[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5702-S5703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             SUPREME COURT DECISION STRIKES BIPARTISAN LAW

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am quite disappointed and even puzzled 
today by the Supreme Court's decision in the United States versus Lopez 
case. Usually, the courts speak with one voice, but today the majority 
of the court spoke for several separate opinions.
  By a slim 5 to 4 margin, the court struck down the bipartisan Gun-
Free School Zones Act, a law that prohibits possession of firearms 
within 1,000 feet of a school.
  In my judgment, this is a classic example of judicial activism, and 
it ignores the safety of our American children.
  I will briefly say something about the facts that the court today 
ignored. Each day in our country more than 100,000 students bring guns 
into our schools. One-fifth of urban high school students have been 
threatened with firearms, and several hundred thousand schoolchildren 
are victims of violent crimes in or near their schools every year. 
Moreover, the problem of youth violence is rapidly escalating. In 1984, 
a total of 1,134 juveniles were arrested for murder; by 1993, that 
figure had more than doubled. According to the Justice Department, the 
vast majority 
[[Page S5703]] of these murders were committed with firearms and many 
with handguns.
  Democrats and Republicans in Congress, together, tried to do 
something about this disturbing trend when we enacted the gun-free 
school zones legislation in 1990. Today, a slim majority of the court 
has shot Congress down, and in so doing, put America's children at 
greater risk.
  Now, because we reenacted and perfected the Gun-Free School Act last 
year as part of the crime bill, the current law may still be 
constitutional. Indeed, we may yet be able to ensure the 
constitutionality of the law with a technical amendment, and I plan to 
introduce a bill to do that next week.
  Broadly interpreted, however, the reasoning of the majority in this 
case could have far-reaching consequences that may undermine a variety 
of crucial Federal laws, like the Drug-Free School Zones Act on which 
the Gun-Free School Zones Act was based, or the bans on cop-killer 
bullets, or our Federal wetlands laws, and many of our civil rights 
statutes.
  Mr. President, I agree with the strong dissent by Judge Souter, 
joined by Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, and Breyer, who labeled this 
ruling today by the Supreme Court a step backward.
  I again want to express my disappointment with today's decision.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________