STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - February 16, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S2823-S2889]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 427. A bill to amend various acts to establish offices of women's
health within certain agencies, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
the women's health offices act of 1995
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
to focus attention on the special health needs of women by establishing
offices of Women's Health within the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Agency for Health Care
Policy and Research, the Health Resources and Services Administration,
and the Food and Drug Administration.
The directors of these offices of women's health will assess the
current level of activity regarding women's health within their
respective agencies, established short-range and long-range goals and
objectives for women's health, identify projects in women's health that
should be conducted or supported, consult with health professionals,
nongovernmental organizations, consumer organizations, and other
appropriate groups on their agency's women's health policies, and
coordinate agency activities on women's health.
Congress has already taken a first step in recognizing that women's
unique health needs should be addressed separately. In the 103d
Congress, the 1993 NIH revitalization bill established an Office of
Woman's Health within the National Institutes of Health. We must build
upon that progress in the 104th Congress.
For too long, women have been systematically excluded from medical
research studies, received less aggressive treatment for heart disease
and other serious ailments, and lacked access to important preventive
services. By statutorily establishing offices of Women's Health in
Federal agencies which research and disseminate information about
health, we ensure that women's needs and concerns will be given the
consideration they deserve.
______
By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Pell,
and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 428. A bill to improve the management of land and water for fish
and wildlife purposes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
the fish and wildlife management act of 1995
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I read recently that ``the best thing
we have learned from nearly 500 years of contact with the American
wilderness is restraint,'' the need to stay our hand and preserve our
precious environment
[[Page
S2824]] and future resources rather than destroy them for
momentary gain.
With this in mind, I offer legislation today that designates the
coastal plain of Alaska as wilderness area. At the moment this area is
a national wildlife refuge, one of our beautiful and last frontiers. By
changing its designation, Mr. President, we can protect it forever.
And I can't stress how important this is.
The Alaskan wilderness area is not only a critical part of our
earth's ecosystem--the last remaining region where the complete
spectrum of arctic and subarctic ecosystems comes together--but it is a
vital part of our national consciousness. It is a place we can cherish
and visit for our soul's good. It offers us a sense of well-being and
promises that not all dreams have been dreamt.
The Alaskan wilderness is a place of outstanding wildlife, wilderness
and recreation, a land dotted by beautiful forests, dramatic peaks and
glaciers, gentle foothills, and undulating tundra. It is untamed--rich
with caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolves, musk oxen, Dall sheep,
moose, and hundreds of thousands of birds--snow geese, tundra swans,
black brant, and more. In all, about 165 species use the coastal plain.
It is an area of intense wildlife activity. Animals give birth, nurse
and feed their young,
and set about the critical business of fueling up for winters of
unspeakable severity.
The fact is, Mr. President, there are parts of this Earth where it is
good that man can come only as a visitor. These are the pristine lands
that belong to all of us. And perhaps most importantly, these are the
lands that belong to our future.
Considering the many reasons why this bill is so important, I came
across the words of the great western writer, Wallace Stegner.
Referring to the land we are trying to protect with this legislation,
he wrote that it is ``the most splendid part of the American habitat;
it is also the most fragile.'' And we cannot enter ``it carrying habits
that [are] inappropriate and expectations that [are] surely
excessive.''
The expectations for oil exploration in this pristine region are
excessive. There is only a one-in-five chance of finding any
economically recoverable oil in the refuge. And if oil is found, the
daily production of 400,000 barrels per day is less than .7 percent of
world production--far too small to meet American's energy needs for
more than a few months.
In other words, Mr. President, there is much more to lose than might
ever be gained by tearing this frontier apart. Already, some 90 percent
of Alaska's entire North Slope is open to oil and gas leasing and
development. Let's keep this area as the jewel amid the stones.
What this bill offers--and what we need--is a brand of pragmatic
environmentalism, an environmental stewardship that protects our
important wilderness areas and precious resources, while carefully and
judiciously weighing the short-term desires or our country against its
long-term needs.
together, we need to embrace environmental policies that are workable
and pragmatic, policies based on the desire to make the world a better
place for us and for future generations. I believe a strong economy,
liberty, and progress are possible only when we have a healthy planet--
only when resources are managed through wise stewardship--only when an
environmental ethic thrives among nations and only when people have
frontiers that are untrammeled and able to host their fondest
dreams.
______
By Mr. BRYAN (for himself and Mr. Reid):
S. 429. A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to allow
commercial nuclear utilities that have contracts with the Secretary of
Energy under section 302 of that act to receive credits to offset the
cost of storing spent fuel that the Secretary is unable to accept for
storage on and after January 31, 1998; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
the independent spent nuclear fuel storage act of 1995
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce again legislation
I have introduced in each of the past two Congresses, the Independent
Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Act.
As many of my colleagues are aware, since 1987, contrary to Nevada
State law, and against the wishes of the vast majority of Nevadans,
Nevada has been the sole site considered for the ultimate disposal of
the United States' high-level nuclear waste.
Today, in spite of the expenditure of billions of dollars, the Yucca
Mountain site is no closer to accepting waste from our Nation's nuclear
reactors than it was 13 years ago, when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982 was enacted.
I strongly oppose the purely political decision made by Congress in
1987 to identify Yucca Mountain as the sole site to be characterized
for a permanent repository. Now that the permanent repository program
is an obvious failure, with the Department of Energy saying there is no
hope of opening any type of storage facility before 2010, the nuclear
power industry and its allies have conceived a new strategy.
Contrary to all objective scientific judgment, and general common
sense, the nuclear industry's new effort is to instruct the DOE to
build an interim storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site. As
offensive as the 1987 act, commonly referred to in Nevada as the
``screw Nevada bill,'' was, the new effort of the nuclear power
industry is even more of an outrage to Nevadans.
The nuclear power industry's newest proposal is nothing less than a
direct assault on the health and safety of Nevadans. Frustrated by its
inability to overcome the insurmountable safety concerns raised in
relation to a permanent repository, the industry is now seeking to
circumvent the objections of credible, objective scientists to a
permanent repository at Yucca Mountain.
I am convinced, like many others, that any centralized interim
storage facility will become the de facto permanent repository.
Funding for an interim storage program will necessarily come at the
expense of the permanent repository program. The expression ``out of
sight, out of mind'' could not be truer. Once the waste is removed from
the reactor sites, the nuclear industry's commitment to finding a
permanent solution to the waste problem will vanish. And since it is
the nuclear power industry's obsession with moving this waste off the
reactor sites that drives the Federal Civilian Nuclear Waste Program,
the Federal commitment to permanent storage will vanish as well.
The nuclear power industry as much as concedes this--every version of
their interim storage legislation I am aware of provides for licensing
the interim site for 100 years, subject to renewal.
The permanent repository program is a failure. The nuclear power
industry and its advocates, including the Department of Energy, have
created a program which was bound to fail. Careless science, poor
management, unreasonable deadlines and timetables, and the ill-fated
decision to pursue only one site for characterization, thus leaving the
program with no options or alternatives, have all contributed to the
failure of the program.
The industry's suggestion to build an interim storage facility in
Nevada is simply one more in a long series of irresponsible and ill-
founded proposals by the nuclear power industry to solve their high
level waste problem at the expense of the health and safety of all
Nevadans.
I will concede that the nuclear power industry has a waste problem. I
strongly object, however, to the industry's solution, which is simply
to send their problem, their waste to Nevada.
The question arises, do we need a centralized interim storage site?
If we are truly talking about interim storage, the answer is obviously
no.
A few nuclear utilities, looking at the future uncertainty of the
Federal nuclear waste program, have done the responsible thing and
built interim dry cask storage at the reactor site. In dry cask
storage, spent fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor pools and
stored in various systems of canisters, casks, and concrete shells.
I recently visited one of these dry cask storage facilities, at
Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, and, I must say, I was impressed by the
simplicity and efficiency of the spent fuel management operation. It is
a responsible action taken by the industry, and I commend their example
to others. The Calvert
[[Page
S2825]] Cliffs dry cask storage program provides a reasonable
solution to the interim storage problem, the spent fuel is stored on
site, where security and safety precautions already exist, until a safe
plan for the long-term disposition of the waste can be finalized.
A centralized interim storage facility is simply not needed, or
desirable. The original Nuclear Waste Policy Act recognized this fact,
and placed restrictions on the DOE's authority to accept responsibility
for interim storage. The nuclear power industry, faced with the reality
of the failure to build a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, is
now engaged in yet another exercise of political muscle with one
purpose: to make Nevada the final destination for their toxic and
highly dangerous waste.
Even if we concede, which we do not, that there is a need for a
centralized interim storage facility, there is no defensible reason to
site the facility in Nevada. A simple look at a map easily shows that
Nevada is one of the least central sites to store nuclear waste. The
great majority of the reactor sites producing high-level waste are east
of the Mississippi--93 reactors out of the U.S. total of 118.
Shipping thousands of tons of high level waste to Nevada will create
dramatic threats to the safety of communities throughout the United
States. An analysis of one proposal supported by the nuclear power
industry reveals that interim storage in Nevada will require 15,000
shipments by rail and truck through 43 States to begin as early as 1998
and continue for 30 years.
Interim storage in Nevada is not the answer to the nuclear power
industry's waste problem. The responsible answer to the waste problem,
if the nuclear utilities choose to continue to run their reactors, is
on-site, dry cask storage.
Unfortunately, most nuclear utilities appear to be unwilling
to develop dry cask storage facilities for a variety of reasons,
both political and financial.
There is not much we can do about the local political opposition
faced by utilities. The utilities, and communities, that benefited from
the operation of the powerplant should bear responsibility for their
own waste. High-level waste storage is not popular, and there are
political costs to the utilities for living up to their
responsibilities.
Asking Nevada to solve the political problems in the communities they
serve places the nuclear utilities on completely indefensible ground.
The outright hypocrisy of the nuclear power industry's advocates, and
their shameless attempts to exert political influence to solve complex
scientific and environmental problems, has created an atmosphere of
complete distrust and antagonism for the industry in Nevada.
There are also financial barriers to on-site, dry cask storage.
Ratepayers have been making contributions to the nuclear waste trust
fund with the exception that the Federal Government will dispose of
their nuclear waste. I am somewhat sympathetic to the ratepayers'
concerns. The Federal disposal program is a failure.
The civilian nuclear waste program has been so poorly managed, and so
misguided, that Congress has had good reason not to release the full
balance of the trust fund to the program. The ratepayers deserve some
financial relief while the Federal Government attempts to meet its
obligations, and while the utilities invest the needed capital to store
their own waste.
The legislation I am introducing today recognizes the nuclear power
industry's need for interim storage, as well as the financial impact on
ratepayers caused by delays in the repository program. The legislation
provides credits against utilities' payments to the nuclear waste trust
fund for costs incurred for on-site, dry cask storage.
The legislation provides an equitable solution to a difficult
problem. It recognizes the financial contributions of the utilities'
ratepayers to the trust fund, and recognizes the reality that a
permanent repository will not be available to meet the needs of the
nuclear power industry.
Mr. President, together with their advocates in Congress and the
Department of Energy, the nuclear power industry has spared no expense
or effort in moving its waste to Nevada. I have attempted to fight the
industry at every turn.
I hope that Congress will not take the failure of the permanent
repository program as a signal to bow to the nuclear power industry
once again, and accelerate plans to store nuclear waste in Nevada, but
instead to take this opportunity to find an equitable solution to a
difficult problem which does not threaten the health and safety of
future generations of Nevadans.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation I am introducing
today.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 430. 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
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the
Guardianship Rights and Responsibilities Act of 1995, 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 considered 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 1995 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 this
bill.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 431. A bill to amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to prepare
fishery management plans and amendments to fishery management plans
under negotiated rulemaking procedures, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S. 432. A bill to amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act to require the Secretary of Commerce to prepare
conservation and management measures for the northeast multispecies--
groundfish--fishery under negotiated rulemaking procedures, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
negotiated rulemaking for fisheries legislation
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as many stories in the national
media have reported, the New England groundfish industry is now facing
the most difficult challenges in its long history. Scientists report
that once plentiful stocks of cod, haddock, flounder, and other fish
species have reached historic lows. In response to these stock
assessments, the New England Fishery Management Council has approved
severe restrictions on fishing that will probably force many fishermen
out of business. These restrictions include a 5-year program to cut
fishing efforts in half, mandatory use of large-mesh nets, a moratorium
on new entrants into the fishery, and the emergency closure of large
areas on the George's Bank fishing grounds off Massachusetts.
Most fishermen in Maine recognize that the groundfish stocks are low
and that effective conservation measures are needed to help rebuild the
fishery. But too many fishermen also believe that the specific program
approved by the council will not succeed at restoring groundfish
populations, and will place unnecessary economic burdens on
[[Page
S2826]] working fishermen. In their view, the council, despite
public hearings, dismissed too many of their recommendations despite
the fact that they and others before them have been fishing the waters
off New England for three centuries. In short, they have no support for
or confidence in the council-developed management program under which
they must operate.
The success of any regulatory program depends in large part on the
confidence of the regulated community that the action takes their views
into account, will achieve its ends, and is sensible and necessary. I
am introducing legislation today that aims to restore the confidence of
New England fishermen in the
credibility of the Federal fisheries management process by giving them
and other citizens with an interest in fisheries the ability to
participate directly in that process.
My bills bring the concept of negotiated rulemaking or regulatory
negotiation to fisheries management. The concept was established in
Federal law by the negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990. Under negotiated
rulemaking, representatives of all stakeholder groups involved in a
dispute negotiate directly on the regulatory solution with the aid of a
professional facilitator. It provides a collaborative, consensus-based
dispute resolution tool that agencies can use to develop potentially
controversial regulations. If the negotiating group can reach
consensus, then the agency can propose the agreement as a new
regulation or rule. Negotiated rulemaking has been used--sometimes
successfully, sometimes unsuccessful--by other Federal agencies, and it
is time that this tool be made available in the fisheries management
process.
The first bill that I have introduced today gives the Secretary of
Commerce explicit authority to use negotiated rulemaking to develop
fishery management plans or plan amendments. Under the Magnuson Act,
the Secretary can only submit management plans or plan amendments under
limited circumstances which preclude his flexibility in using this
important tool effectively. Also, negotiated rulemaking is specifically
used to develop rules, but fishery management plans are not technically
rules. My bill removes these potential obstacles and clears the way for
the Secretary to use this dispute resolution tool on controversial
issues.
The second bill directs the Secretary to use negotiated rulemaking in
the specific case of the New England groundfish fishery. Alternative
dispute resolution is used more and more commonly in lieu of the
traditional adversarial regulatory process, and I believe that it
should be tried in the case of the New England groundfish issue.
These bills do not directly affect any existing fisheries management
programs, or impose new management measures. They only offer an
alternative route for devising plans that will restore fish stocks off
the coast of New England and other parts of the country. They could
lead to new management measures that not only do a better job of
rebuilding fish stocks, but do so in a manner that minimizes the
economic impact on fishermen and coastal communities, and in a manner
that gains the confidence and support of most fishermen. Surely, given
the extremely high stakes in an area like New England these days, we
must explore every opportunity, every possibility, for achieving such
critically important results.
______
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 433. A bill to regulate handgun ammunition, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
the ammunition safety act of 1995
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, no gun works without a bullet. Yet
for no good reason, Congress in the early 1980's repealed laws that
regulate ammunition. And while a background check is required to stop
felons from purchasing guns, no such background check is required to
stop them from buying ammunition for the guns they may already have.
In the meantime, bullets are getting meaner and more deadly. Law
enforcement officers know all too well of the danger they face each and
every time a gun is pointed at them.
Advances in technology only promise to make matters worse. When a
large percentage of gun-related deaths involve handguns, and a large
percentage of gun related deaths is accidental, it is insane for the
public to fear the creation of new, more destructive bullets.
The fact is 157 police officers and State troopers were killed in
this country last year. Five lost their lives in my home State of
Massachusetts.
And more than 200 people die from the accidental use of handguns
every year. In 1992 alone, 233 accidental deaths occurred because of
handguns. This included 6 babies, 36 kids under the age of 14, and 8
senior citizens, 2 of whom were over the age of 80.
In light of these sad and disturbing facts, there is no good reason
to have ever more dangerous bullets on the market. And there is every
good reason to keep off our streets and out of our homes bullets that
supply handguns with the destructive power of assault weapons.
That is why the Ammunition Safety Act of 1995 does two things: it
reestablishes reasonable regulations for the sale of handgun
ammunition, and it outlaws all exceedingly destructive handgun
ammunition--whether or not such ammo has been invented yet--by
expanding and updating the ban on armor-piercing handgun ammunition.
This bill would provide a weapon for law enforcement to crack down on
crime and would make ordinary people safer from handgun violence and
accidental shootings. The bill accomplishes these goals in three steps.
First, the bill reinstates and strengthens ammunition control
language that Congress repealed during the Reagan era. It would require
dealers of handgun ammunition to be licensed by the Federal Government.
It would restrict interstate sale and transportation of handgun
ammunition to licensed dealers. And it would double the maximum
penalties for sale to and for possession of handgun ammunition by
felons and persons under age 21.
Second, the bill would apply Brady bill provisions to handgun
ammunition. To
prevent the sale of handgun ammunition to felons, once the nationwide,
instantaneous background check the Brady bill created is in place,
every purchaser of ammunition will have to pass a background check
before ammunition could be sold to him or her. These regulations would
be a vital tool to law enforcement in investigating crime, and would
provide equity to a system that currently monitors and restricts the
flow of guns, but--inexplicably--not of ammunition.
Third, the bill expands the definition of illegal armor-piercing
handgun ammunition to include any new conceivable kind of armor-
piercing bullet. The bill establishes a new method to accomplish this
goal.
To date, no law has been able to effectively ban all armor-piercing
bullets. You can't ban what you can't define because vague laws are
constitutionally void--and definitions to date have failed to cover all
armor-piercing bullets. All that existing law does is ban bullets based
on the materials of which they are made--consequently, bullets made of
hard metals are illegal--in the hope that this definition will blanket
most armor-piercing bullets. But the existing composition-based
definition fails to prevent the sale of certain bullets that pierce
armor--like large lead bullets that aren't intended for handguns but
can be used in them--or the invention of new armor-piercing bullets--
for example, a plastic bullet hard enough to pierce armor.
This bill calls on the Treasury Department to define armor-piercing
bullets not by what they are but by what they are not. Fulfilling this
new responsibility would entail four steps.
First, within 1 year, the Treasury Department is charged with
determining a standard test to ascertain the destructive capacity of
any and all bullets. This will probably result in something along the
lines of a rating system equal to the width times the depth of the hole
a projectile bores in a block of gelatin when it is shot with no extra
powder from a standard Colt .45 at a distance of 10 feet.
Second, utilizing this destructive rating test, the Treasury
Department would then determine a rating threshold which would be the
rating of the least destructive bullet to pierce today's standard body
armor.
Third, all manufacturers of bullets for sale in the United States
would be
[[Page
S2827]] required to cover the costs incurred by the Treasury
Department in testing and determining the destructive rating of every
existing bullet available on the market.
Fourth, this bill would make it illegal to manufacture, sell, import,
use, or possess any bullet--existing or newly invented--that has a
destructive rating equal to or higher than the armor-piercing
threshold. This would be in addition to the existing composition-based
definition.
This bill contains reasonable exemptions. Those bullets exclusively
manufactured for law enforcement would be exempt; so would be those
bullets designed for sporting purposes that Congress specifically
exempts by law; and those bullets that are proven by their manufacturer
at its expense to have a destructive rating below the armor-piercing
threshold.
By setting the legal standard at the armor-piercing threshold, all
armor-piercing bullets would be illegal. And there is an additional
advantage to setting a legal threshold in this fashion: The threshold
would ban more than armor-piercing bullets. It would ban any new, sick,
perverse bullet that has yet to be invented that explodes on impact,
that turns to shrapnel, that does things today's technology cannot yet
fathom, or that by any other means is exceptionally destructive.
Setting a legal standard this way draws a hard and fast line between
those bullets currently on the market and future bullets that do more
damage than we can imagine today. This bills says that America is
satisfied that the bullets of today are dangerous enough, and America
will tolerate no greater likelihood of accidental death as a result of
new bullets.
This bill recognizes the fact that regulating only weapons is naive.
Among other reasons, guns last centuries, but ammunition has a shelf-
life of not much more than 20 years. Felons who want to kill will
always be able to find guns, but have to come out of the woodwork to
purchase ammunition. When they do, this bill will be there to stop
them.
Of course, felons can make bullets at home, but it isn't easy, it
isn't cheap, and it isn't safe. Mr. President, I recognize that there
is a limit to what the Government can do to stop gun violence and
accidental death. But today, the Government is shirking its
responsibility. This bill is a vital first step toward ensuring that
the Government does what is necessary to save lives.
The law enforcement community and the public will never again have to
react to advertisements like the one for the infamous Rhino bullet.
This add states:
The Rhino inflicts a wound of 8 inches in diameter. Each of
these fragments becomes lethal shrapnel and is hurled into
vital organs, lungs, circulatory system components, the heart
and other tissues. The wound channel is catastrophic. * * *
Death is nearly instantaneous.
If this bill is enacted, opportunistic manufacturers like the man who
created the Rhino will have nothing to gain from advertising the
dramatic innovations of their bullets. If an advertisement claims that
a new bullet is unusually destructive, the public will know that the
advertisement is either an outright lie or that the product is illegal.
Either way, the public will know in advance that no such bullet will
ever hit the street, and the public will have no cause for hysteria.
When this bill becomes law, no new bullets that are more dangerous
than those of today will make it to market. When this bill becomes law,
those bullets that are on the market won't end up in the wrong hands.
This bill is a solid step toward returning sanity and safety to our
Nation's streets and household. The Government has no greater
responsibility than to work toward this goal.
I welcome the support of colleagues who share my concerns, as many
do. I urge them to join me in sponsoring this legislation.
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. 433
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 ``Ammunition Safety Act of
1995''.
SEC. 2. DEALERS OF AMMUNITION.
(a) Definition.--Section 921(a)(11)(A) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearms''.
(b) Licensing.--Section 923(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``or
importing or manufacturing ammunition'' and inserting ``or
importing, manufacturing, or dealing in ammunition''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' the last place
it appears;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by inserting the following new subparagraph:
``(C) in ammunition other than ammunition for destructive
devices, $10 per year.''.
(c) Unlawful Acts.--Section 922(a)(1)(A) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by inserting ``or ammunition'' after ``firearms''; and
(ii) by inserting ``or ammunition'' after ``firearm''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or licensed
manufacturer'' and inserting ``licensed manufacturer, or
licensed dealer'';
(2) in paragraph (2), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by inserting ``or ammunition'' after ``firearm'';
(3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearm'' the first place it appears;
(4) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearm'' the first place it appears; and
(5) in paragraph (9), by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearms''.
(d) Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``1 year'' and
inserting ``2 years''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``1 year'' and inserting ``2
years''; and
(ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``10 years'' and inserting
``20 years''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(o) Except to the extent a greater minimum sentence is
otherwise provided, any person at least 18 years of age who
violates section 922(g) shall be subject to--
``(1) twice the maximum punishment authorized by this
subsection; and
``(2) at least twice any term of supervised release.''.
(e) Application of Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to
Transfer of Ammunition.--Section 922(t) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearm'' each place it appears.
SEC. 3. REGULATION OF ARMOR PIERCING AND NEW TYPES OF
DESTRUCTIVE AMMUNITION.
(a) Testing of Ammunition.--Section 921(a)(17) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (D), as added by section
2(e)(2), as subparagraph (E); and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraph:
``(D)(i) Notwithstanding subchapter II of chapter 5 of
title 5, United States Code, not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary shall--
``(I) establish uniform standards for testing and rating
the destructive capacity of projectiles capable of being used
in handguns;
``(II) utilizing the standards established pursuant to
subclause (I), establish performance-based standards to
define the rating of `armor piercing ammunition' based on the
rating at which the projectiles pierce armor; and
``(III) at the expense of the ammunition manufacturer
seeking to sell a particular type of ammunition, test and
rate the destructive capacity of the ammunition utilizing the
testing, rating, and performance-based standards established
under subclauses (I) and (II).
``(ii) The term `armor piercing ammunition' shall include
any projectile determined to have a destructive capacity
rating higher than the rating threshold established under
subclause (II), in addition to the composition-based
determination of subparagraph (B).
``(iii) The Congress may exempt specific ammunition
designed for sporting purposes from the definition of `armor
piercing ammunition'.''.
(b) Prohibition.--Section 922(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7)--
(A) by striking ``or import'' and inserting ``, import,
possess, or use'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'';
(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) the manufacture, importation, or use of any
projectile that has been proven, by testing performed at the
expense of the manufacturer of the projectile, to have a
lower rating threshold than armor piercing ammunition.''; and
(2) in paragraph (8)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'';
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
[[Page
S2828]] (C) by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) the manufacture, importation, or use of any
projectile that has been proven, by testing performed at the
expense of the manufacturer of the projectile, to have a
lower rating threshold than armor piercing
ammunition.''.
______
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 434. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase
the deductibility of business meal expenses for individuals who are
subject to Federal limitation on hours of service; to the Committee on
Finance.
the business meal deduction fairness act of 1995
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in 1993, the 103d Congress took a
crucial and difficult stand on the deficit. In August of that year we
passed the omnibus budget reconciliation bill. I am proud to stand here
today and say that that legislation has helped to produce falling
deficits and sustained economic growth.
As my colleagues know, I am one of this body's strongest advocates
for deficit reduction. I attribute much of my deep commitment to this
goal to my days in business. As a businessman, I learned that you must
balance your books and live within your means. I also learned that you
must treat people fairly, and admit when you make a mistake. I have
come to the floor today to once again acknowledge that a mistake was
made in the 1993 reconciliation bill; a mistake which must be
corrected.
During consideration of the reconciliation bill, I opposed tax
increases on working middle- and lower-income Americans. However, in
fighting to eliminate increases in broad taxes on middle- and lower-
income Americans, Congress overlooked a provision which places a hidden
tax on those hardworking Americans who work in the transportation
sector. It is for this reason that I rise today to reintroduce the
business meal deduction fairness bill.
Included in the 1993 reconciliation bill was a provision which
lowered the deductible portion of business meals and entertainment
expenses from 80 to 50 percent. On the surface, this seems only a tax
on those rich enough to spend their lunchtimes in luxury restaurants
and their nighttimes on luxury yachts. But contrary to popular belief,
the business meal deduction is not only used by lobbyists and fat cats
for three-martini lunches. Due to regulations limiting travel hours,
many transportation workers must eat out. That means the reduced
business meal deduction is a tax on workers who have no control over
the length of their trips, the amount of time they must rest during a
delivery, or, in many cases, the places they can stop to eat.
Let me provide you with a brief example to illustrate my point. The
average truck driver earns approximately $30,000 a year. The reduced
deduction will cost that driver between $750 and $1,000 per year. This
is just one of many examples I could give to demonstrate the burden
this change has placed on hard-working, middle-income Americans. The
legislation I am introducing today, will lift this burden and restore
some common sense to the tax code.
Mr. President, the business meal deduction fairness bill repeals the
hidden tax created last year by restoring the business meal deduction
to 80 percent for those individuals covered by the Department of
Transportation hours-of-service limit. This legislation is simple,
straightforward, and most importantly, fair.
Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues of a similar bill
we worked on to correct another mistake which hurt tens of thousands of
hard-working, middle-income Americans. As my colleagues remember, the
1990 deficit reduction bill imposed a surtax on specific luxury items.
At the time, it was argued that the surtax would only affect the
wealthiest segment of society. However, after it went into effect, it
became clear that, instead of paying the tax, the wealthy decided not
to buy the new boat or the diamond ring. As a result, the middle- and
lower-income Americans producing and selling those luxury items ended
up bearing the burden of the tax through lost wages and jobs.
Once it was apparent that the luxury tax was not achieving its
intended goal, I began working with a number of my colleagues to repeal
it. Fortunately, we were successful in getting a repeal in the 1993
reconciliation bill. Unfortunately, far too many people were hurt by
this mistake because we did not correct it quickly enough. We cannot
let that happen again. Therefore I am requesting the support and
assistance of my colleagues to ensure that the business meal deduction
fairness bill becomes law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
a copy of my legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 434
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INCREASED DEDUCTIBILITY OF BUSINESS MEAL EXPENSES
FOR INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LIMITATIONS
ON HOURS OF SERVICE.
(a) In General.--Section 274(n) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and
entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Special rule for individuals subject to federal
limitations on hours of service.--In the case of any expenses
for food or beverages consumed by an individual during, or
incident to, any period of duty which is subject to the hours
of service limitations of the Department of Transportation,
paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting `80 percent'
for `50 percent'.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1994.
______
By Mr. FAIRCLOTH:
S. 435. A bill to provide for the elimination of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
legislation to abolish hud
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce
legislation that will abolish the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Mr. President, HUD was created in 1965. When it was created, the
purpose of this Department was to revitalize our urban areas and
provide more housing for America.
Mr. President, in short, HUD has been a collosal failure. Since 1965,
HUD has spent hundreds of billions of dollars--that adjusted to
inflation--probably exceeds a trillion dollars. Yet today, despite this
massive spending, our Nation's urban areas are more decayed and more
dangerous today than ever. Homelessness, hardly a problem 30 years ago,
is now a major concern.
Public housing has been a disaster and home ownership is down.
Solving these problems was supposed to be HUD's mission. In each, it
has failed miserably.
Imagine if we applied a performance standard like this to other
Federal agencies. Suppose that when we created NASA with the purpose of
putting a man on the Moon, that 30 years later, they still had not done
it. We might consider abolishing them. That is exactly what we should
do with HUD because they failed to accomplish their mission.
Suppose that instead of creating HUD, we had given a trillion dollars
to an entrepreneur like Bill Gates. Do you think our inner cities would
be any worse off, or do you think that they would be more livable
places today? I think the answer is clear.
Take Fannie Mae for example. Fannie Mae plans to spend $1 trillion on
affordable housing before the end of the decade. The plan will finance
homes for 10 million people. This would provide a home to one in three
renters in America. This plan, however, unlike HUD, won't cost American
taxpayers one cent, and yet it will provide homes for millions of
Americans.
Mr. President, I have no faith that HUD can be reinvented. Thirty
years of failure is too much. Since the November 8 election, HUD
Secretary Henry Cisneros has put on a masterful public relations plan
to save his Department. I for one am not fooled. If he really believed
in what he was doing, he would have done it 2 years ago.
Most importantly, what are the savings from the Cisneros plan? There
are none. The only clearly identified savings will amount to one-half
of 1 percent over 5 years. Mr. President, let me repeat that, the total
savings in the Cisneros plan amount to only one-half of 1 percent over
5 years.
[[Page
S2829]] Of course, there are promises of more savings, but
they are just that--promises.
Actually, if you look at the projected outlays by HUD in the fiscal
year 1996 budget for the years 1995-99, spending is $3 billion more
than was projected in last year's budget. Yes, that's right, spending
will actually increase despite the reorganization.
Furthermore, my favorite line from the President's budget is on page
190. It is a chart about HUD's program consolidation. It says:
``Net impact, HUD consolidations''--spending of $29.4 billion in 1995
to $30.3 billion in 1996.
Yes, that's right. Spending will actually go up by $1 billion because
of HUD's consolidations--not down.
The Wall Street Journal reported on February 15, 1995, that HUD's
projected savings may have been oversold, and that down at HUD they
knew this before they submitted their plan to Congress.
For these reasons, I am introducing a bill to abolish HUD. The bill
will abolish HUD, effective January 1, 1998. The bill will direct the
Secretary to make one housing block grant available to States and
localities; transform all rental assistance into vouchers; and make FHA
a Government-controlled corporation with income targeting and risk
sharing.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. McCain, and Mr.
Daschle):
S. 436. A bill to improve the economic conditions and supply of
housing in native American communities by creating the Native American
Financial Services Organization, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Indian Affairs.
native american financial services organization act
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
entitled the Native American Financial Services Organization Act. I am
pleased to add my distinguished colleagues, the chairman and vice-
chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senators McCain and Inouye,
and Senator Daschle, as cosponsors of this important legislation.
Mr. President, there is a continued need for assistance to improve
the housing conditions that exist in many Indian reservation
communities, Alaska Native villages, and native Hawaiian communities.
Statistics from the Bureau of Indian Affairs estimated in 1993 that as
many as 90,000 native American families were in need of improved
housing and nearly 50,000 families need new homes.
Further, a study completed by the Commission on American Indian,
Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing, found that housing
shortages and deplorable living conditions are at crisis proportions in
many native American communities. In its study the commission
documented several obstacles that stand between Indian people and
affordable, adequate, and available housing.
The Commission found there is currently little, if any, conventional
lending available to native people seeking to purchase a home.
In addition, many Indian housing authorities lack the expertise to
manage, coordinate, and maintain viable programs.
And importantly, tribal governments have had to rely primarily on
Federal Government grant and loan programs to finance housing and
economic development projects.
As a result of the study, the Commission recommended the creation of
an entity that could serve as an intermediary financing institution
with the authority to package mortgage loans, provide technical
assistance, and serve as a clearinghouse of information for alternative
financing programs.
Mr. President, the Native American Financial Services Organization
Act is the culmination of extensive deliberations between officials
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of
Treasury, the USDA, members of my staff, and staff of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs. The purpose of this legislation is to
create a financial infrastructure for commercial financing
opportunities by and for Indian people. The primary mechanism that will
bridge Indian tribes with the commercial lending markets will be the
creation of a Native American Financial Services Organization.
The Native American Financial Services Organization would establish a
limited Government-chartered corporation. A Federal grant would
capitalize the federally chartered organization, which would cease to
exist upon a designated date. At that point the charter would become a
private corporation.
More specifically, the legislation is designed to:
First, establish and organize native American community lending
institutions, that will be called Native American Financial
Institutions. These lending institutions could be any type of financial
institution, including community banks, credit unions and saving banks,
that together, could provide a wide range of financial services;
Second, develop and provide financial expertise and technical
assistance to the Native American Financial Institutions, including
methods of underwriting, securing, and selling mortgage and small
commercial and consumer loans; and
Third, develop and provide specialized technical assistance on how to
overcome barriers to primary mortgage lending on native American lands,
including issues related to trust lands, discrimination, and
inapplicability of standard underwriting criteria.
Importantly, this legislation will work in conjunction with the
Community Development Financial Institutions [CDFI] fund established in
the Reigle Community Development Banking and Regulatory Improvement
Act, signed into law by the President last year. Under a cooperative
agreement with the CDFI fund, this legislation will provide technical
assistance and other services to Native American Financial
Institutions.
This week, Secretary Cisneros testified before the Committee on
Indian Affairs. In his remarks, he stated that this legislation will
``neither conflict nor duplicate the functions of CDFI or any other
Government-sponsored enterprise, but is intended to supplement the
efforts of existing organizations.''
In short, the Native American Financial Services Organization would
help provide financial independence to the native American community
and would begin to address the housing deficiencies by working to
attract private capital into the Indian housing market.
Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks by making
reference to a letter I recently received from the chairperson of the
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, that I believe illustrates the great necessity
for this legislation. The letter states that the shortage of housing in
the community is so severe that among the approximately 1,500 tribal
members, 400 are without a permanent home and that a waiting list for
new housing approaches 300 people.
It is for this reason, that I believe the Native American Financial
Services Organization is much needed. Statistics such as this merit the
need for an innovative financing mechanism the Native American
Financial Services Organization can provide.
Mr. President, in closing, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
printed in the Record immediately following the full text of my
statement and that the statements of Senators McCain and Inouye, who
are both original cosponsors, appear in the Record immediately
following the bill.
I also ask unanimous consent to include letters from the Ute Mountain
Ute Tribe, the Native American Indian Housing Council, and HUD's
Secretary Henry Cisneros to be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 436
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Native
American Financial Services Organization Act of 1995''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
TITLE I--STATEMENT OF POLICY; DEFINITIONS
Sec. 101. Policy.
Sec. 102. Statement of purposes.
Sec. 103. Definitions.
[[Page
S2830]] TITLE II--NATIVE AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
ORGANIZATION
Sec. 201. Establishment of the organization.
Sec. 202. Authorized assistance and service functions.
Sec. 203. Native American lending services grant.
Sec. 204. Audits.
Sec. 205. Annual housing and economic development reports.
Sec. 206. Advisory Council.
TITLE III--CAPITALIZATION OF ORGANIZATION
Sec. 301. Capitalization of the organization.
Sec. 302. Obligations and securities of the organization.
Sec. 303. Limit on total assets and liabilities.
TITLE IV--REGULATION, EXAMINATION, AND REPORTS
Sec. 401. Regulation, examination, and reports.
Sec. 402. Authority of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
TITLE V--FORMATION OF NEW CORPORATION
Sec. 501. Formation of new corporation.
Sec. 502. Adoption and approval of merger plan.
Sec. 503. Consummation of merger.
Sec. 504. Transition.
Sec. 505. Effect of merger.
TITLE VI--AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 601. Authorization of appropriations for Native American Financial
Institutions.
Sec. 602. Authorization of appropriations for organization.
TITLE I--STATEMENT OF POLICY; DEFINITIONS
SEC. 101. POLICY.
(a) In General.--Based upon the findings and
recommendations of the Commission on American Indian, Alaska
Native and Native Hawaiian Housing established by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of
1989, the Congress has determined that--
(1) housing shortages and deplorable living conditions are
at crisis proportions in Native American communities
throughout the United States; and
(2) the lack of private capital to finance housing and
economic development for Native Americans and Native American
communities seriously exacerbates these housing shortages and
poor living conditions.
(b) Policy of the United States To Address Native American
Housing Shortage.--It is the policy of the United States to
improve the economic conditions and supply of housing in
Native American communities throughout the United States by
creating the Native American Financial Services Organization
to address the housing shortages and poor living conditions
described in subsection (a).
SEC. 102. STATEMENT OF PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to help serve the mortgage and other lending needs of
Native Americans by assisting in the establishment and
organization of Native American Financial Institutions,
developing and providing financial expertise and technical
assistance to Native American Financial Institutions,
including assistance concerning overcoming--
(A) barriers to lending with respect to Native American
lands; and
(B) the past and present impact of discrimination;
(2) to promote access to mortgage credit in Native American
communities in the United States by increasing the liquidity
of financing for housing and improving the distribution of
investment capital available for such financing, primarily
through Native American Financial Institutions;
(3) to promote the infusion of public capital into Native
American communities throughout the United States and to
direct sources of public and private capital into housing and
economic development for Native American individuals and
families, primarily through Native American Financial
Institutions; and
(4) to provide ongoing assistance to the secondary market
for residential mortgages and economic development loans for
Native American individuals and families, Native American
Financial Institutions, and other borrowers by increasing the
liquidity of such investments and improving the distribution
of investment capital available for such financing.
SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Alaska native.--The term ``Alaska Native'' has the
meaning given the term ``Native'' by section 3(b) of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
(2) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Board of Directors
of the Organization established under section 201(a)(2).
(3) Chairperson.--The term ``Chairperson'' means the
chairperson of the Board.
(4) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Advisory
Council established under section 206.
(5) Designated merger date.--The term ``designated merger
date'' means the specific calendar date and time of day
designated by the Board under section 502(b).
(6) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(7) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund established under
section 104 of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994.
(8) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any
Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or
community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or
village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act that is recognized as
eligible for the special programs and services provided by
the Federal Government to Indians because of their status as
Indians.
(9) Merger plan.--The term ``merger plan'' means the plan
of merger adopted by the Board under section 502(a).
(10) Native american.--The term ``Native American'' means
any member of an Indian tribe.
(11) Native american financial institution.--The term
``Native American Financial Institution'' means a person
(other than an individual) that--
(A) qualifies as a community development financial
institution under section 103 of the Riegle Community
Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994;
(B) satisfies the requirements established by the Riegle
Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
and the Fund for applicants for assistance from the Fund;
(C) demonstrates a special interest and expertise in
serving the primary economic development and mortgage lending
needs of the Native American community; and
(D) demonstrates that the person has the endorsement of the
Native American community that the person intends to serve.
(12) Native american lender.--The term ``Native American
lender'' means a Native American governing body, Native
American housing authority, or other Native American
Financial Institution that acts as a primary mortgage or
economic development lender in a Native American community.
(13) New corporation.--The term ``new corporation'' means
the corporation formed in accordance with title V.
(14) Nonqualifying mortgage loan.--The term ``nonqualifying
mortgage loan'' means a mortgage loan that is determined by
the Organization, on the basis of the quality, type, class,
or principal amount of the loan, to fail to meet the purchase
standards of the Federal National Mortgage Association or the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation in effect on September
30, 1994.
(15) Organization.--The term ``Organization'' means the
N
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - February 16, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S2823-S2889]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 427. A bill to amend various acts to establish offices of women's
health within certain agencies, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
the women's health offices act of 1995
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
to focus attention on the special health needs of women by establishing
offices of Women's Health within the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Agency for Health Care
Policy and Research, the Health Resources and Services Administration,
and the Food and Drug Administration.
The directors of these offices of women's health will assess the
current level of activity regarding women's health within their
respective agencies, established short-range and long-range goals and
objectives for women's health, identify projects in women's health that
should be conducted or supported, consult with health professionals,
nongovernmental organizations, consumer organizations, and other
appropriate groups on their agency's women's health policies, and
coordinate agency activities on women's health.
Congress has already taken a first step in recognizing that women's
unique health needs should be addressed separately. In the 103d
Congress, the 1993 NIH revitalization bill established an Office of
Woman's Health within the National Institutes of Health. We must build
upon that progress in the 104th Congress.
For too long, women have been systematically excluded from medical
research studies, received less aggressive treatment for heart disease
and other serious ailments, and lacked access to important preventive
services. By statutorily establishing offices of Women's Health in
Federal agencies which research and disseminate information about
health, we ensure that women's needs and concerns will be given the
consideration they deserve.
______
By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Pell,
and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 428. A bill to improve the management of land and water for fish
and wildlife purposes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
the fish and wildlife management act of 1995
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I read recently that ``the best thing
we have learned from nearly 500 years of contact with the American
wilderness is restraint,'' the need to stay our hand and preserve our
precious environment
[[Page
S2824]] and future resources rather than destroy them for
momentary gain.
With this in mind, I offer legislation today that designates the
coastal plain of Alaska as wilderness area. At the moment this area is
a national wildlife refuge, one of our beautiful and last frontiers. By
changing its designation, Mr. President, we can protect it forever.
And I can't stress how important this is.
The Alaskan wilderness area is not only a critical part of our
earth's ecosystem--the last remaining region where the complete
spectrum of arctic and subarctic ecosystems comes together--but it is a
vital part of our national consciousness. It is a place we can cherish
and visit for our soul's good. It offers us a sense of well-being and
promises that not all dreams have been dreamt.
The Alaskan wilderness is a place of outstanding wildlife, wilderness
and recreation, a land dotted by beautiful forests, dramatic peaks and
glaciers, gentle foothills, and undulating tundra. It is untamed--rich
with caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolves, musk oxen, Dall sheep,
moose, and hundreds of thousands of birds--snow geese, tundra swans,
black brant, and more. In all, about 165 species use the coastal plain.
It is an area of intense wildlife activity. Animals give birth, nurse
and feed their young,
and set about the critical business of fueling up for winters of
unspeakable severity.
The fact is, Mr. President, there are parts of this Earth where it is
good that man can come only as a visitor. These are the pristine lands
that belong to all of us. And perhaps most importantly, these are the
lands that belong to our future.
Considering the many reasons why this bill is so important, I came
across the words of the great western writer, Wallace Stegner.
Referring to the land we are trying to protect with this legislation,
he wrote that it is ``the most splendid part of the American habitat;
it is also the most fragile.'' And we cannot enter ``it carrying habits
that [are] inappropriate and expectations that [are] surely
excessive.''
The expectations for oil exploration in this pristine region are
excessive. There is only a one-in-five chance of finding any
economically recoverable oil in the refuge. And if oil is found, the
daily production of 400,000 barrels per day is less than .7 percent of
world production--far too small to meet American's energy needs for
more than a few months.
In other words, Mr. President, there is much more to lose than might
ever be gained by tearing this frontier apart. Already, some 90 percent
of Alaska's entire North Slope is open to oil and gas leasing and
development. Let's keep this area as the jewel amid the stones.
What this bill offers--and what we need--is a brand of pragmatic
environmentalism, an environmental stewardship that protects our
important wilderness areas and precious resources, while carefully and
judiciously weighing the short-term desires or our country against its
long-term needs.
together, we need to embrace environmental policies that are workable
and pragmatic, policies based on the desire to make the world a better
place for us and for future generations. I believe a strong economy,
liberty, and progress are possible only when we have a healthy planet--
only when resources are managed through wise stewardship--only when an
environmental ethic thrives among nations and only when people have
frontiers that are untrammeled and able to host their fondest
dreams.
______
By Mr. BRYAN (for himself and Mr. Reid):
S. 429. A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to allow
commercial nuclear utilities that have contracts with the Secretary of
Energy under section 302 of that act to receive credits to offset the
cost of storing spent fuel that the Secretary is unable to accept for
storage on and after January 31, 1998; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
the independent spent nuclear fuel storage act of 1995
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce again legislation
I have introduced in each of the past two Congresses, the Independent
Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Act.
As many of my colleagues are aware, since 1987, contrary to Nevada
State law, and against the wishes of the vast majority of Nevadans,
Nevada has been the sole site considered for the ultimate disposal of
the United States' high-level nuclear waste.
Today, in spite of the expenditure of billions of dollars, the Yucca
Mountain site is no closer to accepting waste from our Nation's nuclear
reactors than it was 13 years ago, when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982 was enacted.
I strongly oppose the purely political decision made by Congress in
1987 to identify Yucca Mountain as the sole site to be characterized
for a permanent repository. Now that the permanent repository program
is an obvious failure, with the Department of Energy saying there is no
hope of opening any type of storage facility before 2010, the nuclear
power industry and its allies have conceived a new strategy.
Contrary to all objective scientific judgment, and general common
sense, the nuclear industry's new effort is to instruct the DOE to
build an interim storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site. As
offensive as the 1987 act, commonly referred to in Nevada as the
``screw Nevada bill,'' was, the new effort of the nuclear power
industry is even more of an outrage to Nevadans.
The nuclear power industry's newest proposal is nothing less than a
direct assault on the health and safety of Nevadans. Frustrated by its
inability to overcome the insurmountable safety concerns raised in
relation to a permanent repository, the industry is now seeking to
circumvent the objections of credible, objective scientists to a
permanent repository at Yucca Mountain.
I am convinced, like many others, that any centralized interim
storage facility will become the de facto permanent repository.
Funding for an interim storage program will necessarily come at the
expense of the permanent repository program. The expression ``out of
sight, out of mind'' could not be truer. Once the waste is removed from
the reactor sites, the nuclear industry's commitment to finding a
permanent solution to the waste problem will vanish. And since it is
the nuclear power industry's obsession with moving this waste off the
reactor sites that drives the Federal Civilian Nuclear Waste Program,
the Federal commitment to permanent storage will vanish as well.
The nuclear power industry as much as concedes this--every version of
their interim storage legislation I am aware of provides for licensing
the interim site for 100 years, subject to renewal.
The permanent repository program is a failure. The nuclear power
industry and its advocates, including the Department of Energy, have
created a program which was bound to fail. Careless science, poor
management, unreasonable deadlines and timetables, and the ill-fated
decision to pursue only one site for characterization, thus leaving the
program with no options or alternatives, have all contributed to the
failure of the program.
The industry's suggestion to build an interim storage facility in
Nevada is simply one more in a long series of irresponsible and ill-
founded proposals by the nuclear power industry to solve their high
level waste problem at the expense of the health and safety of all
Nevadans.
I will concede that the nuclear power industry has a waste problem. I
strongly object, however, to the industry's solution, which is simply
to send their problem, their waste to Nevada.
The question arises, do we need a centralized interim storage site?
If we are truly talking about interim storage, the answer is obviously
no.
A few nuclear utilities, looking at the future uncertainty of the
Federal nuclear waste program, have done the responsible thing and
built interim dry cask storage at the reactor site. In dry cask
storage, spent fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor pools and
stored in various systems of canisters, casks, and concrete shells.
I recently visited one of these dry cask storage facilities, at
Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, and, I must say, I was impressed by the
simplicity and efficiency of the spent fuel management operation. It is
a responsible action taken by the industry, and I commend their example
to others. The Calvert
[[Page
S2825]] Cliffs dry cask storage program provides a reasonable
solution to the interim storage problem, the spent fuel is stored on
site, where security and safety precautions already exist, until a safe
plan for the long-term disposition of the waste can be finalized.
A centralized interim storage facility is simply not needed, or
desirable. The original Nuclear Waste Policy Act recognized this fact,
and placed restrictions on the DOE's authority to accept responsibility
for interim storage. The nuclear power industry, faced with the reality
of the failure to build a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, is
now engaged in yet another exercise of political muscle with one
purpose: to make Nevada the final destination for their toxic and
highly dangerous waste.
Even if we concede, which we do not, that there is a need for a
centralized interim storage facility, there is no defensible reason to
site the facility in Nevada. A simple look at a map easily shows that
Nevada is one of the least central sites to store nuclear waste. The
great majority of the reactor sites producing high-level waste are east
of the Mississippi--93 reactors out of the U.S. total of 118.
Shipping thousands of tons of high level waste to Nevada will create
dramatic threats to the safety of communities throughout the United
States. An analysis of one proposal supported by the nuclear power
industry reveals that interim storage in Nevada will require 15,000
shipments by rail and truck through 43 States to begin as early as 1998
and continue for 30 years.
Interim storage in Nevada is not the answer to the nuclear power
industry's waste problem. The responsible answer to the waste problem,
if the nuclear utilities choose to continue to run their reactors, is
on-site, dry cask storage.
Unfortunately, most nuclear utilities appear to be unwilling
to develop dry cask storage facilities for a variety of reasons,
both political and financial.
There is not much we can do about the local political opposition
faced by utilities. The utilities, and communities, that benefited from
the operation of the powerplant should bear responsibility for their
own waste. High-level waste storage is not popular, and there are
political costs to the utilities for living up to their
responsibilities.
Asking Nevada to solve the political problems in the communities they
serve places the nuclear utilities on completely indefensible ground.
The outright hypocrisy of the nuclear power industry's advocates, and
their shameless attempts to exert political influence to solve complex
scientific and environmental problems, has created an atmosphere of
complete distrust and antagonism for the industry in Nevada.
There are also financial barriers to on-site, dry cask storage.
Ratepayers have been making contributions to the nuclear waste trust
fund with the exception that the Federal Government will dispose of
their nuclear waste. I am somewhat sympathetic to the ratepayers'
concerns. The Federal disposal program is a failure.
The civilian nuclear waste program has been so poorly managed, and so
misguided, that Congress has had good reason not to release the full
balance of the trust fund to the program. The ratepayers deserve some
financial relief while the Federal Government attempts to meet its
obligations, and while the utilities invest the needed capital to store
their own waste.
The legislation I am introducing today recognizes the nuclear power
industry's need for interim storage, as well as the financial impact on
ratepayers caused by delays in the repository program. The legislation
provides credits against utilities' payments to the nuclear waste trust
fund for costs incurred for on-site, dry cask storage.
The legislation provides an equitable solution to a difficult
problem. It recognizes the financial contributions of the utilities'
ratepayers to the trust fund, and recognizes the reality that a
permanent repository will not be available to meet the needs of the
nuclear power industry.
Mr. President, together with their advocates in Congress and the
Department of Energy, the nuclear power industry has spared no expense
or effort in moving its waste to Nevada. I have attempted to fight the
industry at every turn.
I hope that Congress will not take the failure of the permanent
repository program as a signal to bow to the nuclear power industry
once again, and accelerate plans to store nuclear waste in Nevada, but
instead to take this opportunity to find an equitable solution to a
difficult problem which does not threaten the health and safety of
future generations of Nevadans.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation I am introducing
today.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 430. 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
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the
Guardianship Rights and Responsibilities Act of 1995, 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 considered 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 1995 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 this
bill.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 431. A bill to amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to prepare
fishery management plans and amendments to fishery management plans
under negotiated rulemaking procedures, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S. 432. A bill to amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act to require the Secretary of Commerce to prepare
conservation and management measures for the northeast multispecies--
groundfish--fishery under negotiated rulemaking procedures, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
negotiated rulemaking for fisheries legislation
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as many stories in the national
media have reported, the New England groundfish industry is now facing
the most difficult challenges in its long history. Scientists report
that once plentiful stocks of cod, haddock, flounder, and other fish
species have reached historic lows. In response to these stock
assessments, the New England Fishery Management Council has approved
severe restrictions on fishing that will probably force many fishermen
out of business. These restrictions include a 5-year program to cut
fishing efforts in half, mandatory use of large-mesh nets, a moratorium
on new entrants into the fishery, and the emergency closure of large
areas on the George's Bank fishing grounds off Massachusetts.
Most fishermen in Maine recognize that the groundfish stocks are low
and that effective conservation measures are needed to help rebuild the
fishery. But too many fishermen also believe that the specific program
approved by the council will not succeed at restoring groundfish
populations, and will place unnecessary economic burdens on
[[Page
S2826]] working fishermen. In their view, the council, despite
public hearings, dismissed too many of their recommendations despite
the fact that they and others before them have been fishing the waters
off New England for three centuries. In short, they have no support for
or confidence in the council-developed management program under which
they must operate.
The success of any regulatory program depends in large part on the
confidence of the regulated community that the action takes their views
into account, will achieve its ends, and is sensible and necessary. I
am introducing legislation today that aims to restore the confidence of
New England fishermen in the
credibility of the Federal fisheries management process by giving them
and other citizens with an interest in fisheries the ability to
participate directly in that process.
My bills bring the concept of negotiated rulemaking or regulatory
negotiation to fisheries management. The concept was established in
Federal law by the negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990. Under negotiated
rulemaking, representatives of all stakeholder groups involved in a
dispute negotiate directly on the regulatory solution with the aid of a
professional facilitator. It provides a collaborative, consensus-based
dispute resolution tool that agencies can use to develop potentially
controversial regulations. If the negotiating group can reach
consensus, then the agency can propose the agreement as a new
regulation or rule. Negotiated rulemaking has been used--sometimes
successfully, sometimes unsuccessful--by other Federal agencies, and it
is time that this tool be made available in the fisheries management
process.
The first bill that I have introduced today gives the Secretary of
Commerce explicit authority to use negotiated rulemaking to develop
fishery management plans or plan amendments. Under the Magnuson Act,
the Secretary can only submit management plans or plan amendments under
limited circumstances which preclude his flexibility in using this
important tool effectively. Also, negotiated rulemaking is specifically
used to develop rules, but fishery management plans are not technically
rules. My bill removes these potential obstacles and clears the way for
the Secretary to use this dispute resolution tool on controversial
issues.
The second bill directs the Secretary to use negotiated rulemaking in
the specific case of the New England groundfish fishery. Alternative
dispute resolution is used more and more commonly in lieu of the
traditional adversarial regulatory process, and I believe that it
should be tried in the case of the New England groundfish issue.
These bills do not directly affect any existing fisheries management
programs, or impose new management measures. They only offer an
alternative route for devising plans that will restore fish stocks off
the coast of New England and other parts of the country. They could
lead to new management measures that not only do a better job of
rebuilding fish stocks, but do so in a manner that minimizes the
economic impact on fishermen and coastal communities, and in a manner
that gains the confidence and support of most fishermen. Surely, given
the extremely high stakes in an area like New England these days, we
must explore every opportunity, every possibility, for achieving such
critically important results.
______
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 433. A bill to regulate handgun ammunition, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
the ammunition safety act of 1995
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, no gun works without a bullet. Yet
for no good reason, Congress in the early 1980's repealed laws that
regulate ammunition. And while a background check is required to stop
felons from purchasing guns, no such background check is required to
stop them from buying ammunition for the guns they may already have.
In the meantime, bullets are getting meaner and more deadly. Law
enforcement officers know all too well of the danger they face each and
every time a gun is pointed at them.
Advances in technology only promise to make matters worse. When a
large percentage of gun-related deaths involve handguns, and a large
percentage of gun related deaths is accidental, it is insane for the
public to fear the creation of new, more destructive bullets.
The fact is 157 police officers and State troopers were killed in
this country last year. Five lost their lives in my home State of
Massachusetts.
And more than 200 people die from the accidental use of handguns
every year. In 1992 alone, 233 accidental deaths occurred because of
handguns. This included 6 babies, 36 kids under the age of 14, and 8
senior citizens, 2 of whom were over the age of 80.
In light of these sad and disturbing facts, there is no good reason
to have ever more dangerous bullets on the market. And there is every
good reason to keep off our streets and out of our homes bullets that
supply handguns with the destructive power of assault weapons.
That is why the Ammunition Safety Act of 1995 does two things: it
reestablishes reasonable regulations for the sale of handgun
ammunition, and it outlaws all exceedingly destructive handgun
ammunition--whether or not such ammo has been invented yet--by
expanding and updating the ban on armor-piercing handgun ammunition.
This bill would provide a weapon for law enforcement to crack down on
crime and would make ordinary people safer from handgun violence and
accidental shootings. The bill accomplishes these goals in three steps.
First, the bill reinstates and strengthens ammunition control
language that Congress repealed during the Reagan era. It would require
dealers of handgun ammunition to be licensed by the Federal Government.
It would restrict interstate sale and transportation of handgun
ammunition to licensed dealers. And it would double the maximum
penalties for sale to and for possession of handgun ammunition by
felons and persons under age 21.
Second, the bill would apply Brady bill provisions to handgun
ammunition. To
prevent the sale of handgun ammunition to felons, once the nationwide,
instantaneous background check the Brady bill created is in place,
every purchaser of ammunition will have to pass a background check
before ammunition could be sold to him or her. These regulations would
be a vital tool to law enforcement in investigating crime, and would
provide equity to a system that currently monitors and restricts the
flow of guns, but--inexplicably--not of ammunition.
Third, the bill expands the definition of illegal armor-piercing
handgun ammunition to include any new conceivable kind of armor-
piercing bullet. The bill establishes a new method to accomplish this
goal.
To date, no law has been able to effectively ban all armor-piercing
bullets. You can't ban what you can't define because vague laws are
constitutionally void--and definitions to date have failed to cover all
armor-piercing bullets. All that existing law does is ban bullets based
on the materials of which they are made--consequently, bullets made of
hard metals are illegal--in the hope that this definition will blanket
most armor-piercing bullets. But the existing composition-based
definition fails to prevent the sale of certain bullets that pierce
armor--like large lead bullets that aren't intended for handguns but
can be used in them--or the invention of new armor-piercing bullets--
for example, a plastic bullet hard enough to pierce armor.
This bill calls on the Treasury Department to define armor-piercing
bullets not by what they are but by what they are not. Fulfilling this
new responsibility would entail four steps.
First, within 1 year, the Treasury Department is charged with
determining a standard test to ascertain the destructive capacity of
any and all bullets. This will probably result in something along the
lines of a rating system equal to the width times the depth of the hole
a projectile bores in a block of gelatin when it is shot with no extra
powder from a standard Colt .45 at a distance of 10 feet.
Second, utilizing this destructive rating test, the Treasury
Department would then determine a rating threshold which would be the
rating of the least destructive bullet to pierce today's standard body
armor.
Third, all manufacturers of bullets for sale in the United States
would be
[[Page
S2827]] required to cover the costs incurred by the Treasury
Department in testing and determining the destructive rating of every
existing bullet available on the market.
Fourth, this bill would make it illegal to manufacture, sell, import,
use, or possess any bullet--existing or newly invented--that has a
destructive rating equal to or higher than the armor-piercing
threshold. This would be in addition to the existing composition-based
definition.
This bill contains reasonable exemptions. Those bullets exclusively
manufactured for law enforcement would be exempt; so would be those
bullets designed for sporting purposes that Congress specifically
exempts by law; and those bullets that are proven by their manufacturer
at its expense to have a destructive rating below the armor-piercing
threshold.
By setting the legal standard at the armor-piercing threshold, all
armor-piercing bullets would be illegal. And there is an additional
advantage to setting a legal threshold in this fashion: The threshold
would ban more than armor-piercing bullets. It would ban any new, sick,
perverse bullet that has yet to be invented that explodes on impact,
that turns to shrapnel, that does things today's technology cannot yet
fathom, or that by any other means is exceptionally destructive.
Setting a legal standard this way draws a hard and fast line between
those bullets currently on the market and future bullets that do more
damage than we can imagine today. This bills says that America is
satisfied that the bullets of today are dangerous enough, and America
will tolerate no greater likelihood of accidental death as a result of
new bullets.
This bill recognizes the fact that regulating only weapons is naive.
Among other reasons, guns last centuries, but ammunition has a shelf-
life of not much more than 20 years. Felons who want to kill will
always be able to find guns, but have to come out of the woodwork to
purchase ammunition. When they do, this bill will be there to stop
them.
Of course, felons can make bullets at home, but it isn't easy, it
isn't cheap, and it isn't safe. Mr. President, I recognize that there
is a limit to what the Government can do to stop gun violence and
accidental death. But today, the Government is shirking its
responsibility. This bill is a vital first step toward ensuring that
the Government does what is necessary to save lives.
The law enforcement community and the public will never again have to
react to advertisements like the one for the infamous Rhino bullet.
This add states:
The Rhino inflicts a wound of 8 inches in diameter. Each of
these fragments becomes lethal shrapnel and is hurled into
vital organs, lungs, circulatory system components, the heart
and other tissues. The wound channel is catastrophic. * * *
Death is nearly instantaneous.
If this bill is enacted, opportunistic manufacturers like the man who
created the Rhino will have nothing to gain from advertising the
dramatic innovations of their bullets. If an advertisement claims that
a new bullet is unusually destructive, the public will know that the
advertisement is either an outright lie or that the product is illegal.
Either way, the public will know in advance that no such bullet will
ever hit the street, and the public will have no cause for hysteria.
When this bill becomes law, no new bullets that are more dangerous
than those of today will make it to market. When this bill becomes law,
those bullets that are on the market won't end up in the wrong hands.
This bill is a solid step toward returning sanity and safety to our
Nation's streets and household. The Government has no greater
responsibility than to work toward this goal.
I welcome the support of colleagues who share my concerns, as many
do. I urge them to join me in sponsoring this legislation.
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. 433
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 ``Ammunition Safety Act of
1995''.
SEC. 2. DEALERS OF AMMUNITION.
(a) Definition.--Section 921(a)(11)(A) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearms''.
(b) Licensing.--Section 923(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``or
importing or manufacturing ammunition'' and inserting ``or
importing, manufacturing, or dealing in ammunition''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' the last place
it appears;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by inserting the following new subparagraph:
``(C) in ammunition other than ammunition for destructive
devices, $10 per year.''.
(c) Unlawful Acts.--Section 922(a)(1)(A) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by inserting ``or ammunition'' after ``firearms''; and
(ii) by inserting ``or ammunition'' after ``firearm''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or licensed
manufacturer'' and inserting ``licensed manufacturer, or
licensed dealer'';
(2) in paragraph (2), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by inserting ``or ammunition'' after ``firearm'';
(3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearm'' the first place it appears;
(4) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearm'' the first place it appears; and
(5) in paragraph (9), by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearms''.
(d) Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``1 year'' and
inserting ``2 years''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``1 year'' and inserting ``2
years''; and
(ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``10 years'' and inserting
``20 years''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(o) Except to the extent a greater minimum sentence is
otherwise provided, any person at least 18 years of age who
violates section 922(g) shall be subject to--
``(1) twice the maximum punishment authorized by this
subsection; and
``(2) at least twice any term of supervised release.''.
(e) Application of Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to
Transfer of Ammunition.--Section 922(t) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearm'' each place it appears.
SEC. 3. REGULATION OF ARMOR PIERCING AND NEW TYPES OF
DESTRUCTIVE AMMUNITION.
(a) Testing of Ammunition.--Section 921(a)(17) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (D), as added by section
2(e)(2), as subparagraph (E); and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraph:
``(D)(i) Notwithstanding subchapter II of chapter 5 of
title 5, United States Code, not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary shall--
``(I) establish uniform standards for testing and rating
the destructive capacity of projectiles capable of being used
in handguns;
``(II) utilizing the standards established pursuant to
subclause (I), establish performance-based standards to
define the rating of `armor piercing ammunition' based on the
rating at which the projectiles pierce armor; and
``(III) at the expense of the ammunition manufacturer
seeking to sell a particular type of ammunition, test and
rate the destructive capacity of the ammunition utilizing the
testing, rating, and performance-based standards established
under subclauses (I) and (II).
``(ii) The term `armor piercing ammunition' shall include
any projectile determined to have a destructive capacity
rating higher than the rating threshold established under
subclause (II), in addition to the composition-based
determination of subparagraph (B).
``(iii) The Congress may exempt specific ammunition
designed for sporting purposes from the definition of `armor
piercing ammunition'.''.
(b) Prohibition.--Section 922(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7)--
(A) by striking ``or import'' and inserting ``, import,
possess, or use'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'';
(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) the manufacture, importation, or use of any
projectile that has been proven, by testing performed at the
expense of the manufacturer of the projectile, to have a
lower rating threshold than armor piercing ammunition.''; and
(2) in paragraph (8)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'';
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
[[Page
S2828]] (C) by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) the manufacture, importation, or use of any
projectile that has been proven, by testing performed at the
expense of the manufacturer of the projectile, to have a
lower rating threshold than armor piercing
ammunition.''.
______
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 434. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase
the deductibility of business meal expenses for individuals who are
subject to Federal limitation on hours of service; to the Committee on
Finance.
the business meal deduction fairness act of 1995
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in 1993, the 103d Congress took a
crucial and difficult stand on the deficit. In August of that year we
passed the omnibus budget reconciliation bill. I am proud to stand here
today and say that that legislation has helped to produce falling
deficits and sustained economic growth.
As my colleagues know, I am one of this body's strongest advocates
for deficit reduction. I attribute much of my deep commitment to this
goal to my days in business. As a businessman, I learned that you must
balance your books and live within your means. I also learned that you
must treat people fairly, and admit when you make a mistake. I have
come to the floor today to once again acknowledge that a mistake was
made in the 1993 reconciliation bill; a mistake which must be
corrected.
During consideration of the reconciliation bill, I opposed tax
increases on working middle- and lower-income Americans. However, in
fighting to eliminate increases in broad taxes on middle- and lower-
income Americans, Congress overlooked a provision which places a hidden
tax on those hardworking Americans who work in the transportation
sector. It is for this reason that I rise today to reintroduce the
business meal deduction fairness bill.
Included in the 1993 reconciliation bill was a provision which
lowered the deductible portion of business meals and entertainment
expenses from 80 to 50 percent. On the surface, this seems only a tax
on those rich enough to spend their lunchtimes in luxury restaurants
and their nighttimes on luxury yachts. But contrary to popular belief,
the business meal deduction is not only used by lobbyists and fat cats
for three-martini lunches. Due to regulations limiting travel hours,
many transportation workers must eat out. That means the reduced
business meal deduction is a tax on workers who have no control over
the length of their trips, the amount of time they must rest during a
delivery, or, in many cases, the places they can stop to eat.
Let me provide you with a brief example to illustrate my point. The
average truck driver earns approximately $30,000 a year. The reduced
deduction will cost that driver between $750 and $1,000 per year. This
is just one of many examples I could give to demonstrate the burden
this change has placed on hard-working, middle-income Americans. The
legislation I am introducing today, will lift this burden and restore
some common sense to the tax code.
Mr. President, the business meal deduction fairness bill repeals the
hidden tax created last year by restoring the business meal deduction
to 80 percent for those individuals covered by the Department of
Transportation hours-of-service limit. This legislation is simple,
straightforward, and most importantly, fair.
Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues of a similar bill
we worked on to correct another mistake which hurt tens of thousands of
hard-working, middle-income Americans. As my colleagues remember, the
1990 deficit reduction bill imposed a surtax on specific luxury items.
At the time, it was argued that the surtax would only affect the
wealthiest segment of society. However, after it went into effect, it
became clear that, instead of paying the tax, the wealthy decided not
to buy the new boat or the diamond ring. As a result, the middle- and
lower-income Americans producing and selling those luxury items ended
up bearing the burden of the tax through lost wages and jobs.
Once it was apparent that the luxury tax was not achieving its
intended goal, I began working with a number of my colleagues to repeal
it. Fortunately, we were successful in getting a repeal in the 1993
reconciliation bill. Unfortunately, far too many people were hurt by
this mistake because we did not correct it quickly enough. We cannot
let that happen again. Therefore I am requesting the support and
assistance of my colleagues to ensure that the business meal deduction
fairness bill becomes law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
a copy of my legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 434
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INCREASED DEDUCTIBILITY OF BUSINESS MEAL EXPENSES
FOR INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LIMITATIONS
ON HOURS OF SERVICE.
(a) In General.--Section 274(n) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and
entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Special rule for individuals subject to federal
limitations on hours of service.--In the case of any expenses
for food or beverages consumed by an individual during, or
incident to, any period of duty which is subject to the hours
of service limitations of the Department of Transportation,
paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting `80 percent'
for `50 percent'.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1994.
______
By Mr. FAIRCLOTH:
S. 435. A bill to provide for the elimination of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
legislation to abolish hud
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce
legislation that will abolish the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Mr. President, HUD was created in 1965. When it was created, the
purpose of this Department was to revitalize our urban areas and
provide more housing for America.
Mr. President, in short, HUD has been a collosal failure. Since 1965,
HUD has spent hundreds of billions of dollars--that adjusted to
inflation--probably exceeds a trillion dollars. Yet today, despite this
massive spending, our Nation's urban areas are more decayed and more
dangerous today than ever. Homelessness, hardly a problem 30 years ago,
is now a major concern.
Public housing has been a disaster and home ownership is down.
Solving these problems was supposed to be HUD's mission. In each, it
has failed miserably.
Imagine if we applied a performance standard like this to other
Federal agencies. Suppose that when we created NASA with the purpose of
putting a man on the Moon, that 30 years later, they still had not done
it. We might consider abolishing them. That is exactly what we should
do with HUD because they failed to accomplish their mission.
Suppose that instead of creating HUD, we had given a trillion dollars
to an entrepreneur like Bill Gates. Do you think our inner cities would
be any worse off, or do you think that they would be more livable
places today? I think the answer is clear.
Take Fannie Mae for example. Fannie Mae plans to spend $1 trillion on
affordable housing before the end of the decade. The plan will finance
homes for 10 million people. This would provide a home to one in three
renters in America. This plan, however, unlike HUD, won't cost American
taxpayers one cent, and yet it will provide homes for millions of
Americans.
Mr. President, I have no faith that HUD can be reinvented. Thirty
years of failure is too much. Since the November 8 election, HUD
Secretary Henry Cisneros has put on a masterful public relations plan
to save his Department. I for one am not fooled. If he really believed
in what he was doing, he would have done it 2 years ago.
Most importantly, what are the savings from the Cisneros plan? There
are none. The only clearly identified savings will amount to one-half
of 1 percent over 5 years. Mr. President, let me repeat that, the total
savings in the Cisneros plan amount to only one-half of 1 percent over
5 years.
[[Page
S2829]] Of course, there are promises of more savings, but
they are just that--promises.
Actually, if you look at the projected outlays by HUD in the fiscal
year 1996 budget for the years 1995-99, spending is $3 billion more
than was projected in last year's budget. Yes, that's right, spending
will actually increase despite the reorganization.
Furthermore, my favorite line from the President's budget is on page
190. It is a chart about HUD's program consolidation. It says:
``Net impact, HUD consolidations''--spending of $29.4 billion in 1995
to $30.3 billion in 1996.
Yes, that's right. Spending will actually go up by $1 billion because
of HUD's consolidations--not down.
The Wall Street Journal reported on February 15, 1995, that HUD's
projected savings may have been oversold, and that down at HUD they
knew this before they submitted their plan to Congress.
For these reasons, I am introducing a bill to abolish HUD. The bill
will abolish HUD, effective January 1, 1998. The bill will direct the
Secretary to make one housing block grant available to States and
localities; transform all rental assistance into vouchers; and make FHA
a Government-controlled corporation with income targeting and risk
sharing.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. McCain, and Mr.
Daschle):
S. 436. A bill to improve the economic conditions and supply of
housing in native American communities by creating the Native American
Financial Services Organization, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Indian Affairs.
native american financial services organization act
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
entitled the Native American Financial Services Organization Act. I am
pleased to add my distinguished colleagues, the chairman and vice-
chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senators McCain and Inouye,
and Senator Daschle, as cosponsors of this important legislation.
Mr. President, there is a continued need for assistance to improve
the housing conditions that exist in many Indian reservation
communities, Alaska Native villages, and native Hawaiian communities.
Statistics from the Bureau of Indian Affairs estimated in 1993 that as
many as 90,000 native American families were in need of improved
housing and nearly 50,000 families need new homes.
Further, a study completed by the Commission on American Indian,
Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing, found that housing
shortages and deplorable living conditions are at crisis proportions in
many native American communities. In its study the commission
documented several obstacles that stand between Indian people and
affordable, adequate, and available housing.
The Commission found there is currently little, if any, conventional
lending available to native people seeking to purchase a home.
In addition, many Indian housing authorities lack the expertise to
manage, coordinate, and maintain viable programs.
And importantly, tribal governments have had to rely primarily on
Federal Government grant and loan programs to finance housing and
economic development projects.
As a result of the study, the Commission recommended the creation of
an entity that could serve as an intermediary financing institution
with the authority to package mortgage loans, provide technical
assistance, and serve as a clearinghouse of information for alternative
financing programs.
Mr. President, the Native American Financial Services Organization
Act is the culmination of extensive deliberations between officials
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of
Treasury, the USDA, members of my staff, and staff of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs. The purpose of this legislation is to
create a financial infrastructure for commercial financing
opportunities by and for Indian people. The primary mechanism that will
bridge Indian tribes with the commercial lending markets will be the
creation of a Native American Financial Services Organization.
The Native American Financial Services Organization would establish a
limited Government-chartered corporation. A Federal grant would
capitalize the federally chartered organization, which would cease to
exist upon a designated date. At that point the charter would become a
private corporation.
More specifically, the legislation is designed to:
First, establish and organize native American community lending
institutions, that will be called Native American Financial
Institutions. These lending institutions could be any type of financial
institution, including community banks, credit unions and saving banks,
that together, could provide a wide range of financial services;
Second, develop and provide financial expertise and technical
assistance to the Native American Financial Institutions, including
methods of underwriting, securing, and selling mortgage and small
commercial and consumer loans; and
Third, develop and provide specialized technical assistance on how to
overcome barriers to primary mortgage lending on native American lands,
including issues related to trust lands, discrimination, and
inapplicability of standard underwriting criteria.
Importantly, this legislation will work in conjunction with the
Community Development Financial Institutions [CDFI] fund established in
the Reigle Community Development Banking and Regulatory Improvement
Act, signed into law by the President last year. Under a cooperative
agreement with the CDFI fund, this legislation will provide technical
assistance and other services to Native American Financial
Institutions.
This week, Secretary Cisneros testified before the Committee on
Indian Affairs. In his remarks, he stated that this legislation will
``neither conflict nor duplicate the functions of CDFI or any other
Government-sponsored enterprise, but is intended to supplement the
efforts of existing organizations.''
In short, the Native American Financial Services Organization would
help provide financial independence to the native American community
and would begin to address the housing deficiencies by working to
attract private capital into the Indian housing market.
Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks by making
reference to a letter I recently received from the chairperson of the
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, that I believe illustrates the great necessity
for this legislation. The letter states that the shortage of housing in
the community is so severe that among the approximately 1,500 tribal
members, 400 are without a permanent home and that a waiting list for
new housing approaches 300 people.
It is for this reason, that I believe the Native American Financial
Services Organization is much needed. Statistics such as this merit the
need for an innovative financing mechanism the Native American
Financial Services Organization can provide.
Mr. President, in closing, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
printed in the Record immediately following the full text of my
statement and that the statements of Senators McCain and Inouye, who
are both original cosponsors, appear in the Record immediately
following the bill.
I also ask unanimous consent to include letters from the Ute Mountain
Ute Tribe, the Native American Indian Housing Council, and HUD's
Secretary Henry Cisneros to be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 436
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Native
American Financial Services Organization Act of 1995''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
TITLE I--STATEMENT OF POLICY; DEFINITIONS
Sec. 101. Policy.
Sec. 102. Statement of purposes.
Sec. 103. Definitions.
[[Page
S2830]] TITLE II--NATIVE AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
ORGANIZATION
Sec. 201. Establishment of the organization.
Sec. 202. Authorized assistance and service functions.
Sec. 203. Native American lending services grant.
Sec. 204. Audits.
Sec. 205. Annual housing and economic development reports.
Sec. 206. Advisory Council.
TITLE III--CAPITALIZATION OF ORGANIZATION
Sec. 301. Capitalization of the organization.
Sec. 302. Obligations and securities of the organization.
Sec. 303. Limit on total assets and liabilities.
TITLE IV--REGULATION, EXAMINATION, AND REPORTS
Sec. 401. Regulation, examination, and reports.
Sec. 402. Authority of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
TITLE V--FORMATION OF NEW CORPORATION
Sec. 501. Formation of new corporation.
Sec. 502. Adoption and approval of merger plan.
Sec. 503. Consummation of merger.
Sec. 504. Transition.
Sec. 505. Effect of merger.
TITLE VI--AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 601. Authorization of appropriations for Native American Financial
Institutions.
Sec. 602. Authorization of appropriations for organization.
TITLE I--STATEMENT OF POLICY; DEFINITIONS
SEC. 101. POLICY.
(a) In General.--Based upon the findings and
recommendations of the Commission on American Indian, Alaska
Native and Native Hawaiian Housing established by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of
1989, the Congress has determined that--
(1) housing shortages and deplorable living conditions are
at crisis proportions in Native American communities
throughout the United States; and
(2) the lack of private capital to finance housing and
economic development for Native Americans and Native American
communities seriously exacerbates these housing shortages and
poor living conditions.
(b) Policy of the United States To Address Native American
Housing Shortage.--It is the policy of the United States to
improve the economic conditions and supply of housing in
Native American communities throughout the United States by
creating the Native American Financial Services Organization
to address the housing shortages and poor living conditions
described in subsection (a).
SEC. 102. STATEMENT OF PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to help serve the mortgage and other lending needs of
Native Americans by assisting in the establishment and
organization of Native American Financial Institutions,
developing and providing financial expertise and technical
assistance to Native American Financial Institutions,
including assistance concerning overcoming--
(A) barriers to lending with respect to Native American
lands; and
(B) the past and present impact of discrimination;
(2) to promote access to mortgage credit in Native American
communities in the United States by increasing the liquidity
of financing for housing and improving the distribution of
investment capital available for such financing, primarily
through Native American Financial Institutions;
(3) to promote the infusion of public capital into Native
American communities throughout the United States and to
direct sources of public and private capital into housing and
economic development for Native American individuals and
families, primarily through Native American Financial
Institutions; and
(4) to provide ongoing assistance to the secondary market
for residential mortgages and economic development loans for
Native American individuals and families, Native American
Financial Institutions, and other borrowers by increasing the
liquidity of such investments and improving the distribution
of investment capital available for such financing.
SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Alaska native.--The term ``Alaska Native'' has the
meaning given the term ``Native'' by section 3(b) of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
(2) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Board of Directors
of the Organization established under section 201(a)(2).
(3) Chairperson.--The term ``Chairperson'' means the
chairperson of the Board.
(4) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Advisory
Council established under section 206.
(5) Designated merger date.--The term ``designated merger
date'' means the specific calendar date and time of day
designated by the Board under section 502(b).
(6) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(7) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund established under
section 104 of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994.
(8) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any
Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or
community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or
village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act that is recognized as
eligible for the special programs and services provided by
the Federal Government to Indians because of their status as
Indians.
(9) Merger plan.--The term ``merger plan'' means the plan
of merger adopted by the Board under section 502(a).
(10) Native american.--The term ``Native American'' means
any member of an Indian tribe.
(11) Native american financial institution.--The term
``Native American Financial Institution'' means a person
(other than an individual) that--
(A) qualifies as a community development financial
institution under section 103 of the Riegle Community
Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994;
(B) satisfies the requirements established by the Riegle
Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
and the Fund for applicants for assistance from the Fund;
(C) demonstrates a special interest and expertise in
serving the primary economic development and mortgage lending
needs of the Native American community; and
(D) demonstrates that the person has the endorsement of the
Native American community that the person intends to serve.
(12) Native american lender.--The term ``Native American
lender'' means a Native American governing body, Native
American housing authority, or other Native American
Financial Institution that acts as a primary mortgage or
economic development lender in a Native American community.
(13) New corporation.--The term ``new corporation'' means
the corporation formed in accordance with title V.
(14) Nonqualifying mortgage loan.--The term ``nonqualifying
mortgage loan'' means a mortgage loan that is determined by
the Organization, on the basis of the quality, type, class,
or principal amount of the loan, to fail to meet the purchase
standards of the Federal National Mortgage Association or the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation in effect on September
30, 1994.
(15) Organization.--The term ``Organization'' means the
Native American Financial Service
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - February 16, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S2823-S2889]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 427. A bill to amend various acts to establish offices of women's
health within certain agencies, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
the women's health offices act of 1995
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
to focus attention on the special health needs of women by establishing
offices of Women's Health within the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Agency for Health Care
Policy and Research, the Health Resources and Services Administration,
and the Food and Drug Administration.
The directors of these offices of women's health will assess the
current level of activity regarding women's health within their
respective agencies, established short-range and long-range goals and
objectives for women's health, identify projects in women's health that
should be conducted or supported, consult with health professionals,
nongovernmental organizations, consumer organizations, and other
appropriate groups on their agency's women's health policies, and
coordinate agency activities on women's health.
Congress has already taken a first step in recognizing that women's
unique health needs should be addressed separately. In the 103d
Congress, the 1993 NIH revitalization bill established an Office of
Woman's Health within the National Institutes of Health. We must build
upon that progress in the 104th Congress.
For too long, women have been systematically excluded from medical
research studies, received less aggressive treatment for heart disease
and other serious ailments, and lacked access to important preventive
services. By statutorily establishing offices of Women's Health in
Federal agencies which research and disseminate information about
health, we ensure that women's needs and concerns will be given the
consideration they deserve.
______
By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Pell,
and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 428. A bill to improve the management of land and water for fish
and wildlife purposes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
the fish and wildlife management act of 1995
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I read recently that ``the best thing
we have learned from nearly 500 years of contact with the American
wilderness is restraint,'' the need to stay our hand and preserve our
precious environment
[[Page
S2824]] and future resources rather than destroy them for
momentary gain.
With this in mind, I offer legislation today that designates the
coastal plain of Alaska as wilderness area. At the moment this area is
a national wildlife refuge, one of our beautiful and last frontiers. By
changing its designation, Mr. President, we can protect it forever.
And I can't stress how important this is.
The Alaskan wilderness area is not only a critical part of our
earth's ecosystem--the last remaining region where the complete
spectrum of arctic and subarctic ecosystems comes together--but it is a
vital part of our national consciousness. It is a place we can cherish
and visit for our soul's good. It offers us a sense of well-being and
promises that not all dreams have been dreamt.
The Alaskan wilderness is a place of outstanding wildlife, wilderness
and recreation, a land dotted by beautiful forests, dramatic peaks and
glaciers, gentle foothills, and undulating tundra. It is untamed--rich
with caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolves, musk oxen, Dall sheep,
moose, and hundreds of thousands of birds--snow geese, tundra swans,
black brant, and more. In all, about 165 species use the coastal plain.
It is an area of intense wildlife activity. Animals give birth, nurse
and feed their young,
and set about the critical business of fueling up for winters of
unspeakable severity.
The fact is, Mr. President, there are parts of this Earth where it is
good that man can come only as a visitor. These are the pristine lands
that belong to all of us. And perhaps most importantly, these are the
lands that belong to our future.
Considering the many reasons why this bill is so important, I came
across the words of the great western writer, Wallace Stegner.
Referring to the land we are trying to protect with this legislation,
he wrote that it is ``the most splendid part of the American habitat;
it is also the most fragile.'' And we cannot enter ``it carrying habits
that [are] inappropriate and expectations that [are] surely
excessive.''
The expectations for oil exploration in this pristine region are
excessive. There is only a one-in-five chance of finding any
economically recoverable oil in the refuge. And if oil is found, the
daily production of 400,000 barrels per day is less than .7 percent of
world production--far too small to meet American's energy needs for
more than a few months.
In other words, Mr. President, there is much more to lose than might
ever be gained by tearing this frontier apart. Already, some 90 percent
of Alaska's entire North Slope is open to oil and gas leasing and
development. Let's keep this area as the jewel amid the stones.
What this bill offers--and what we need--is a brand of pragmatic
environmentalism, an environmental stewardship that protects our
important wilderness areas and precious resources, while carefully and
judiciously weighing the short-term desires or our country against its
long-term needs.
together, we need to embrace environmental policies that are workable
and pragmatic, policies based on the desire to make the world a better
place for us and for future generations. I believe a strong economy,
liberty, and progress are possible only when we have a healthy planet--
only when resources are managed through wise stewardship--only when an
environmental ethic thrives among nations and only when people have
frontiers that are untrammeled and able to host their fondest
dreams.
______
By Mr. BRYAN (for himself and Mr. Reid):
S. 429. A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to allow
commercial nuclear utilities that have contracts with the Secretary of
Energy under section 302 of that act to receive credits to offset the
cost of storing spent fuel that the Secretary is unable to accept for
storage on and after January 31, 1998; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
the independent spent nuclear fuel storage act of 1995
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce again legislation
I have introduced in each of the past two Congresses, the Independent
Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Act.
As many of my colleagues are aware, since 1987, contrary to Nevada
State law, and against the wishes of the vast majority of Nevadans,
Nevada has been the sole site considered for the ultimate disposal of
the United States' high-level nuclear waste.
Today, in spite of the expenditure of billions of dollars, the Yucca
Mountain site is no closer to accepting waste from our Nation's nuclear
reactors than it was 13 years ago, when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982 was enacted.
I strongly oppose the purely political decision made by Congress in
1987 to identify Yucca Mountain as the sole site to be characterized
for a permanent repository. Now that the permanent repository program
is an obvious failure, with the Department of Energy saying there is no
hope of opening any type of storage facility before 2010, the nuclear
power industry and its allies have conceived a new strategy.
Contrary to all objective scientific judgment, and general common
sense, the nuclear industry's new effort is to instruct the DOE to
build an interim storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site. As
offensive as the 1987 act, commonly referred to in Nevada as the
``screw Nevada bill,'' was, the new effort of the nuclear power
industry is even more of an outrage to Nevadans.
The nuclear power industry's newest proposal is nothing less than a
direct assault on the health and safety of Nevadans. Frustrated by its
inability to overcome the insurmountable safety concerns raised in
relation to a permanent repository, the industry is now seeking to
circumvent the objections of credible, objective scientists to a
permanent repository at Yucca Mountain.
I am convinced, like many others, that any centralized interim
storage facility will become the de facto permanent repository.
Funding for an interim storage program will necessarily come at the
expense of the permanent repository program. The expression ``out of
sight, out of mind'' could not be truer. Once the waste is removed from
the reactor sites, the nuclear industry's commitment to finding a
permanent solution to the waste problem will vanish. And since it is
the nuclear power industry's obsession with moving this waste off the
reactor sites that drives the Federal Civilian Nuclear Waste Program,
the Federal commitment to permanent storage will vanish as well.
The nuclear power industry as much as concedes this--every version of
their interim storage legislation I am aware of provides for licensing
the interim site for 100 years, subject to renewal.
The permanent repository program is a failure. The nuclear power
industry and its advocates, including the Department of Energy, have
created a program which was bound to fail. Careless science, poor
management, unreasonable deadlines and timetables, and the ill-fated
decision to pursue only one site for characterization, thus leaving the
program with no options or alternatives, have all contributed to the
failure of the program.
The industry's suggestion to build an interim storage facility in
Nevada is simply one more in a long series of irresponsible and ill-
founded proposals by the nuclear power industry to solve their high
level waste problem at the expense of the health and safety of all
Nevadans.
I will concede that the nuclear power industry has a waste problem. I
strongly object, however, to the industry's solution, which is simply
to send their problem, their waste to Nevada.
The question arises, do we need a centralized interim storage site?
If we are truly talking about interim storage, the answer is obviously
no.
A few nuclear utilities, looking at the future uncertainty of the
Federal nuclear waste program, have done the responsible thing and
built interim dry cask storage at the reactor site. In dry cask
storage, spent fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor pools and
stored in various systems of canisters, casks, and concrete shells.
I recently visited one of these dry cask storage facilities, at
Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, and, I must say, I was impressed by the
simplicity and efficiency of the spent fuel management operation. It is
a responsible action taken by the industry, and I commend their example
to others. The Calvert
[[Page
S2825]] Cliffs dry cask storage program provides a reasonable
solution to the interim storage problem, the spent fuel is stored on
site, where security and safety precautions already exist, until a safe
plan for the long-term disposition of the waste can be finalized.
A centralized interim storage facility is simply not needed, or
desirable. The original Nuclear Waste Policy Act recognized this fact,
and placed restrictions on the DOE's authority to accept responsibility
for interim storage. The nuclear power industry, faced with the reality
of the failure to build a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, is
now engaged in yet another exercise of political muscle with one
purpose: to make Nevada the final destination for their toxic and
highly dangerous waste.
Even if we concede, which we do not, that there is a need for a
centralized interim storage facility, there is no defensible reason to
site the facility in Nevada. A simple look at a map easily shows that
Nevada is one of the least central sites to store nuclear waste. The
great majority of the reactor sites producing high-level waste are east
of the Mississippi--93 reactors out of the U.S. total of 118.
Shipping thousands of tons of high level waste to Nevada will create
dramatic threats to the safety of communities throughout the United
States. An analysis of one proposal supported by the nuclear power
industry reveals that interim storage in Nevada will require 15,000
shipments by rail and truck through 43 States to begin as early as 1998
and continue for 30 years.
Interim storage in Nevada is not the answer to the nuclear power
industry's waste problem. The responsible answer to the waste problem,
if the nuclear utilities choose to continue to run their reactors, is
on-site, dry cask storage.
Unfortunately, most nuclear utilities appear to be unwilling
to develop dry cask storage facilities for a variety of reasons,
both political and financial.
There is not much we can do about the local political opposition
faced by utilities. The utilities, and communities, that benefited from
the operation of the powerplant should bear responsibility for their
own waste. High-level waste storage is not popular, and there are
political costs to the utilities for living up to their
responsibilities.
Asking Nevada to solve the political problems in the communities they
serve places the nuclear utilities on completely indefensible ground.
The outright hypocrisy of the nuclear power industry's advocates, and
their shameless attempts to exert political influence to solve complex
scientific and environmental problems, has created an atmosphere of
complete distrust and antagonism for the industry in Nevada.
There are also financial barriers to on-site, dry cask storage.
Ratepayers have been making contributions to the nuclear waste trust
fund with the exception that the Federal Government will dispose of
their nuclear waste. I am somewhat sympathetic to the ratepayers'
concerns. The Federal disposal program is a failure.
The civilian nuclear waste program has been so poorly managed, and so
misguided, that Congress has had good reason not to release the full
balance of the trust fund to the program. The ratepayers deserve some
financial relief while the Federal Government attempts to meet its
obligations, and while the utilities invest the needed capital to store
their own waste.
The legislation I am introducing today recognizes the nuclear power
industry's need for interim storage, as well as the financial impact on
ratepayers caused by delays in the repository program. The legislation
provides credits against utilities' payments to the nuclear waste trust
fund for costs incurred for on-site, dry cask storage.
The legislation provides an equitable solution to a difficult
problem. It recognizes the financial contributions of the utilities'
ratepayers to the trust fund, and recognizes the reality that a
permanent repository will not be available to meet the needs of the
nuclear power industry.
Mr. President, together with their advocates in Congress and the
Department of Energy, the nuclear power industry has spared no expense
or effort in moving its waste to Nevada. I have attempted to fight the
industry at every turn.
I hope that Congress will not take the failure of the permanent
repository program as a signal to bow to the nuclear power industry
once again, and accelerate plans to store nuclear waste in Nevada, but
instead to take this opportunity to find an equitable solution to a
difficult problem which does not threaten the health and safety of
future generations of Nevadans.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation I am introducing
today.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 430. 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
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the
Guardianship Rights and Responsibilities Act of 1995, 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 considered 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 1995 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 this
bill.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 431. A bill to amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to prepare
fishery management plans and amendments to fishery management plans
under negotiated rulemaking procedures, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S. 432. A bill to amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act to require the Secretary of Commerce to prepare
conservation and management measures for the northeast multispecies--
groundfish--fishery under negotiated rulemaking procedures, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
negotiated rulemaking for fisheries legislation
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as many stories in the national
media have reported, the New England groundfish industry is now facing
the most difficult challenges in its long history. Scientists report
that once plentiful stocks of cod, haddock, flounder, and other fish
species have reached historic lows. In response to these stock
assessments, the New England Fishery Management Council has approved
severe restrictions on fishing that will probably force many fishermen
out of business. These restrictions include a 5-year program to cut
fishing efforts in half, mandatory use of large-mesh nets, a moratorium
on new entrants into the fishery, and the emergency closure of large
areas on the George's Bank fishing grounds off Massachusetts.
Most fishermen in Maine recognize that the groundfish stocks are low
and that effective conservation measures are needed to help rebuild the
fishery. But too many fishermen also believe that the specific program
approved by the council will not succeed at restoring groundfish
populations, and will place unnecessary economic burdens on
[[Page
S2826]] working fishermen. In their view, the council, despite
public hearings, dismissed too many of their recommendations despite
the fact that they and others before them have been fishing the waters
off New England for three centuries. In short, they have no support for
or confidence in the council-developed management program under which
they must operate.
The success of any regulatory program depends in large part on the
confidence of the regulated community that the action takes their views
into account, will achieve its ends, and is sensible and necessary. I
am introducing legislation today that aims to restore the confidence of
New England fishermen in the
credibility of the Federal fisheries management process by giving them
and other citizens with an interest in fisheries the ability to
participate directly in that process.
My bills bring the concept of negotiated rulemaking or regulatory
negotiation to fisheries management. The concept was established in
Federal law by the negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990. Under negotiated
rulemaking, representatives of all stakeholder groups involved in a
dispute negotiate directly on the regulatory solution with the aid of a
professional facilitator. It provides a collaborative, consensus-based
dispute resolution tool that agencies can use to develop potentially
controversial regulations. If the negotiating group can reach
consensus, then the agency can propose the agreement as a new
regulation or rule. Negotiated rulemaking has been used--sometimes
successfully, sometimes unsuccessful--by other Federal agencies, and it
is time that this tool be made available in the fisheries management
process.
The first bill that I have introduced today gives the Secretary of
Commerce explicit authority to use negotiated rulemaking to develop
fishery management plans or plan amendments. Under the Magnuson Act,
the Secretary can only submit management plans or plan amendments under
limited circumstances which preclude his flexibility in using this
important tool effectively. Also, negotiated rulemaking is specifically
used to develop rules, but fishery management plans are not technically
rules. My bill removes these potential obstacles and clears the way for
the Secretary to use this dispute resolution tool on controversial
issues.
The second bill directs the Secretary to use negotiated rulemaking in
the specific case of the New England groundfish fishery. Alternative
dispute resolution is used more and more commonly in lieu of the
traditional adversarial regulatory process, and I believe that it
should be tried in the case of the New England groundfish issue.
These bills do not directly affect any existing fisheries management
programs, or impose new management measures. They only offer an
alternative route for devising plans that will restore fish stocks off
the coast of New England and other parts of the country. They could
lead to new management measures that not only do a better job of
rebuilding fish stocks, but do so in a manner that minimizes the
economic impact on fishermen and coastal communities, and in a manner
that gains the confidence and support of most fishermen. Surely, given
the extremely high stakes in an area like New England these days, we
must explore every opportunity, every possibility, for achieving such
critically important results.
______
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 433. A bill to regulate handgun ammunition, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
the ammunition safety act of 1995
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, no gun works without a bullet. Yet
for no good reason, Congress in the early 1980's repealed laws that
regulate ammunition. And while a background check is required to stop
felons from purchasing guns, no such background check is required to
stop them from buying ammunition for the guns they may already have.
In the meantime, bullets are getting meaner and more deadly. Law
enforcement officers know all too well of the danger they face each and
every time a gun is pointed at them.
Advances in technology only promise to make matters worse. When a
large percentage of gun-related deaths involve handguns, and a large
percentage of gun related deaths is accidental, it is insane for the
public to fear the creation of new, more destructive bullets.
The fact is 157 police officers and State troopers were killed in
this country last year. Five lost their lives in my home State of
Massachusetts.
And more than 200 people die from the accidental use of handguns
every year. In 1992 alone, 233 accidental deaths occurred because of
handguns. This included 6 babies, 36 kids under the age of 14, and 8
senior citizens, 2 of whom were over the age of 80.
In light of these sad and disturbing facts, there is no good reason
to have ever more dangerous bullets on the market. And there is every
good reason to keep off our streets and out of our homes bullets that
supply handguns with the destructive power of assault weapons.
That is why the Ammunition Safety Act of 1995 does two things: it
reestablishes reasonable regulations for the sale of handgun
ammunition, and it outlaws all exceedingly destructive handgun
ammunition--whether or not such ammo has been invented yet--by
expanding and updating the ban on armor-piercing handgun ammunition.
This bill would provide a weapon for law enforcement to crack down on
crime and would make ordinary people safer from handgun violence and
accidental shootings. The bill accomplishes these goals in three steps.
First, the bill reinstates and strengthens ammunition control
language that Congress repealed during the Reagan era. It would require
dealers of handgun ammunition to be licensed by the Federal Government.
It would restrict interstate sale and transportation of handgun
ammunition to licensed dealers. And it would double the maximum
penalties for sale to and for possession of handgun ammunition by
felons and persons under age 21.
Second, the bill would apply Brady bill provisions to handgun
ammunition. To
prevent the sale of handgun ammunition to felons, once the nationwide,
instantaneous background check the Brady bill created is in place,
every purchaser of ammunition will have to pass a background check
before ammunition could be sold to him or her. These regulations would
be a vital tool to law enforcement in investigating crime, and would
provide equity to a system that currently monitors and restricts the
flow of guns, but--inexplicably--not of ammunition.
Third, the bill expands the definition of illegal armor-piercing
handgun ammunition to include any new conceivable kind of armor-
piercing bullet. The bill establishes a new method to accomplish this
goal.
To date, no law has been able to effectively ban all armor-piercing
bullets. You can't ban what you can't define because vague laws are
constitutionally void--and definitions to date have failed to cover all
armor-piercing bullets. All that existing law does is ban bullets based
on the materials of which they are made--consequently, bullets made of
hard metals are illegal--in the hope that this definition will blanket
most armor-piercing bullets. But the existing composition-based
definition fails to prevent the sale of certain bullets that pierce
armor--like large lead bullets that aren't intended for handguns but
can be used in them--or the invention of new armor-piercing bullets--
for example, a plastic bullet hard enough to pierce armor.
This bill calls on the Treasury Department to define armor-piercing
bullets not by what they are but by what they are not. Fulfilling this
new responsibility would entail four steps.
First, within 1 year, the Treasury Department is charged with
determining a standard test to ascertain the destructive capacity of
any and all bullets. This will probably result in something along the
lines of a rating system equal to the width times the depth of the hole
a projectile bores in a block of gelatin when it is shot with no extra
powder from a standard Colt .45 at a distance of 10 feet.
Second, utilizing this destructive rating test, the Treasury
Department would then determine a rating threshold which would be the
rating of the least destructive bullet to pierce today's standard body
armor.
Third, all manufacturers of bullets for sale in the United States
would be
[[Page
S2827]] required to cover the costs incurred by the Treasury
Department in testing and determining the destructive rating of every
existing bullet available on the market.
Fourth, this bill would make it illegal to manufacture, sell, import,
use, or possess any bullet--existing or newly invented--that has a
destructive rating equal to or higher than the armor-piercing
threshold. This would be in addition to the existing composition-based
definition.
This bill contains reasonable exemptions. Those bullets exclusively
manufactured for law enforcement would be exempt; so would be those
bullets designed for sporting purposes that Congress specifically
exempts by law; and those bullets that are proven by their manufacturer
at its expense to have a destructive rating below the armor-piercing
threshold.
By setting the legal standard at the armor-piercing threshold, all
armor-piercing bullets would be illegal. And there is an additional
advantage to setting a legal threshold in this fashion: The threshold
would ban more than armor-piercing bullets. It would ban any new, sick,
perverse bullet that has yet to be invented that explodes on impact,
that turns to shrapnel, that does things today's technology cannot yet
fathom, or that by any other means is exceptionally destructive.
Setting a legal standard this way draws a hard and fast line between
those bullets currently on the market and future bullets that do more
damage than we can imagine today. This bills says that America is
satisfied that the bullets of today are dangerous enough, and America
will tolerate no greater likelihood of accidental death as a result of
new bullets.
This bill recognizes the fact that regulating only weapons is naive.
Among other reasons, guns last centuries, but ammunition has a shelf-
life of not much more than 20 years. Felons who want to kill will
always be able to find guns, but have to come out of the woodwork to
purchase ammunition. When they do, this bill will be there to stop
them.
Of course, felons can make bullets at home, but it isn't easy, it
isn't cheap, and it isn't safe. Mr. President, I recognize that there
is a limit to what the Government can do to stop gun violence and
accidental death. But today, the Government is shirking its
responsibility. This bill is a vital first step toward ensuring that
the Government does what is necessary to save lives.
The law enforcement community and the public will never again have to
react to advertisements like the one for the infamous Rhino bullet.
This add states:
The Rhino inflicts a wound of 8 inches in diameter. Each of
these fragments becomes lethal shrapnel and is hurled into
vital organs, lungs, circulatory system components, the heart
and other tissues. The wound channel is catastrophic. * * *
Death is nearly instantaneous.
If this bill is enacted, opportunistic manufacturers like the man who
created the Rhino will have nothing to gain from advertising the
dramatic innovations of their bullets. If an advertisement claims that
a new bullet is unusually destructive, the public will know that the
advertisement is either an outright lie or that the product is illegal.
Either way, the public will know in advance that no such bullet will
ever hit the street, and the public will have no cause for hysteria.
When this bill becomes law, no new bullets that are more dangerous
than those of today will make it to market. When this bill becomes law,
those bullets that are on the market won't end up in the wrong hands.
This bill is a solid step toward returning sanity and safety to our
Nation's streets and household. The Government has no greater
responsibility than to work toward this goal.
I welcome the support of colleagues who share my concerns, as many
do. I urge them to join me in sponsoring this legislation.
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. 433
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 ``Ammunition Safety Act of
1995''.
SEC. 2. DEALERS OF AMMUNITION.
(a) Definition.--Section 921(a)(11)(A) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearms''.
(b) Licensing.--Section 923(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``or
importing or manufacturing ammunition'' and inserting ``or
importing, manufacturing, or dealing in ammunition''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' the last place
it appears;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by inserting the following new subparagraph:
``(C) in ammunition other than ammunition for destructive
devices, $10 per year.''.
(c) Unlawful Acts.--Section 922(a)(1)(A) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by inserting ``or ammunition'' after ``firearms''; and
(ii) by inserting ``or ammunition'' after ``firearm''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or licensed
manufacturer'' and inserting ``licensed manufacturer, or
licensed dealer'';
(2) in paragraph (2), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by inserting ``or ammunition'' after ``firearm'';
(3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearm'' the first place it appears;
(4) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearm'' the first place it appears; and
(5) in paragraph (9), by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearms''.
(d) Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``1 year'' and
inserting ``2 years''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``1 year'' and inserting ``2
years''; and
(ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``10 years'' and inserting
``20 years''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(o) Except to the extent a greater minimum sentence is
otherwise provided, any person at least 18 years of age who
violates section 922(g) shall be subject to--
``(1) twice the maximum punishment authorized by this
subsection; and
``(2) at least twice any term of supervised release.''.
(e) Application of Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to
Transfer of Ammunition.--Section 922(t) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearm'' each place it appears.
SEC. 3. REGULATION OF ARMOR PIERCING AND NEW TYPES OF
DESTRUCTIVE AMMUNITION.
(a) Testing of Ammunition.--Section 921(a)(17) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (D), as added by section
2(e)(2), as subparagraph (E); and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraph:
``(D)(i) Notwithstanding subchapter II of chapter 5 of
title 5, United States Code, not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary shall--
``(I) establish uniform standards for testing and rating
the destructive capacity of projectiles capable of being used
in handguns;
``(II) utilizing the standards established pursuant to
subclause (I), establish performance-based standards to
define the rating of `armor piercing ammunition' based on the
rating at which the projectiles pierce armor; and
``(III) at the expense of the ammunition manufacturer
seeking to sell a particular type of ammunition, test and
rate the destructive capacity of the ammunition utilizing the
testing, rating, and performance-based standards established
under subclauses (I) and (II).
``(ii) The term `armor piercing ammunition' shall include
any projectile determined to have a destructive capacity
rating higher than the rating threshold established under
subclause (II), in addition to the composition-based
determination of subparagraph (B).
``(iii) The Congress may exempt specific ammunition
designed for sporting purposes from the definition of `armor
piercing ammunition'.''.
(b) Prohibition.--Section 922(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7)--
(A) by striking ``or import'' and inserting ``, import,
possess, or use'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'';
(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) the manufacture, importation, or use of any
projectile that has been proven, by testing performed at the
expense of the manufacturer of the projectile, to have a
lower rating threshold than armor piercing ammunition.''; and
(2) in paragraph (8)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'';
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
[[Page
S2828]] (C) by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) the manufacture, importation, or use of any
projectile that has been proven, by testing performed at the
expense of the manufacturer of the projectile, to have a
lower rating threshold than armor piercing
ammunition.''.
______
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 434. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase
the deductibility of business meal expenses for individuals who are
subject to Federal limitation on hours of service; to the Committee on
Finance.
the business meal deduction fairness act of 1995
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in 1993, the 103d Congress took a
crucial and difficult stand on the deficit. In August of that year we
passed the omnibus budget reconciliation bill. I am proud to stand here
today and say that that legislation has helped to produce falling
deficits and sustained economic growth.
As my colleagues know, I am one of this body's strongest advocates
for deficit reduction. I attribute much of my deep commitment to this
goal to my days in business. As a businessman, I learned that you must
balance your books and live within your means. I also learned that you
must treat people fairly, and admit when you make a mistake. I have
come to the floor today to once again acknowledge that a mistake was
made in the 1993 reconciliation bill; a mistake which must be
corrected.
During consideration of the reconciliation bill, I opposed tax
increases on working middle- and lower-income Americans. However, in
fighting to eliminate increases in broad taxes on middle- and lower-
income Americans, Congress overlooked a provision which places a hidden
tax on those hardworking Americans who work in the transportation
sector. It is for this reason that I rise today to reintroduce the
business meal deduction fairness bill.
Included in the 1993 reconciliation bill was a provision which
lowered the deductible portion of business meals and entertainment
expenses from 80 to 50 percent. On the surface, this seems only a tax
on those rich enough to spend their lunchtimes in luxury restaurants
and their nighttimes on luxury yachts. But contrary to popular belief,
the business meal deduction is not only used by lobbyists and fat cats
for three-martini lunches. Due to regulations limiting travel hours,
many transportation workers must eat out. That means the reduced
business meal deduction is a tax on workers who have no control over
the length of their trips, the amount of time they must rest during a
delivery, or, in many cases, the places they can stop to eat.
Let me provide you with a brief example to illustrate my point. The
average truck driver earns approximately $30,000 a year. The reduced
deduction will cost that driver between $750 and $1,000 per year. This
is just one of many examples I could give to demonstrate the burden
this change has placed on hard-working, middle-income Americans. The
legislation I am introducing today, will lift this burden and restore
some common sense to the tax code.
Mr. President, the business meal deduction fairness bill repeals the
hidden tax created last year by restoring the business meal deduction
to 80 percent for those individuals covered by the Department of
Transportation hours-of-service limit. This legislation is simple,
straightforward, and most importantly, fair.
Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues of a similar bill
we worked on to correct another mistake which hurt tens of thousands of
hard-working, middle-income Americans. As my colleagues remember, the
1990 deficit reduction bill imposed a surtax on specific luxury items.
At the time, it was argued that the surtax would only affect the
wealthiest segment of society. However, after it went into effect, it
became clear that, instead of paying the tax, the wealthy decided not
to buy the new boat or the diamond ring. As a result, the middle- and
lower-income Americans producing and selling those luxury items ended
up bearing the burden of the tax through lost wages and jobs.
Once it was apparent that the luxury tax was not achieving its
intended goal, I began working with a number of my colleagues to repeal
it. Fortunately, we were successful in getting a repeal in the 1993
reconciliation bill. Unfortunately, far too many people were hurt by
this mistake because we did not correct it quickly enough. We cannot
let that happen again. Therefore I am requesting the support and
assistance of my colleagues to ensure that the business meal deduction
fairness bill becomes law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
a copy of my legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 434
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INCREASED DEDUCTIBILITY OF BUSINESS MEAL EXPENSES
FOR INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LIMITATIONS
ON HOURS OF SERVICE.
(a) In General.--Section 274(n) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and
entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Special rule for individuals subject to federal
limitations on hours of service.--In the case of any expenses
for food or beverages consumed by an individual during, or
incident to, any period of duty which is subject to the hours
of service limitations of the Department of Transportation,
paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting `80 percent'
for `50 percent'.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1994.
______
By Mr. FAIRCLOTH:
S. 435. A bill to provide for the elimination of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
legislation to abolish hud
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce
legislation that will abolish the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Mr. President, HUD was created in 1965. When it was created, the
purpose of this Department was to revitalize our urban areas and
provide more housing for America.
Mr. President, in short, HUD has been a collosal failure. Since 1965,
HUD has spent hundreds of billions of dollars--that adjusted to
inflation--probably exceeds a trillion dollars. Yet today, despite this
massive spending, our Nation's urban areas are more decayed and more
dangerous today than ever. Homelessness, hardly a problem 30 years ago,
is now a major concern.
Public housing has been a disaster and home ownership is down.
Solving these problems was supposed to be HUD's mission. In each, it
has failed miserably.
Imagine if we applied a performance standard like this to other
Federal agencies. Suppose that when we created NASA with the purpose of
putting a man on the Moon, that 30 years later, they still had not done
it. We might consider abolishing them. That is exactly what we should
do with HUD because they failed to accomplish their mission.
Suppose that instead of creating HUD, we had given a trillion dollars
to an entrepreneur like Bill Gates. Do you think our inner cities would
be any worse off, or do you think that they would be more livable
places today? I think the answer is clear.
Take Fannie Mae for example. Fannie Mae plans to spend $1 trillion on
affordable housing before the end of the decade. The plan will finance
homes for 10 million people. This would provide a home to one in three
renters in America. This plan, however, unlike HUD, won't cost American
taxpayers one cent, and yet it will provide homes for millions of
Americans.
Mr. President, I have no faith that HUD can be reinvented. Thirty
years of failure is too much. Since the November 8 election, HUD
Secretary Henry Cisneros has put on a masterful public relations plan
to save his Department. I for one am not fooled. If he really believed
in what he was doing, he would have done it 2 years ago.
Most importantly, what are the savings from the Cisneros plan? There
are none. The only clearly identified savings will amount to one-half
of 1 percent over 5 years. Mr. President, let me repeat that, the total
savings in the Cisneros plan amount to only one-half of 1 percent over
5 years.
[[Page
S2829]] Of course, there are promises of more savings, but
they are just that--promises.
Actually, if you look at the projected outlays by HUD in the fiscal
year 1996 budget for the years 1995-99, spending is $3 billion more
than was projected in last year's budget. Yes, that's right, spending
will actually increase despite the reorganization.
Furthermore, my favorite line from the President's budget is on page
190. It is a chart about HUD's program consolidation. It says:
``Net impact, HUD consolidations''--spending of $29.4 billion in 1995
to $30.3 billion in 1996.
Yes, that's right. Spending will actually go up by $1 billion because
of HUD's consolidations--not down.
The Wall Street Journal reported on February 15, 1995, that HUD's
projected savings may have been oversold, and that down at HUD they
knew this before they submitted their plan to Congress.
For these reasons, I am introducing a bill to abolish HUD. The bill
will abolish HUD, effective January 1, 1998. The bill will direct the
Secretary to make one housing block grant available to States and
localities; transform all rental assistance into vouchers; and make FHA
a Government-controlled corporation with income targeting and risk
sharing.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. McCain, and Mr.
Daschle):
S. 436. A bill to improve the economic conditions and supply of
housing in native American communities by creating the Native American
Financial Services Organization, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Indian Affairs.
native american financial services organization act
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
entitled the Native American Financial Services Organization Act. I am
pleased to add my distinguished colleagues, the chairman and vice-
chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senators McCain and Inouye,
and Senator Daschle, as cosponsors of this important legislation.
Mr. President, there is a continued need for assistance to improve
the housing conditions that exist in many Indian reservation
communities, Alaska Native villages, and native Hawaiian communities.
Statistics from the Bureau of Indian Affairs estimated in 1993 that as
many as 90,000 native American families were in need of improved
housing and nearly 50,000 families need new homes.
Further, a study completed by the Commission on American Indian,
Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing, found that housing
shortages and deplorable living conditions are at crisis proportions in
many native American communities. In its study the commission
documented several obstacles that stand between Indian people and
affordable, adequate, and available housing.
The Commission found there is currently little, if any, conventional
lending available to native people seeking to purchase a home.
In addition, many Indian housing authorities lack the expertise to
manage, coordinate, and maintain viable programs.
And importantly, tribal governments have had to rely primarily on
Federal Government grant and loan programs to finance housing and
economic development projects.
As a result of the study, the Commission recommended the creation of
an entity that could serve as an intermediary financing institution
with the authority to package mortgage loans, provide technical
assistance, and serve as a clearinghouse of information for alternative
financing programs.
Mr. President, the Native American Financial Services Organization
Act is the culmination of extensive deliberations between officials
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of
Treasury, the USDA, members of my staff, and staff of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs. The purpose of this legislation is to
create a financial infrastructure for commercial financing
opportunities by and for Indian people. The primary mechanism that will
bridge Indian tribes with the commercial lending markets will be the
creation of a Native American Financial Services Organization.
The Native American Financial Services Organization would establish a
limited Government-chartered corporation. A Federal grant would
capitalize the federally chartered organization, which would cease to
exist upon a designated date. At that point the charter would become a
private corporation.
More specifically, the legislation is designed to:
First, establish and organize native American community lending
institutions, that will be called Native American Financial
Institutions. These lending institutions could be any type of financial
institution, including community banks, credit unions and saving banks,
that together, could provide a wide range of financial services;
Second, develop and provide financial expertise and technical
assistance to the Native American Financial Institutions, including
methods of underwriting, securing, and selling mortgage and small
commercial and consumer loans; and
Third, develop and provide specialized technical assistance on how to
overcome barriers to primary mortgage lending on native American lands,
including issues related to trust lands, discrimination, and
inapplicability of standard underwriting criteria.
Importantly, this legislation will work in conjunction with the
Community Development Financial Institutions [CDFI] fund established in
the Reigle Community Development Banking and Regulatory Improvement
Act, signed into law by the President last year. Under a cooperative
agreement with the CDFI fund, this legislation will provide technical
assistance and other services to Native American Financial
Institutions.
This week, Secretary Cisneros testified before the Committee on
Indian Affairs. In his remarks, he stated that this legislation will
``neither conflict nor duplicate the functions of CDFI or any other
Government-sponsored enterprise, but is intended to supplement the
efforts of existing organizations.''
In short, the Native American Financial Services Organization would
help provide financial independence to the native American community
and would begin to address the housing deficiencies by working to
attract private capital into the Indian housing market.
Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks by making
reference to a letter I recently received from the chairperson of the
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, that I believe illustrates the great necessity
for this legislation. The letter states that the shortage of housing in
the community is so severe that among the approximately 1,500 tribal
members, 400 are without a permanent home and that a waiting list for
new housing approaches 300 people.
It is for this reason, that I believe the Native American Financial
Services Organization is much needed. Statistics such as this merit the
need for an innovative financing mechanism the Native American
Financial Services Organization can provide.
Mr. President, in closing, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
printed in the Record immediately following the full text of my
statement and that the statements of Senators McCain and Inouye, who
are both original cosponsors, appear in the Record immediately
following the bill.
I also ask unanimous consent to include letters from the Ute Mountain
Ute Tribe, the Native American Indian Housing Council, and HUD's
Secretary Henry Cisneros to be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 436
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Native
American Financial Services Organization Act of 1995''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
TITLE I--STATEMENT OF POLICY; DEFINITIONS
Sec. 101. Policy.
Sec. 102. Statement of purposes.
Sec. 103. Definitions.
[[Page
S2830]] TITLE II--NATIVE AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
ORGANIZATION
Sec. 201. Establishment of the organization.
Sec. 202. Authorized assistance and service functions.
Sec. 203. Native American lending services grant.
Sec. 204. Audits.
Sec. 205. Annual housing and economic development reports.
Sec. 206. Advisory Council.
TITLE III--CAPITALIZATION OF ORGANIZATION
Sec. 301. Capitalization of the organization.
Sec. 302. Obligations and securities of the organization.
Sec. 303. Limit on total assets and liabilities.
TITLE IV--REGULATION, EXAMINATION, AND REPORTS
Sec. 401. Regulation, examination, and reports.
Sec. 402. Authority of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
TITLE V--FORMATION OF NEW CORPORATION
Sec. 501. Formation of new corporation.
Sec. 502. Adoption and approval of merger plan.
Sec. 503. Consummation of merger.
Sec. 504. Transition.
Sec. 505. Effect of merger.
TITLE VI--AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 601. Authorization of appropriations for Native American Financial
Institutions.
Sec. 602. Authorization of appropriations for organization.
TITLE I--STATEMENT OF POLICY; DEFINITIONS
SEC. 101. POLICY.
(a) In General.--Based upon the findings and
recommendations of the Commission on American Indian, Alaska
Native and Native Hawaiian Housing established by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of
1989, the Congress has determined that--
(1) housing shortages and deplorable living conditions are
at crisis proportions in Native American communities
throughout the United States; and
(2) the lack of private capital to finance housing and
economic development for Native Americans and Native American
communities seriously exacerbates these housing shortages and
poor living conditions.
(b) Policy of the United States To Address Native American
Housing Shortage.--It is the policy of the United States to
improve the economic conditions and supply of housing in
Native American communities throughout the United States by
creating the Native American Financial Services Organization
to address the housing shortages and poor living conditions
described in subsection (a).
SEC. 102. STATEMENT OF PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to help serve the mortgage and other lending needs of
Native Americans by assisting in the establishment and
organization of Native American Financial Institutions,
developing and providing financial expertise and technical
assistance to Native American Financial Institutions,
including assistance concerning overcoming--
(A) barriers to lending with respect to Native American
lands; and
(B) the past and present impact of discrimination;
(2) to promote access to mortgage credit in Native American
communities in the United States by increasing the liquidity
of financing for housing and improving the distribution of
investment capital available for such financing, primarily
through Native American Financial Institutions;
(3) to promote the infusion of public capital into Native
American communities throughout the United States and to
direct sources of public and private capital into housing and
economic development for Native American individuals and
families, primarily through Native American Financial
Institutions; and
(4) to provide ongoing assistance to the secondary market
for residential mortgages and economic development loans for
Native American individuals and families, Native American
Financial Institutions, and other borrowers by increasing the
liquidity of such investments and improving the distribution
of investment capital available for such financing.
SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Alaska native.--The term ``Alaska Native'' has the
meaning given the term ``Native'' by section 3(b) of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
(2) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Board of Directors
of the Organization established under section 201(a)(2).
(3) Chairperson.--The term ``Chairperson'' means the
chairperson of the Board.
(4) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Advisory
Council established under section 206.
(5) Designated merger date.--The term ``designated merger
date'' means the specific calendar date and time of day
designated by the Board under section 502(b).
(6) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(7) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund established under
section 104 of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994.
(8) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any
Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or
community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or
village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act that is recognized as
eligible for the special programs and services provided by
the Federal Government to Indians because of their status as
Indians.
(9) Merger plan.--The term ``merger plan'' means the plan
of merger adopted by the Board under section 502(a).
(10) Native american.--The term ``Native American'' means
any member of an Indian tribe.
(11) Native american financial institution.--The term
``Native American Financial Institution'' means a person
(other than an individual) that--
(A) qualifies as a community development financial
institution under section 103 of the Riegle Community
Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994;
(B) satisfies the requirements established by the Riegle
Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
and the Fund for applicants for assistance from the Fund;
(C) demonstrates a special interest and expertise in
serving the primary economic development and mortgage lending
needs of the Native American community; and
(D) demonstrates that the person has the endorsement of the
Native American community that the person intends to serve.
(12) Native american lender.--The term ``Native American
lender'' means a Native American governing body, Native
American housing authority, or other Native American
Financial Institution that acts as a primary mortgage or
economic development lender in a Native American community.
(13) New corporation.--The term ``new corporation'' means
the corporation formed in accordance with title V.
(14) Nonqualifying mortgage loan.--The term ``nonqualifying
mortgage loan'' means a mortgage loan that is determined by
the Organization, on the basis of the quality, type, class,
or principal amount of the loan, to fail to meet the purchase
standards of the Federal National Mortgage Association or the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation in effect on September
30, 1994.
(15) Organization.--The term ``Organization'' means the
N
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - February 16, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
S2823-S2889]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 427. A bill to amend various acts to establish offices of women's
health within certain agencies, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
the women's health offices act of 1995
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
to focus attention on the special health needs of women by establishing
offices of Women's Health within the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Agency for Health Care
Policy and Research, the Health Resources and Services Administration,
and the Food and Drug Administration.
The directors of these offices of women's health will assess the
current level of activity regarding women's health within their
respective agencies, established short-range and long-range goals and
objectives for women's health, identify projects in women's health that
should be conducted or supported, consult with health professionals,
nongovernmental organizations, consumer organizations, and other
appropriate groups on their agency's women's health policies, and
coordinate agency activities on women's health.
Congress has already taken a first step in recognizing that women's
unique health needs should be addressed separately. In the 103d
Congress, the 1993 NIH revitalization bill established an Office of
Woman's Health within the National Institutes of Health. We must build
upon that progress in the 104th Congress.
For too long, women have been systematically excluded from medical
research studies, received less aggressive treatment for heart disease
and other serious ailments, and lacked access to important preventive
services. By statutorily establishing offices of Women's Health in
Federal agencies which research and disseminate information about
health, we ensure that women's needs and concerns will be given the
consideration they deserve.
______
By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Pell,
and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 428. A bill to improve the management of land and water for fish
and wildlife purposes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
the fish and wildlife management act of 1995
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I read recently that ``the best thing
we have learned from nearly 500 years of contact with the American
wilderness is restraint,'' the need to stay our hand and preserve our
precious environment
[[Page
S2824]] and future resources rather than destroy them for
momentary gain.
With this in mind, I offer legislation today that designates the
coastal plain of Alaska as wilderness area. At the moment this area is
a national wildlife refuge, one of our beautiful and last frontiers. By
changing its designation, Mr. President, we can protect it forever.
And I can't stress how important this is.
The Alaskan wilderness area is not only a critical part of our
earth's ecosystem--the last remaining region where the complete
spectrum of arctic and subarctic ecosystems comes together--but it is a
vital part of our national consciousness. It is a place we can cherish
and visit for our soul's good. It offers us a sense of well-being and
promises that not all dreams have been dreamt.
The Alaskan wilderness is a place of outstanding wildlife, wilderness
and recreation, a land dotted by beautiful forests, dramatic peaks and
glaciers, gentle foothills, and undulating tundra. It is untamed--rich
with caribou, polar bear, grizzly, wolves, musk oxen, Dall sheep,
moose, and hundreds of thousands of birds--snow geese, tundra swans,
black brant, and more. In all, about 165 species use the coastal plain.
It is an area of intense wildlife activity. Animals give birth, nurse
and feed their young,
and set about the critical business of fueling up for winters of
unspeakable severity.
The fact is, Mr. President, there are parts of this Earth where it is
good that man can come only as a visitor. These are the pristine lands
that belong to all of us. And perhaps most importantly, these are the
lands that belong to our future.
Considering the many reasons why this bill is so important, I came
across the words of the great western writer, Wallace Stegner.
Referring to the land we are trying to protect with this legislation,
he wrote that it is ``the most splendid part of the American habitat;
it is also the most fragile.'' And we cannot enter ``it carrying habits
that [are] inappropriate and expectations that [are] surely
excessive.''
The expectations for oil exploration in this pristine region are
excessive. There is only a one-in-five chance of finding any
economically recoverable oil in the refuge. And if oil is found, the
daily production of 400,000 barrels per day is less than .7 percent of
world production--far too small to meet American's energy needs for
more than a few months.
In other words, Mr. President, there is much more to lose than might
ever be gained by tearing this frontier apart. Already, some 90 percent
of Alaska's entire North Slope is open to oil and gas leasing and
development. Let's keep this area as the jewel amid the stones.
What this bill offers--and what we need--is a brand of pragmatic
environmentalism, an environmental stewardship that protects our
important wilderness areas and precious resources, while carefully and
judiciously weighing the short-term desires or our country against its
long-term needs.
together, we need to embrace environmental policies that are workable
and pragmatic, policies based on the desire to make the world a better
place for us and for future generations. I believe a strong economy,
liberty, and progress are possible only when we have a healthy planet--
only when resources are managed through wise stewardship--only when an
environmental ethic thrives among nations and only when people have
frontiers that are untrammeled and able to host their fondest
dreams.
______
By Mr. BRYAN (for himself and Mr. Reid):
S. 429. A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to allow
commercial nuclear utilities that have contracts with the Secretary of
Energy under section 302 of that act to receive credits to offset the
cost of storing spent fuel that the Secretary is unable to accept for
storage on and after January 31, 1998; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
the independent spent nuclear fuel storage act of 1995
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce again legislation
I have introduced in each of the past two Congresses, the Independent
Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Act.
As many of my colleagues are aware, since 1987, contrary to Nevada
State law, and against the wishes of the vast majority of Nevadans,
Nevada has been the sole site considered for the ultimate disposal of
the United States' high-level nuclear waste.
Today, in spite of the expenditure of billions of dollars, the Yucca
Mountain site is no closer to accepting waste from our Nation's nuclear
reactors than it was 13 years ago, when the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982 was enacted.
I strongly oppose the purely political decision made by Congress in
1987 to identify Yucca Mountain as the sole site to be characterized
for a permanent repository. Now that the permanent repository program
is an obvious failure, with the Department of Energy saying there is no
hope of opening any type of storage facility before 2010, the nuclear
power industry and its allies have conceived a new strategy.
Contrary to all objective scientific judgment, and general common
sense, the nuclear industry's new effort is to instruct the DOE to
build an interim storage facility at the Yucca Mountain site. As
offensive as the 1987 act, commonly referred to in Nevada as the
``screw Nevada bill,'' was, the new effort of the nuclear power
industry is even more of an outrage to Nevadans.
The nuclear power industry's newest proposal is nothing less than a
direct assault on the health and safety of Nevadans. Frustrated by its
inability to overcome the insurmountable safety concerns raised in
relation to a permanent repository, the industry is now seeking to
circumvent the objections of credible, objective scientists to a
permanent repository at Yucca Mountain.
I am convinced, like many others, that any centralized interim
storage facility will become the de facto permanent repository.
Funding for an interim storage program will necessarily come at the
expense of the permanent repository program. The expression ``out of
sight, out of mind'' could not be truer. Once the waste is removed from
the reactor sites, the nuclear industry's commitment to finding a
permanent solution to the waste problem will vanish. And since it is
the nuclear power industry's obsession with moving this waste off the
reactor sites that drives the Federal Civilian Nuclear Waste Program,
the Federal commitment to permanent storage will vanish as well.
The nuclear power industry as much as concedes this--every version of
their interim storage legislation I am aware of provides for licensing
the interim site for 100 years, subject to renewal.
The permanent repository program is a failure. The nuclear power
industry and its advocates, including the Department of Energy, have
created a program which was bound to fail. Careless science, poor
management, unreasonable deadlines and timetables, and the ill-fated
decision to pursue only one site for characterization, thus leaving the
program with no options or alternatives, have all contributed to the
failure of the program.
The industry's suggestion to build an interim storage facility in
Nevada is simply one more in a long series of irresponsible and ill-
founded proposals by the nuclear power industry to solve their high
level waste problem at the expense of the health and safety of all
Nevadans.
I will concede that the nuclear power industry has a waste problem. I
strongly object, however, to the industry's solution, which is simply
to send their problem, their waste to Nevada.
The question arises, do we need a centralized interim storage site?
If we are truly talking about interim storage, the answer is obviously
no.
A few nuclear utilities, looking at the future uncertainty of the
Federal nuclear waste program, have done the responsible thing and
built interim dry cask storage at the reactor site. In dry cask
storage, spent fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor pools and
stored in various systems of canisters, casks, and concrete shells.
I recently visited one of these dry cask storage facilities, at
Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, and, I must say, I was impressed by the
simplicity and efficiency of the spent fuel management operation. It is
a responsible action taken by the industry, and I commend their example
to others. The Calvert
[[Page
S2825]] Cliffs dry cask storage program provides a reasonable
solution to the interim storage problem, the spent fuel is stored on
site, where security and safety precautions already exist, until a safe
plan for the long-term disposition of the waste can be finalized.
A centralized interim storage facility is simply not needed, or
desirable. The original Nuclear Waste Policy Act recognized this fact,
and placed restrictions on the DOE's authority to accept responsibility
for interim storage. The nuclear power industry, faced with the reality
of the failure to build a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, is
now engaged in yet another exercise of political muscle with one
purpose: to make Nevada the final destination for their toxic and
highly dangerous waste.
Even if we concede, which we do not, that there is a need for a
centralized interim storage facility, there is no defensible reason to
site the facility in Nevada. A simple look at a map easily shows that
Nevada is one of the least central sites to store nuclear waste. The
great majority of the reactor sites producing high-level waste are east
of the Mississippi--93 reactors out of the U.S. total of 118.
Shipping thousands of tons of high level waste to Nevada will create
dramatic threats to the safety of communities throughout the United
States. An analysis of one proposal supported by the nuclear power
industry reveals that interim storage in Nevada will require 15,000
shipments by rail and truck through 43 States to begin as early as 1998
and continue for 30 years.
Interim storage in Nevada is not the answer to the nuclear power
industry's waste problem. The responsible answer to the waste problem,
if the nuclear utilities choose to continue to run their reactors, is
on-site, dry cask storage.
Unfortunately, most nuclear utilities appear to be unwilling
to develop dry cask storage facilities for a variety of reasons,
both political and financial.
There is not much we can do about the local political opposition
faced by utilities. The utilities, and communities, that benefited from
the operation of the powerplant should bear responsibility for their
own waste. High-level waste storage is not popular, and there are
political costs to the utilities for living up to their
responsibilities.
Asking Nevada to solve the political problems in the communities they
serve places the nuclear utilities on completely indefensible ground.
The outright hypocrisy of the nuclear power industry's advocates, and
their shameless attempts to exert political influence to solve complex
scientific and environmental problems, has created an atmosphere of
complete distrust and antagonism for the industry in Nevada.
There are also financial barriers to on-site, dry cask storage.
Ratepayers have been making contributions to the nuclear waste trust
fund with the exception that the Federal Government will dispose of
their nuclear waste. I am somewhat sympathetic to the ratepayers'
concerns. The Federal disposal program is a failure.
The civilian nuclear waste program has been so poorly managed, and so
misguided, that Congress has had good reason not to release the full
balance of the trust fund to the program. The ratepayers deserve some
financial relief while the Federal Government attempts to meet its
obligations, and while the utilities invest the needed capital to store
their own waste.
The legislation I am introducing today recognizes the nuclear power
industry's need for interim storage, as well as the financial impact on
ratepayers caused by delays in the repository program. The legislation
provides credits against utilities' payments to the nuclear waste trust
fund for costs incurred for on-site, dry cask storage.
The legislation provides an equitable solution to a difficult
problem. It recognizes the financial contributions of the utilities'
ratepayers to the trust fund, and recognizes the reality that a
permanent repository will not be available to meet the needs of the
nuclear power industry.
Mr. President, together with their advocates in Congress and the
Department of Energy, the nuclear power industry has spared no expense
or effort in moving its waste to Nevada. I have attempted to fight the
industry at every turn.
I hope that Congress will not take the failure of the permanent
repository program as a signal to bow to the nuclear power industry
once again, and accelerate plans to store nuclear waste in Nevada, but
instead to take this opportunity to find an equitable solution to a
difficult problem which does not threaten the health and safety of
future generations of Nevadans.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation I am introducing
today.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 430. 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
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the
Guardianship Rights and Responsibilities Act of 1995, 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 considered 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 1995 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 this
bill.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 431. A bill to amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to prepare
fishery management plans and amendments to fishery management plans
under negotiated rulemaking procedures, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S. 432. A bill to amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act to require the Secretary of Commerce to prepare
conservation and management measures for the northeast multispecies--
groundfish--fishery under negotiated rulemaking procedures, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
negotiated rulemaking for fisheries legislation
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as many stories in the national
media have reported, the New England groundfish industry is now facing
the most difficult challenges in its long history. Scientists report
that once plentiful stocks of cod, haddock, flounder, and other fish
species have reached historic lows. In response to these stock
assessments, the New England Fishery Management Council has approved
severe restrictions on fishing that will probably force many fishermen
out of business. These restrictions include a 5-year program to cut
fishing efforts in half, mandatory use of large-mesh nets, a moratorium
on new entrants into the fishery, and the emergency closure of large
areas on the George's Bank fishing grounds off Massachusetts.
Most fishermen in Maine recognize that the groundfish stocks are low
and that effective conservation measures are needed to help rebuild the
fishery. But too many fishermen also believe that the specific program
approved by the council will not succeed at restoring groundfish
populations, and will place unnecessary economic burdens on
[[Page
S2826]] working fishermen. In their view, the council, despite
public hearings, dismissed too many of their recommendations despite
the fact that they and others before them have been fishing the waters
off New England for three centuries. In short, they have no support for
or confidence in the council-developed management program under which
they must operate.
The success of any regulatory program depends in large part on the
confidence of the regulated community that the action takes their views
into account, will achieve its ends, and is sensible and necessary. I
am introducing legislation today that aims to restore the confidence of
New England fishermen in the
credibility of the Federal fisheries management process by giving them
and other citizens with an interest in fisheries the ability to
participate directly in that process.
My bills bring the concept of negotiated rulemaking or regulatory
negotiation to fisheries management. The concept was established in
Federal law by the negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990. Under negotiated
rulemaking, representatives of all stakeholder groups involved in a
dispute negotiate directly on the regulatory solution with the aid of a
professional facilitator. It provides a collaborative, consensus-based
dispute resolution tool that agencies can use to develop potentially
controversial regulations. If the negotiating group can reach
consensus, then the agency can propose the agreement as a new
regulation or rule. Negotiated rulemaking has been used--sometimes
successfully, sometimes unsuccessful--by other Federal agencies, and it
is time that this tool be made available in the fisheries management
process.
The first bill that I have introduced today gives the Secretary of
Commerce explicit authority to use negotiated rulemaking to develop
fishery management plans or plan amendments. Under the Magnuson Act,
the Secretary can only submit management plans or plan amendments under
limited circumstances which preclude his flexibility in using this
important tool effectively. Also, negotiated rulemaking is specifically
used to develop rules, but fishery management plans are not technically
rules. My bill removes these potential obstacles and clears the way for
the Secretary to use this dispute resolution tool on controversial
issues.
The second bill directs the Secretary to use negotiated rulemaking in
the specific case of the New England groundfish fishery. Alternative
dispute resolution is used more and more commonly in lieu of the
traditional adversarial regulatory process, and I believe that it
should be tried in the case of the New England groundfish issue.
These bills do not directly affect any existing fisheries management
programs, or impose new management measures. They only offer an
alternative route for devising plans that will restore fish stocks off
the coast of New England and other parts of the country. They could
lead to new management measures that not only do a better job of
rebuilding fish stocks, but do so in a manner that minimizes the
economic impact on fishermen and coastal communities, and in a manner
that gains the confidence and support of most fishermen. Surely, given
the extremely high stakes in an area like New England these days, we
must explore every opportunity, every possibility, for achieving such
critically important results.
______
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 433. A bill to regulate handgun ammunition, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
the ammunition safety act of 1995
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, no gun works without a bullet. Yet
for no good reason, Congress in the early 1980's repealed laws that
regulate ammunition. And while a background check is required to stop
felons from purchasing guns, no such background check is required to
stop them from buying ammunition for the guns they may already have.
In the meantime, bullets are getting meaner and more deadly. Law
enforcement officers know all too well of the danger they face each and
every time a gun is pointed at them.
Advances in technology only promise to make matters worse. When a
large percentage of gun-related deaths involve handguns, and a large
percentage of gun related deaths is accidental, it is insane for the
public to fear the creation of new, more destructive bullets.
The fact is 157 police officers and State troopers were killed in
this country last year. Five lost their lives in my home State of
Massachusetts.
And more than 200 people die from the accidental use of handguns
every year. In 1992 alone, 233 accidental deaths occurred because of
handguns. This included 6 babies, 36 kids under the age of 14, and 8
senior citizens, 2 of whom were over the age of 80.
In light of these sad and disturbing facts, there is no good reason
to have ever more dangerous bullets on the market. And there is every
good reason to keep off our streets and out of our homes bullets that
supply handguns with the destructive power of assault weapons.
That is why the Ammunition Safety Act of 1995 does two things: it
reestablishes reasonable regulations for the sale of handgun
ammunition, and it outlaws all exceedingly destructive handgun
ammunition--whether or not such ammo has been invented yet--by
expanding and updating the ban on armor-piercing handgun ammunition.
This bill would provide a weapon for law enforcement to crack down on
crime and would make ordinary people safer from handgun violence and
accidental shootings. The bill accomplishes these goals in three steps.
First, the bill reinstates and strengthens ammunition control
language that Congress repealed during the Reagan era. It would require
dealers of handgun ammunition to be licensed by the Federal Government.
It would restrict interstate sale and transportation of handgun
ammunition to licensed dealers. And it would double the maximum
penalties for sale to and for possession of handgun ammunition by
felons and persons under age 21.
Second, the bill would apply Brady bill provisions to handgun
ammunition. To
prevent the sale of handgun ammunition to felons, once the nationwide,
instantaneous background check the Brady bill created is in place,
every purchaser of ammunition will have to pass a background check
before ammunition could be sold to him or her. These regulations would
be a vital tool to law enforcement in investigating crime, and would
provide equity to a system that currently monitors and restricts the
flow of guns, but--inexplicably--not of ammunition.
Third, the bill expands the definition of illegal armor-piercing
handgun ammunition to include any new conceivable kind of armor-
piercing bullet. The bill establishes a new method to accomplish this
goal.
To date, no law has been able to effectively ban all armor-piercing
bullets. You can't ban what you can't define because vague laws are
constitutionally void--and definitions to date have failed to cover all
armor-piercing bullets. All that existing law does is ban bullets based
on the materials of which they are made--consequently, bullets made of
hard metals are illegal--in the hope that this definition will blanket
most armor-piercing bullets. But the existing composition-based
definition fails to prevent the sale of certain bullets that pierce
armor--like large lead bullets that aren't intended for handguns but
can be used in them--or the invention of new armor-piercing bullets--
for example, a plastic bullet hard enough to pierce armor.
This bill calls on the Treasury Department to define armor-piercing
bullets not by what they are but by what they are not. Fulfilling this
new responsibility would entail four steps.
First, within 1 year, the Treasury Department is charged with
determining a standard test to ascertain the destructive capacity of
any and all bullets. This will probably result in something along the
lines of a rating system equal to the width times the depth of the hole
a projectile bores in a block of gelatin when it is shot with no extra
powder from a standard Colt .45 at a distance of 10 feet.
Second, utilizing this destructive rating test, the Treasury
Department would then determine a rating threshold which would be the
rating of the least destructive bullet to pierce today's standard body
armor.
Third, all manufacturers of bullets for sale in the United States
would be
[[Page
S2827]] required to cover the costs incurred by the Treasury
Department in testing and determining the destructive rating of every
existing bullet available on the market.
Fourth, this bill would make it illegal to manufacture, sell, import,
use, or possess any bullet--existing or newly invented--that has a
destructive rating equal to or higher than the armor-piercing
threshold. This would be in addition to the existing composition-based
definition.
This bill contains reasonable exemptions. Those bullets exclusively
manufactured for law enforcement would be exempt; so would be those
bullets designed for sporting purposes that Congress specifically
exempts by law; and those bullets that are proven by their manufacturer
at its expense to have a destructive rating below the armor-piercing
threshold.
By setting the legal standard at the armor-piercing threshold, all
armor-piercing bullets would be illegal. And there is an additional
advantage to setting a legal threshold in this fashion: The threshold
would ban more than armor-piercing bullets. It would ban any new, sick,
perverse bullet that has yet to be invented that explodes on impact,
that turns to shrapnel, that does things today's technology cannot yet
fathom, or that by any other means is exceptionally destructive.
Setting a legal standard this way draws a hard and fast line between
those bullets currently on the market and future bullets that do more
damage than we can imagine today. This bills says that America is
satisfied that the bullets of today are dangerous enough, and America
will tolerate no greater likelihood of accidental death as a result of
new bullets.
This bill recognizes the fact that regulating only weapons is naive.
Among other reasons, guns last centuries, but ammunition has a shelf-
life of not much more than 20 years. Felons who want to kill will
always be able to find guns, but have to come out of the woodwork to
purchase ammunition. When they do, this bill will be there to stop
them.
Of course, felons can make bullets at home, but it isn't easy, it
isn't cheap, and it isn't safe. Mr. President, I recognize that there
is a limit to what the Government can do to stop gun violence and
accidental death. But today, the Government is shirking its
responsibility. This bill is a vital first step toward ensuring that
the Government does what is necessary to save lives.
The law enforcement community and the public will never again have to
react to advertisements like the one for the infamous Rhino bullet.
This add states:
The Rhino inflicts a wound of 8 inches in diameter. Each of
these fragments becomes lethal shrapnel and is hurled into
vital organs, lungs, circulatory system components, the heart
and other tissues. The wound channel is catastrophic. * * *
Death is nearly instantaneous.
If this bill is enacted, opportunistic manufacturers like the man who
created the Rhino will have nothing to gain from advertising the
dramatic innovations of their bullets. If an advertisement claims that
a new bullet is unusually destructive, the public will know that the
advertisement is either an outright lie or that the product is illegal.
Either way, the public will know in advance that no such bullet will
ever hit the street, and the public will have no cause for hysteria.
When this bill becomes law, no new bullets that are more dangerous
than those of today will make it to market. When this bill becomes law,
those bullets that are on the market won't end up in the wrong hands.
This bill is a solid step toward returning sanity and safety to our
Nation's streets and household. The Government has no greater
responsibility than to work toward this goal.
I welcome the support of colleagues who share my concerns, as many
do. I urge them to join me in sponsoring this legislation.
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. 433
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 ``Ammunition Safety Act of
1995''.
SEC. 2. DEALERS OF AMMUNITION.
(a) Definition.--Section 921(a)(11)(A) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearms''.
(b) Licensing.--Section 923(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``or
importing or manufacturing ammunition'' and inserting ``or
importing, manufacturing, or dealing in ammunition''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' the last place
it appears;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by inserting the following new subparagraph:
``(C) in ammunition other than ammunition for destructive
devices, $10 per year.''.
(c) Unlawful Acts.--Section 922(a)(1)(A) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by inserting ``or ammunition'' after ``firearms''; and
(ii) by inserting ``or ammunition'' after ``firearm''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or licensed
manufacturer'' and inserting ``licensed manufacturer, or
licensed dealer'';
(2) in paragraph (2), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by inserting ``or ammunition'' after ``firearm'';
(3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearm'' the first place it appears;
(4) in paragraph (5), by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearm'' the first place it appears; and
(5) in paragraph (9), by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearms''.
(d) Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``1 year'' and
inserting ``2 years''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``1 year'' and inserting ``2
years''; and
(ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``10 years'' and inserting
``20 years''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(o) Except to the extent a greater minimum sentence is
otherwise provided, any person at least 18 years of age who
violates section 922(g) shall be subject to--
``(1) twice the maximum punishment authorized by this
subsection; and
``(2) at least twice any term of supervised release.''.
(e) Application of Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to
Transfer of Ammunition.--Section 922(t) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``or ammunition'' after
``firearm'' each place it appears.
SEC. 3. REGULATION OF ARMOR PIERCING AND NEW TYPES OF
DESTRUCTIVE AMMUNITION.
(a) Testing of Ammunition.--Section 921(a)(17) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (D), as added by section
2(e)(2), as subparagraph (E); and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraph:
``(D)(i) Notwithstanding subchapter II of chapter 5 of
title 5, United States Code, not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary shall--
``(I) establish uniform standards for testing and rating
the destructive capacity of projectiles capable of being used
in handguns;
``(II) utilizing the standards established pursuant to
subclause (I), establish performance-based standards to
define the rating of `armor piercing ammunition' based on the
rating at which the projectiles pierce armor; and
``(III) at the expense of the ammunition manufacturer
seeking to sell a particular type of ammunition, test and
rate the destructive capacity of the ammunition utilizing the
testing, rating, and performance-based standards established
under subclauses (I) and (II).
``(ii) The term `armor piercing ammunition' shall include
any projectile determined to have a destructive capacity
rating higher than the rating threshold established under
subclause (II), in addition to the composition-based
determination of subparagraph (B).
``(iii) The Congress may exempt specific ammunition
designed for sporting purposes from the definition of `armor
piercing ammunition'.''.
(b) Prohibition.--Section 922(a) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7)--
(A) by striking ``or import'' and inserting ``, import,
possess, or use'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'';
(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) the manufacture, importation, or use of any
projectile that has been proven, by testing performed at the
expense of the manufacturer of the projectile, to have a
lower rating threshold than armor piercing ammunition.''; and
(2) in paragraph (8)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'';
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
[[Page
S2828]] (C) by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) the manufacture, importation, or use of any
projectile that has been proven, by testing performed at the
expense of the manufacturer of the projectile, to have a
lower rating threshold than armor piercing
ammunition.''.
______
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 434. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase
the deductibility of business meal expenses for individuals who are
subject to Federal limitation on hours of service; to the Committee on
Finance.
the business meal deduction fairness act of 1995
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, in 1993, the 103d Congress took a
crucial and difficult stand on the deficit. In August of that year we
passed the omnibus budget reconciliation bill. I am proud to stand here
today and say that that legislation has helped to produce falling
deficits and sustained economic growth.
As my colleagues know, I am one of this body's strongest advocates
for deficit reduction. I attribute much of my deep commitment to this
goal to my days in business. As a businessman, I learned that you must
balance your books and live within your means. I also learned that you
must treat people fairly, and admit when you make a mistake. I have
come to the floor today to once again acknowledge that a mistake was
made in the 1993 reconciliation bill; a mistake which must be
corrected.
During consideration of the reconciliation bill, I opposed tax
increases on working middle- and lower-income Americans. However, in
fighting to eliminate increases in broad taxes on middle- and lower-
income Americans, Congress overlooked a provision which places a hidden
tax on those hardworking Americans who work in the transportation
sector. It is for this reason that I rise today to reintroduce the
business meal deduction fairness bill.
Included in the 1993 reconciliation bill was a provision which
lowered the deductible portion of business meals and entertainment
expenses from 80 to 50 percent. On the surface, this seems only a tax
on those rich enough to spend their lunchtimes in luxury restaurants
and their nighttimes on luxury yachts. But contrary to popular belief,
the business meal deduction is not only used by lobbyists and fat cats
for three-martini lunches. Due to regulations limiting travel hours,
many transportation workers must eat out. That means the reduced
business meal deduction is a tax on workers who have no control over
the length of their trips, the amount of time they must rest during a
delivery, or, in many cases, the places they can stop to eat.
Let me provide you with a brief example to illustrate my point. The
average truck driver earns approximately $30,000 a year. The reduced
deduction will cost that driver between $750 and $1,000 per year. This
is just one of many examples I could give to demonstrate the burden
this change has placed on hard-working, middle-income Americans. The
legislation I am introducing today, will lift this burden and restore
some common sense to the tax code.
Mr. President, the business meal deduction fairness bill repeals the
hidden tax created last year by restoring the business meal deduction
to 80 percent for those individuals covered by the Department of
Transportation hours-of-service limit. This legislation is simple,
straightforward, and most importantly, fair.
Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues of a similar bill
we worked on to correct another mistake which hurt tens of thousands of
hard-working, middle-income Americans. As my colleagues remember, the
1990 deficit reduction bill imposed a surtax on specific luxury items.
At the time, it was argued that the surtax would only affect the
wealthiest segment of society. However, after it went into effect, it
became clear that, instead of paying the tax, the wealthy decided not
to buy the new boat or the diamond ring. As a result, the middle- and
lower-income Americans producing and selling those luxury items ended
up bearing the burden of the tax through lost wages and jobs.
Once it was apparent that the luxury tax was not achieving its
intended goal, I began working with a number of my colleagues to repeal
it. Fortunately, we were successful in getting a repeal in the 1993
reconciliation bill. Unfortunately, far too many people were hurt by
this mistake because we did not correct it quickly enough. We cannot
let that happen again. Therefore I am requesting the support and
assistance of my colleagues to ensure that the business meal deduction
fairness bill becomes law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
a copy of my legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 434
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INCREASED DEDUCTIBILITY OF BUSINESS MEAL EXPENSES
FOR INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL LIMITATIONS
ON HOURS OF SERVICE.
(a) In General.--Section 274(n) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and
entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Special rule for individuals subject to federal
limitations on hours of service.--In the case of any expenses
for food or beverages consumed by an individual during, or
incident to, any period of duty which is subject to the hours
of service limitations of the Department of Transportation,
paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting `80 percent'
for `50 percent'.''
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1994.
______
By Mr. FAIRCLOTH:
S. 435. A bill to provide for the elimination of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
legislation to abolish hud
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce
legislation that will abolish the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Mr. President, HUD was created in 1965. When it was created, the
purpose of this Department was to revitalize our urban areas and
provide more housing for America.
Mr. President, in short, HUD has been a collosal failure. Since 1965,
HUD has spent hundreds of billions of dollars--that adjusted to
inflation--probably exceeds a trillion dollars. Yet today, despite this
massive spending, our Nation's urban areas are more decayed and more
dangerous today than ever. Homelessness, hardly a problem 30 years ago,
is now a major concern.
Public housing has been a disaster and home ownership is down.
Solving these problems was supposed to be HUD's mission. In each, it
has failed miserably.
Imagine if we applied a performance standard like this to other
Federal agencies. Suppose that when we created NASA with the purpose of
putting a man on the Moon, that 30 years later, they still had not done
it. We might consider abolishing them. That is exactly what we should
do with HUD because they failed to accomplish their mission.
Suppose that instead of creating HUD, we had given a trillion dollars
to an entrepreneur like Bill Gates. Do you think our inner cities would
be any worse off, or do you think that they would be more livable
places today? I think the answer is clear.
Take Fannie Mae for example. Fannie Mae plans to spend $1 trillion on
affordable housing before the end of the decade. The plan will finance
homes for 10 million people. This would provide a home to one in three
renters in America. This plan, however, unlike HUD, won't cost American
taxpayers one cent, and yet it will provide homes for millions of
Americans.
Mr. President, I have no faith that HUD can be reinvented. Thirty
years of failure is too much. Since the November 8 election, HUD
Secretary Henry Cisneros has put on a masterful public relations plan
to save his Department. I for one am not fooled. If he really believed
in what he was doing, he would have done it 2 years ago.
Most importantly, what are the savings from the Cisneros plan? There
are none. The only clearly identified savings will amount to one-half
of 1 percent over 5 years. Mr. President, let me repeat that, the total
savings in the Cisneros plan amount to only one-half of 1 percent over
5 years.
[[Page
S2829]] Of course, there are promises of more savings, but
they are just that--promises.
Actually, if you look at the projected outlays by HUD in the fiscal
year 1996 budget for the years 1995-99, spending is $3 billion more
than was projected in last year's budget. Yes, that's right, spending
will actually increase despite the reorganization.
Furthermore, my favorite line from the President's budget is on page
190. It is a chart about HUD's program consolidation. It says:
``Net impact, HUD consolidations''--spending of $29.4 billion in 1995
to $30.3 billion in 1996.
Yes, that's right. Spending will actually go up by $1 billion because
of HUD's consolidations--not down.
The Wall Street Journal reported on February 15, 1995, that HUD's
projected savings may have been oversold, and that down at HUD they
knew this before they submitted their plan to Congress.
For these reasons, I am introducing a bill to abolish HUD. The bill
will abolish HUD, effective January 1, 1998. The bill will direct the
Secretary to make one housing block grant available to States and
localities; transform all rental assistance into vouchers; and make FHA
a Government-controlled corporation with income targeting and risk
sharing.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. McCain, and Mr.
Daschle):
S. 436. A bill to improve the economic conditions and supply of
housing in native American communities by creating the Native American
Financial Services Organization, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Indian Affairs.
native american financial services organization act
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
entitled the Native American Financial Services Organization Act. I am
pleased to add my distinguished colleagues, the chairman and vice-
chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senators McCain and Inouye,
and Senator Daschle, as cosponsors of this important legislation.
Mr. President, there is a continued need for assistance to improve
the housing conditions that exist in many Indian reservation
communities, Alaska Native villages, and native Hawaiian communities.
Statistics from the Bureau of Indian Affairs estimated in 1993 that as
many as 90,000 native American families were in need of improved
housing and nearly 50,000 families need new homes.
Further, a study completed by the Commission on American Indian,
Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing, found that housing
shortages and deplorable living conditions are at crisis proportions in
many native American communities. In its study the commission
documented several obstacles that stand between Indian people and
affordable, adequate, and available housing.
The Commission found there is currently little, if any, conventional
lending available to native people seeking to purchase a home.
In addition, many Indian housing authorities lack the expertise to
manage, coordinate, and maintain viable programs.
And importantly, tribal governments have had to rely primarily on
Federal Government grant and loan programs to finance housing and
economic development projects.
As a result of the study, the Commission recommended the creation of
an entity that could serve as an intermediary financing institution
with the authority to package mortgage loans, provide technical
assistance, and serve as a clearinghouse of information for alternative
financing programs.
Mr. President, the Native American Financial Services Organization
Act is the culmination of extensive deliberations between officials
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of
Treasury, the USDA, members of my staff, and staff of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs. The purpose of this legislation is to
create a financial infrastructure for commercial financing
opportunities by and for Indian people. The primary mechanism that will
bridge Indian tribes with the commercial lending markets will be the
creation of a Native American Financial Services Organization.
The Native American Financial Services Organization would establish a
limited Government-chartered corporation. A Federal grant would
capitalize the federally chartered organization, which would cease to
exist upon a designated date. At that point the charter would become a
private corporation.
More specifically, the legislation is designed to:
First, establish and organize native American community lending
institutions, that will be called Native American Financial
Institutions. These lending institutions could be any type of financial
institution, including community banks, credit unions and saving banks,
that together, could provide a wide range of financial services;
Second, develop and provide financial expertise and technical
assistance to the Native American Financial Institutions, including
methods of underwriting, securing, and selling mortgage and small
commercial and consumer loans; and
Third, develop and provide specialized technical assistance on how to
overcome barriers to primary mortgage lending on native American lands,
including issues related to trust lands, discrimination, and
inapplicability of standard underwriting criteria.
Importantly, this legislation will work in conjunction with the
Community Development Financial Institutions [CDFI] fund established in
the Reigle Community Development Banking and Regulatory Improvement
Act, signed into law by the President last year. Under a cooperative
agreement with the CDFI fund, this legislation will provide technical
assistance and other services to Native American Financial
Institutions.
This week, Secretary Cisneros testified before the Committee on
Indian Affairs. In his remarks, he stated that this legislation will
``neither conflict nor duplicate the functions of CDFI or any other
Government-sponsored enterprise, but is intended to supplement the
efforts of existing organizations.''
In short, the Native American Financial Services Organization would
help provide financial independence to the native American community
and would begin to address the housing deficiencies by working to
attract private capital into the Indian housing market.
Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks by making
reference to a letter I recently received from the chairperson of the
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, that I believe illustrates the great necessity
for this legislation. The letter states that the shortage of housing in
the community is so severe that among the approximately 1,500 tribal
members, 400 are without a permanent home and that a waiting list for
new housing approaches 300 people.
It is for this reason, that I believe the Native American Financial
Services Organization is much needed. Statistics such as this merit the
need for an innovative financing mechanism the Native American
Financial Services Organization can provide.
Mr. President, in closing, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
printed in the Record immediately following the full text of my
statement and that the statements of Senators McCain and Inouye, who
are both original cosponsors, appear in the Record immediately
following the bill.
I also ask unanimous consent to include letters from the Ute Mountain
Ute Tribe, the Native American Indian Housing Council, and HUD's
Secretary Henry Cisneros to be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 436
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Native
American Financial Services Organization Act of 1995''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
TITLE I--STATEMENT OF POLICY; DEFINITIONS
Sec. 101. Policy.
Sec. 102. Statement of purposes.
Sec. 103. Definitions.
[[Page
S2830]] TITLE II--NATIVE AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
ORGANIZATION
Sec. 201. Establishment of the organization.
Sec. 202. Authorized assistance and service functions.
Sec. 203. Native American lending services grant.
Sec. 204. Audits.
Sec. 205. Annual housing and economic development reports.
Sec. 206. Advisory Council.
TITLE III--CAPITALIZATION OF ORGANIZATION
Sec. 301. Capitalization of the organization.
Sec. 302. Obligations and securities of the organization.
Sec. 303. Limit on total assets and liabilities.
TITLE IV--REGULATION, EXAMINATION, AND REPORTS
Sec. 401. Regulation, examination, and reports.
Sec. 402. Authority of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
TITLE V--FORMATION OF NEW CORPORATION
Sec. 501. Formation of new corporation.
Sec. 502. Adoption and approval of merger plan.
Sec. 503. Consummation of merger.
Sec. 504. Transition.
Sec. 505. Effect of merger.
TITLE VI--AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 601. Authorization of appropriations for Native American Financial
Institutions.
Sec. 602. Authorization of appropriations for organization.
TITLE I--STATEMENT OF POLICY; DEFINITIONS
SEC. 101. POLICY.
(a) In General.--Based upon the findings and
recommendations of the Commission on American Indian, Alaska
Native and Native Hawaiian Housing established by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of
1989, the Congress has determined that--
(1) housing shortages and deplorable living conditions are
at crisis proportions in Native American communities
throughout the United States; and
(2) the lack of private capital to finance housing and
economic development for Native Americans and Native American
communities seriously exacerbates these housing shortages and
poor living conditions.
(b) Policy of the United States To Address Native American
Housing Shortage.--It is the policy of the United States to
improve the economic conditions and supply of housing in
Native American communities throughout the United States by
creating the Native American Financial Services Organization
to address the housing shortages and poor living conditions
described in subsection (a).
SEC. 102. STATEMENT OF PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to help serve the mortgage and other lending needs of
Native Americans by assisting in the establishment and
organization of Native American Financial Institutions,
developing and providing financial expertise and technical
assistance to Native American Financial Institutions,
including assistance concerning overcoming--
(A) barriers to lending with respect to Native American
lands; and
(B) the past and present impact of discrimination;
(2) to promote access to mortgage credit in Native American
communities in the United States by increasing the liquidity
of financing for housing and improving the distribution of
investment capital available for such financing, primarily
through Native American Financial Institutions;
(3) to promote the infusion of public capital into Native
American communities throughout the United States and to
direct sources of public and private capital into housing and
economic development for Native American individuals and
families, primarily through Native American Financial
Institutions; and
(4) to provide ongoing assistance to the secondary market
for residential mortgages and economic development loans for
Native American individuals and families, Native American
Financial Institutions, and other borrowers by increasing the
liquidity of such investments and improving the distribution
of investment capital available for such financing.
SEC. 103. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Alaska native.--The term ``Alaska Native'' has the
meaning given the term ``Native'' by section 3(b) of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
(2) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Board of Directors
of the Organization established under section 201(a)(2).
(3) Chairperson.--The term ``Chairperson'' means the
chairperson of the Board.
(4) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Advisory
Council established under section 206.
(5) Designated merger date.--The term ``designated merger
date'' means the specific calendar date and time of day
designated by the Board under section 502(b).
(6) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(7) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund established under
section 104 of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994.
(8) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any
Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or
community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or
village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act that is recognized as
eligible for the special programs and services provided by
the Federal Government to Indians because of their status as
Indians.
(9) Merger plan.--The term ``merger plan'' means the plan
of merger adopted by the Board under section 502(a).
(10) Native american.--The term ``Native American'' means
any member of an Indian tribe.
(11) Native american financial institution.--The term
``Native American Financial Institution'' means a person
(other than an individual) that--
(A) qualifies as a community development financial
institution under section 103 of the Riegle Community
Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994;
(B) satisfies the requirements established by the Riegle
Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
and the Fund for applicants for assistance from the Fund;
(C) demonstrates a special interest and expertise in
serving the primary economic development and mortgage lending
needs of the Native American community; and
(D) demonstrates that the person has the endorsement of the
Native American community that the person intends to serve.
(12) Native american lender.--The term ``Native American
lender'' means a Native American governing body, Native
American housing authority, or other Native American
Financial Institution that acts as a primary mortgage or
economic development lender in a Native American community.
(13) New corporation.--The term ``new corporation'' means
the corporation formed in accordance with title V.
(14) Nonqualifying mortgage loan.--The term ``nonqualifying
mortgage loan'' means a mortgage loan that is determined by
the Organization, on the basis of the quality, type, class,
or principal amount of the loan, to fail to meet the purchase
standards of the Federal National Mortgage Association or the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation in effect on September
30, 1994.
(15) Organization.--The term ``Organization'' means the
Native American Financial Service
Amendments:
Cosponsors: