivers'' published by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration in the Federal Register on May 2, 2000 (65 
     Fed. Reg. 25539), and issued under authority delegated to the 
     Administrator under section 113 of title 49, United States 
     Code.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS:
  S. 2721. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore 
the deduction for lobbying expenses in connection with State 
legislation; to the Committee on Finance.


                        grassroots advocacy tax

 Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation, 
along with my colleagues Senators Shelby, Breaux, Conrad and Reid to 
make it easier for Americans to participate in the decision-making 
process in their state capitols. Current tax law denies main street 
business the ability to deduct legitimate expenses incurred while 
advocating their positions at the state level of government. This 
legislation will remove both the financial and administrative penalties 
imposed by this ``grassroots advocacy tax.''
  As part of the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Congress approved a 
proposal recommended by President Clinton to deny the deductibility of 
expenses incurred to lobby on legislative issues. As passed, the bill 
created an ``advocacy tax'' by denying a business tax deduction for 
expenses incurred to address legislation at both the state and federal 
levels. Expenses incurred regarding the legislative actions of local 
governments, however, are exempt from this tax.
  When the deductibility for lobbying expenses was partially repealed 
in 1993, the debate centered on activities at the federal level. The 
fact that lobbying at the local level is exempt indicates that the 
original authors of this proposal did not intend to cover all lobbying 
activities. Although lobbying at the state level was not part of the 
debate, it was included in the final legislation that was approved by 
Congress. This grassroots advocacy tax is an unwarranted intrusion of 
the federal government on the activity of state governments. We should 
not make it harder for Americans to participate in the decision making 
process in their state capitols.
  At the state level, there is more active outside participation in the 
legislative process. This is partly because state legislatures have 
smaller staffs and meet less frequently than the U.S. Congress. In most 
states, the job of state legislator is part-time. In addition, many 
governors appoint ``Blue Ribbon Commissions'' and other advisory groups 
to recommend legislative solutions to problems peculiar to a specific 
state. These advisory groups depend on input from members of the 
business, professional and agricultural community knowledgeable about 
particular issues.
  However, the record keeping requirements and penalties associated 
with this tax discourage and penalize participation in the legislative 
process by businesses in all fifty states. This is especially true for 
the many state trade associations, most of whom are small operations 
not equipped to comply with the pages and pages of confusing federal 
regulations implementing this law. Compliance is both time consuming 
and complicated, and detracts from the legitimate and necessary work 
and services they perform for their members, who are primarily small 
businesses that depend on these associations to look after their 
interests.
  This bill is very simple. It restores the deductibility of business 
expenses incurred for activities to deal with legislation at the state 
level, and gives them the same treatment that exists under current law 
for similar activities at the local level. This change will help ensure 
that the voices of citizen advocates and main street businesses will

[[Page S5030]]

be heard in their state capitols. It is good legislation and it should 
be enacted into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. JEFFORDS:
  S. 2724. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Army to carry out an 
assessment of State, municipal, and private dams in the State of 
Vermont and to make appropriate modifications to the dams; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                        Vermont Dam Legislation

 Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak of a 
pressing problem that affects not only the streams and rivers of 
Vermont, but the land and people who live and work along their winding 
routes. Vermont is home to over 2,000 dams of all sizes that clog 
Vermont's 5,000 river miles. Many of these dams were built in the 
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when industries were located along 
rivers to utilize dams for running machinery, dispose of waste, and 
transport raw materials and goods. Currently, most of these dams no 
longer serve any commercial purpose and sit in disrepair, posing a 
significant safety threat and fundamentally altering the surrounding 
environment.
  There are 150 dams in Vermont listed as either ``high'' or 
``significant'' hazard, meaning that the failure of one of these dams 
presents a real threat to human life, property, and the environment. 
Last week, a Vermont newspaper highlighted the extreme danger if one of 
these dams were to fail by describing the 80 feet high wall water that 
would crash down the river valley if the Waterbury dam were to fail. 
Such a structural failure would mean that 22 square miles would be 
flooded, and a 15 foot high wall of water would hit the city of 
Burlington.
  A disaster of this scope would be caused by the breakage of only a 
few dams across the state, but serious and extensive damage could also 
be caused by many smaller, similarly weak dams. Not only could damage 
occur due to failure, but many of the dams pose a significant threat to 
people using rivers for recreational purposes. The dams contain broken 
concrete, protruding metal, rotted timber cribbing and other hazards 
that threaten fisherman, boaters and swimmers with a serious threat of 
injury or death.
  Not only are people and property at risk, but significant harm is 
being inflicted on the environment. Dams alter the basic 
characteristics of the rivers in which they are constructed and 
directly affect the features that comprise a riverine habitat. Non-
functioning dams unnecessarily block wildlife, including fish that are 
attempting to migrate to spawn.
  The Vermont Dam Remediation and Restoration Program allows the Army 
Corps of Engineers to enter into partnership with State, municipal, and 
private dam owners to assess and modify dams. The expertise and 
resources of the Corps would provide the much needed assistance to dam 
owners who would otherwise be unable to properly assess and modify 
dangerous, structurally unsound or environmentally harmful dams. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in addressing this critical problem and 
quickly pass this much needed authorizing legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Kerrey, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 2725. A bill to provide for a system of sanctuaries for 
chimpanzees that have been designated as being no longer needed in 
research conducted or supported by the Public Health Service, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


     chimpanzee health improvement, maintenance and protection act

 Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today I rise along 
with Senators Durbin, Kerrey, Lautenberg, and Jeffords to introduce the 
Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection (C.H.I.M.P.) 
Act. This legislation will create a nonprofit sanctuary system for 
housing chimpanzees that federal researchers have decided are no longer 
needed for their research. Our bill, establishes a public/private 
matching fund which will provide for the permanent retirement of these 
animals. This is a wonderful opportunity for the Senate to support the 
sanctuary concept which is backed by many distinguished scientists, 
including Dr. Jane Goodall and humane people across the country. Mr. 
President, in the wild, the chimpanzee is an endangered species. We are 
fortunate that we have an opportunity now to provide decent, humane 
care for a species which is, sadly, on the decline in its natural 
habitat.
  At this point in time we have a tremendous surplus of research 
chimpanzees in the United States. It began in the 1980's, when the 
terrible AIDS epidemic first appeared. Researchers in Federal agencies 
created breeding colonies of chimpanzees in five regional chimp 
centers. The hope was that chimpanzees, because of their genetic 
similarity to humans, would be a good model for various AIDS vaccine 
experiments. Scientists discovered, however, that although the 
chimpanzees proved to be carriers of the virus, that once it was 
injected into them, the chimps do not develop full-blown AIDS.
  For this reason, many researchers are, in their own words, getting 
out of the chimp business. The chimpanzee does not serve as a model for 
how the disease progresses in humans and the researchers want to divest 
themselves of these intelligent animals. The problem is that there is 
really no place for the chimpanzees to go. Many of the chimps will live 
to be 50 years old! It is estimated that several hundred of the 
approximately 1,500 chimps currently in labs are ready to be sent to 
sanctuaries, but that we lack the sanctuary space to house them.
  In a sanctuary the chimps can be put in small groups rather than 
living in isolation as many do in labs. Small social groups enable the 
chimps to recover from research more quickly both physically and 
mentally, and it is far more cost-effective than housing them in the 
present laboratory system. We should remember that taxpayers are 
currently footing the bill for what is basically the ``warehousing'' of 
these animals in expensive and inhumane labs.
  I have based many of the features of the C.H.I.M.P. bill on a report 
entitled ``Chimpanzees in Research: Strategies for Their Ethical Care, 
Management, and Use,'' that was published in 1997 by the National 
Research Council. In this study of research chimps, the well-respected 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reported that there may be 
approximately 500 chimpanzees that are no longer needed in research. 
The NAS recommended that NIH initiate a breeding moratorium for at 
least 5 years, that surplus chimps be placed in sanctuaries rather than 
be euthanized, and that animal protection organizations, along with 
scientists, have input into the standards of care and the operation of 
the sanctuaries.
  Our bill has addressed all these issues and is supported by The 
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, The American 
Anti-Vivisection Society, The Humane Society of the United States, The 
National Anti-Vivisection Society and The Society for Animal Protective 
Legislation. I want to again point out that our bill does not interfere 
with any ongoing medical experiments involving chimps. The bill allows 
for the retirement of chimps only after the researchers themselves have 
decided that a chimp is no longer useful in research. This is the 
humane, ethical, and fiscally responsible way to handle the question of 
what to do with a surplus of intelligent animals who have contributed 
to the knowledge of science and the health and well-being of humanity. 
This really should be a nonpartisan issue and I am proud to ask for the 
support of all my Senate colleagues.

                          ____________________