[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 28, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9105-S9110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, following my remarks, it will be my 
intention to offer an amendment to close a gaping loophole in 
legislation which we passed 4 years ago to make the streets of this 
country safe. That specific legislation was legislation that prohibited 
the manufacture and sale of 19 commonly used assault weapons, 
semiautomatic assault weapons, that have been used to kill police, used 
by grievance killers, used by gangs, used by cartels, used by drive-by 
shooters.

  The legislation also contained provisions that sought to eliminate 
the sale and transfer of the high-capacity clips and magazines that 
would hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. And, in fact, today it is 
illegal in this country to domestically manufacture and sell a new 
clip, drum or strip that was made in this country, except to the 
military, police, or for nuclear power plant protection. It has become 
evident that though this legislation has been successful in reducing 
the criminal use of the 19 banned assault weapons, the provisions in 
this law aimed at reducing the availability of these large-capacity 
ammunition feeding devices have been rendered ineffective.
  At the request of the distinguished Senator from Idaho, who was on 
the floor a moment ago, the 1994 law grandfathered existing high-
capacity clips which were manufactured before the effective date of the 
ban to allow those clips which had a bill of lading on them to enter 
the country and to allow dealers to recover their expenses by selling 
off their existing stocks. The same thing existed for assault weapons 
themselves.
  The President and Secretary of the Treasury closed this loophole 
through his executive decision which used the 1968 law, which said that 
any weapon imported into this country must meet a sporting use test. 
And 1.6 million of these semiautomatic assault weapons were essentially 
cut off from importation. The thrust of the legislation was to 
eliminate the supply over time --not to prohibit possession, but over 
time, because there are so many of these weapons and clips in this 
country now, to cut down on their supply.
  I will never forget, because the distinguished Senator from Idaho did 
approach me on the floor--we were standing right down in the well; I 
remember it as clear as if it was yesterday, although it was almost 5 
years ago--and indicated that he was concerned about weapons that had a 
bill of lading on them which had been manufactured pre-assault weapons 
ban and which were in the process of transit into this country.
  My point, Mr. President, is that now, 4 or 5 years later, the 
existing supply of these clips surely has been used up. However, 
foreign clips have continued to pour into the United States.
  From July of 1996 to March of 1998, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearms approved 2,500,000 large-capacity clips for importation 
into this country.
  Recently, that number has skyrocketed even further. In just the last 
5 months, BATF has approved permits for 8.1 million large-capacity 
clips for importation into America. That represents a 314-percent 
increase in one-fourth of the time.
  These clips have been approved to come through at least 20 different 
countries. It is difficult to know the place of manufacture, but they 
come through 20 different countries into this country.
  I would like to just quickly go through the countries that they come 
through. And there are some interesting things. Austria, Belgium, 
Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, England--and clips 
manufactured somewhere abroad come through Great Britain; there are 
actually 250-round magazines--250-round magazines--for sale in this 
country and 177-round magazines for sale in this country--Germany, 
Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Nicaragua, South Africa, 
Switzerland, Taiwan, and Zimbabwe.
  So the total is 8.8 million in two years approved to come in.
  Unfortunately, there is virtually no reliable method to determine the 
date of manufacture on the millions of clips

[[Page S9106]]

that the BATF has estimated are in circulation now in the United 
States. The inability to determine the date of manufacture is 
particularly true regarding the foreign importation of large-capacity 
magazines because BATF has no ability to independently determine 
whether such clips imported into the country are legal or illegal. It 
has allowed the continued importation of clips represented to be 
manufactured before the assault weapons ban took place.
  Let me show you how this happened. Here is a clip from Shotgun News, 
dated February 1998: ``Banned semiautomatics, Bulgarian SLR 95. 1 free 
40-rd magazine with each purchase.''
  Here is another one: ``Quality replacements, 30 rounds, the choice of 
the Canadian military. Will not bend or rust, $8.99 a clip.''
  Here is where you see the impact of, now, the foreign rounds: ``30-rd 
East German''--East German-made--``Ribbed back, AK-47 magazines, 
$7.99.''
  Here is one: An ``AK magazine special,'' coming with the pouch, 
``including 4 Chinese AK-47 30-rd magazines with pouch, $27.50.'' It 
also includes ``four East German AK-47, 20 rd magazines with a pouch, 
$29.95.''

  Now, my staff called a shotgun store and asked to buy some of these 
magazines. The only question he was asked, ``Is it legal to buy this 
stuff where you are''--he was in Washington, DC, where it is not legal 
to own a gun, and he said, ``I don t know, as far as I know it is,'' 
and they said, ``We will send it to you.''
  My point is, you can get these big clips very easily--on the phone, 
by mail order. And because now the supply of the domestic clips is 
running out, most of the clips being sold in this country are of 
foreign manufacture. So we have two sets. We have the domestic 
manufacturers prohibited. We have the sale and transfer of new clips 
prohibited. And you have the grandfather clause creating this gigantic 
loophole which allows these big clips to continue to come into the 
country.
  In April of this year, President Clinton and Treasury Secretary Rubin 
closed one loophole created by this grandfather clause by blocking 
further importation of modified semiautomatic assault weapons. About 30 
of us sent him a letter. We pointed out there were 1.6 million of these 
which received approval that were coming in from all over the world. 
The Treasury Department looked at the 1968 law, which requires all 
imported weapons to meet a sporting test, and decided that they don't 
meet this sporting test, and therefore the Executive order is in place 
and this importation has been prohibited. The remaining loophole to 
close is this loophole for the big clips. The amendment that we will 
shortly offer will do just that.
  So the change to the law that I have proposed is simple: It would bar 
further imports of large-capacity clips and magazines, just as U.S. 
domestic manufacturers have been stopped from producing these 
magazines. This amendment would not--I repeat, not--ban further 
domestic sales and possession of large-capacity clips which are already 
legally in the United States. There are tens of millions of these 
already.
  Now, let's talk about who uses these high-capacity clips. I pointed 
out, coming through Great Britain, there were ammunition-feeding 
devices carrying 250 rounds. You can expel 250 rounds before you have 
to reload. Do hunters use them? Do marksmen use them? Do skeet shooters 
use them? Do Olympic team members use them?
  Let's take hunters. The answer is no, hunters don't use them. Most 
States limit the magazine capacity allowed for hunting, usually eight 
rounds or less. Federal law clearly outlines the ammunition magazine 
size limits for bird shooting. Federal law does not allow the use of a 
shotgun that has a capacity of more than three shells--one in the 
chamber and two in the magazine--when hunting migratory game birds.
  How about the Olympic team and other competitive shooters? No.
  So who really uses these large-capacity clips? Let me read a list of 
events that have taken place fairly recently. July, 1998, earlier this 
month, Rio Hondo, TX, a killing spree leaves five dead, including two 
Border Patrol officers. In one day, 24-year-old Ernest Moore killed 
four people in what police called a planned situation. He killed two 
people and wounded another in a private residence. Police at the scene 
recovered an MK-70 assault rifle and a 30-round clip. Approximately 30 
minutes later, Moore fired as many as 100 rounds at law enforcement 
officers from a .223-caliber assault rifle. Two Border Patrol agents 
were killed at the scene and a sheriff's deputy was wounded.
  That is who uses these big clips.
  June 17, Coeur d'Alene, ID: A State trooper ambushed by merciless 
assassin. State trooper Linda Huff was ambushed and killed by a man 
wielding a 9-millimeter pistol with a 15-round clip. Police were not 
immediately certain why 34-year-old Scott David Yeager bicycled to the 
police station and fired 17 rounds at Huff in the rear parking lot. 
Investigators say Yeager fired all 15 rounds from one 15-round clip, 
disposed of it, reloaded, and continued to fire.
  In May of this year, Springfield, OR: A 50-round clip. High school 
student kills four, injures dozens. After killing his parents, went on 
a shooting spree at his high school--most of us are familiar with this. 
To carry out his fatal assault, he used a Ruger 10.22 hunting rifle, a 
Ruger .22 caliber handgun and a Glock model 19. Found attached to the 
rifle, a traditional hunting gun, was an empty 50-round clip and found 
on the student were four 30-round clips and two 20-round clips. During 
the attack, he fired from the rifle indiscriminately, and it was not 
until he emptied the 50-round clip that several of his classmates were 
able to tackle and subdue him.
  In March of this year, Jonesboro, AR: 15-round clips. Two middle 
school students ambush classmates. Two students, age 11 and age 13, 
pulled the fire alarm in their school in order to draw their classmates 
outside. The boys lay in wait and ambushed the other students when they 
got outside. They fired 24 shots into the crowd, 15 of which came from 
a Universal carbine rifle with a 15-round clip. The shots from the 
rifle were fired as fast as the shooter could pull the trigger.
  February of this year, New Orleans, LA: A 30-round clip. Police 
recover 30-round clip after chase. After a routine traffic stop, a man 
led police on a 3-mile chase during which he pointed a 9-millimeter 
assault pistol with a 30-round clip.
  And then it goes on and on and on. Elmhurst, NY, 30-round clip. 
Indianapolis, 30-round clip; traffic stop pulls the weapon. Orange, CA, 
30-round clip; disgruntled employee kills five with 30-round clip; five 
people were killed, and a police officer was seriously wounded when a 
disgruntled Caltrans employee began randomly firing from an AK-47S with 
a 30-round clip. Denver, CO, last November, police officer killed by 
SKS with a 30-round clip; Denver police officer Bruce VanderJagt was 
killed by a barrage of gunfire from an SKS assault rifle as he chased a 
burglary suspect; police later recovered the rifle and the 30-round 
clip. Magna, UT, police officers shot by SKS with 20-round clip.
  It goes on and on and on. The point is, there are so many of these 
big clips available in this Nation that they become the ammunition-
feeding device of choice for the grievance killer, the person going up 
against police, the gang that wants to engage in intimidation, drive-by 
shootings, the cartels--these are the weapons of choice, and the 
weapons of choice are useless if you don't have that big-round clip.
  What are we seeing? Five months and 8.1 million of these receiving 
approval to come into this country because BATF could not assert when 
they were manufactured. BATF can't go to another country to check a 
factory supply. Therefore, an understanding that I have with the 
distinguished Senator from Idaho--and I am pleased he is on the floor 
now; these would apply to clips or weapons that had bills of lading 
attached to them--is clearly not the case today. Bills of lading that 
preexisted a 4-year-old piece of legislation now. The time has come to 
close this grandfather clause.
  Now, a number of the tragedies that I have just indicated probably 
would have occurred without the availability of killer clips. Some are 
fond of saying, ``Guns don't kill, people do.'' Yes, that is true. But 
I don't think ever before in the history of this Nation we have ever

[[Page S9107]]

had a time when more weapons of destruction were falling into the hands 
of children.
  The case that really struck me was a case in Memphis, TN, when a 5-
year-old took a loaded weapon to school to kill a teacher who had given 
that youngster a ``time out'' the day before.
  All we are trying to do is close the grandfather clause, say all of 
the clips that were in transit on the day we passed this legislation, 4 
years ago, have been used up, and now is the time to close the 
loophole.
  Interestingly enough, some have told me, and Members of this body 
have told me, ``Well, we know people who like to use them plinking.'' 
They told me, ``Yes, I like to use them plinking.'' Well, we are not 
taking away anybody's right to possess or to plink. There are plenty of 
clips around for plinking. What we are trying to do is stop what is now 
a massive flood of clips, even those that now carry 250 rounds in these 
magazines, from coming into this country.
  I don't like to do this amendment, frankly, this day, because this is 
a solemn day and I don't like to mix the two. Unfortunately, the 
Treasury-Postal bill is on the floor at this time, and this is an 
opportunity to move the amendment.
  I hope that those who know the intent of the grandfather clause to 
only affect those guns and clips that were in transit at the time of 
the enactment of the legislation--something that I agreed to because I 
thought it was fair--will agree to let this legislation go into place. 
It will not take a clip out of anyone's hands; it will not prohibit 
possession. Domestic manufacturers of ammunition feeding devices, 
today, cannot manufacture clips for general sale that are in excess of 
10 bullets. We know they are not used in hunting, but we do know that 
in case after case they are used to kill police officers, they are used 
to kill employees, used by grievance killers, drive-by shooters, drug 
gangs, cartels, etc. The real question in my mind is: Do the rights of 
the majority outweigh the rights of those few who would like to plink, 
who would like to continue the flood of weapons coming into this 
country? There is no civilized, industrialized power on Earth in which 
there are more weapons or in which there are more of these big clips 
floating around.
  The instant case that really jettisoned me into the assault weapons 
legislation was the 1994 case of Luigi Ferri, who had Tec-9 copycats 
and a 9 millimeter pistol. When he went into 101 California Street, 
this was his array of ammunition-feeding devices that he brought with 
him. He carried with him 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 
15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25--25 different ammunition 
feeding devices, with enough rounds that exceeded 500 rounds. I think 
it was actually over a thousand rounds of ammunition used to do his 
dastardly deed. Indeed, he left 8 people dead and about 14 people 
wounded. And no one could get to him to disarm him. In this case, I 
don't know whether these are domestic or foreign made clips.
  The point I want to make is that the large number, the incredible 
fire power and the lack of sanity seemed to prevail.


                           Amendment No. 3351

 (Purpose: To ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding 
                                devices)

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3351.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 104, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:

     SEC. 644. BAN ON IMPORTING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING 
                   DEVICES.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Large 
     Capacity Clip Ban of 1998''.
       (b) Ban on Importing Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding 
     Devices.--Section 922(w) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1) Except as provided 
     in paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``(1)(A) Except as provided 
     in subparagraph (B)'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(2) Paragraph (1)'' and 
     inserting ``(B) Subparagraph (A)'';
       (3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import a large 
     capacity ammunition feeding device.''; and
       (4) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``(1)'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``(1)(A)''; and
       (B) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(1)(B)''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 921(a)(31) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``manufactured 
     after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act of 1994''.

  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to table the Feinstein amendment 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Feinstein amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.

  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is absent because of illness.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Iowa 
(Mr. Harkin) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 240 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Harkin
     Helms
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3351) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3352

  (Purpose: To provide for greater access to child care services for 
                           Federal employees)

  Mr. CAMPBELL. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Ms. 
Landrieu and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Ms. Landrieu, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3352.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title VI, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. CHILD CARE SERVICES FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

       (a) In General.--An Executive agency which provides or 
     proposes to provide child care services for Federal employees 
     may use agency funds to provide child care, in a Federal or 
     leased facility, or through contract, for civilian employees 
     of such agency.
       (b) Affordability.--Amounts provided under subsection (a) 
     with respect to any facility or contractor described in such 
     subsection shall be applied to improve the affordability of 
     child care for lower income

[[Page S9108]]

     Federal employees using or seeking to use the child care 
     services offered by such facility or contractor.
       (c) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Management and 
     the General Services Administration shall, within 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, issue regulations 
     necessary to carry out this section.
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``Executive agency'' has the meaning given such term by 
     section 105 of title 5, United States Code, but does not 
     include the General Accounting Office.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this is an amendment which has been 
cleared by both sides of the aisle. This amendment is about child care 
services for children of Federal employees, which allows agencies to 
provide child care at an affordable cost.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we support this amendment fully.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3352) was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KOHL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, at this time, I yield time to Senator 
Thompson for the purpose of submitting an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend from 
Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 3353

(Purpose: To require the addition of use of forced or indentured child 
  labor to the list of grounds on which a potential contractor may be 
     debarred or suspended from eligibility for award of a Federal 
                          Government contract)

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Thompson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3353.

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike out section 642 and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:
       Sec. 642. The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall be 
     revised, within 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, to include the use of forced or indentured child labor 
     in mining, production, or manufacturing as a cause on the 
     lists of causes for debarment and suspension from contracting 
     with executive agencies that are set forth in the regulation.

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, this amendment addresses a certain 
provision in the Postal-Treasury appropriations bill at section 642. It 
is a section that deals with procurement policies. It is a section that 
deals with a problem of goods that are produced by child labor--a 
problem about which we are all sensitive. I do think that this 
provision should not be in this bill. I offer this amendment to amend 
the provision, leaving in the portion that addresses the child labor 
issue, but taking out certain portions that I believe are clearly 
unconstitutional and unneeded.
  In the first place, Mr. President, this is an area of some 
complexity--the procurement laws and regulations of this country. It is 
an area that is within the jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, of which I am chairman. Our committee has spent a good deal 
of time dealing with this issue. We have passed legislation over the 
last two Congresses that deal with our procurement policies in this 
country. We have passed the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 
1994--this is a provision that Senator Glenn sponsored--and we passed 
the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996--all dealing, at least in part, with the 
problem of Government procurement, and procurement practices and 
policies. I think, as most people who deal with this realize, it is 
certainly a balancing act. There are considerations that have to be 
given to the contractors. There are considerations certainly that have 
to be given to the Government--what is fair.
  We want to place reasonable requirements and restrictions with regard 
to the practices and policies that the Government uses when they go out 
and acquire goods and services, and so forth. Everyone comes in and 
gets a seat at the table, and we hash those things out. We have been 
doing that in a free and open debate for some time now.
  We discover now that with regard to this provision, instead of it 
going through the regular process, instead of our having debate on the 
issue, and instead of us having a discussion on the issue, we find that 
it winds up being a substantive provision with regard to policies that 
apply across the board and winds up as a part of this appropriations 
bill. I do not believe that is a good way to legislate.
  We hear a lot of times complaints about amendments on appropriations 
bills. But here we actually have a provision within the appropriations 
bill which, as I say, really substantively addresses an issue not only 
under the jurisdiction of the committee that has been wrestling with 
this problem for some time but without any really public discussion or 
debate.
  What does this 642 require?
  First of all, it requires that the Secretary of Labor publish a list 
of items that might have been produced by child labor--``might have 
been produced'' by child labor. I am not sure whether or not there is 
another provision in the law that places a requirement on people based 
upon the determination that certain items might have had a certain 
origin, or anything of that nature. But be that as it may, there is 
nothing wrong with putting something on a list in and of itself.
  Then the provision says that the Government may not require an item 
on that list unless the person or company providing the goods or 
services certify that it was not a product of child labor.
  In other words, apparently the best the Government can do, or the 
requirement that the Government has, is simply to come up with whether 
or not an item might have been produced by child labor. But then the 
supplier of the goods has to certify, based on that list, that in fact 
it was not produced by child labor.
  Then, 642 goes on to say that the contract may be terminated based 
upon violation of this provision and that the contractor may be 
disbarred.
  So far, so good, although this is, I believe, very, very troublesome 
language that is used here. But so far, so good. You are debarring 
someone. You are terminating the contract, if there is any indication 
that child labor is used.
  I must point out that this activity is already not only grounds for 
debarment but a crime. It is already a crime to place materials 
produced by child labor in interstate commerce, punishable by a $10,000 
fine per child employee and 6 months imprisonment.
  In addition, under 18 U.S.C. 1581, whoever holds or returns any 
person to a condition of peonage shall be fined not more than $5,000, 
or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
  As far as the criminal law is concerned, anyone who would be in a 
disbarment situation would be violating a very severe criminal law.
  But, be that as it may, so we are duplicative. So what? What is the 
big problem with that?
  The biggest problem with all of this is not what I have been 
discussing so far, although as we see troublesome language duplicative, 
it is already a criminal act in the Federal Acquisition Regulations. It 
already has cause for disbarment for the commission of any other 
offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty 
that seriously and directly affects the responsibility of the 
Government contractor or subcontractor.
  I can't think of anything that would be more indicative of a lack of 
business integrity than using child labor.
  So not only do we have a criminal act prohibiting this activity, but 
we have a regulation now saying that you can disbar on the basis of 
this activity.
  But, again, as I say, so far, so good, as far as I am concerned. So 
we are duplicative. So we use vague language.

[[Page S9109]]

  The problem that is the major one in this particular section has to 
do with the provision that is on CB, a capital B, which says the 
following: That an acquisition contract has to include the following 
language:

       A clause that obligates the contractor to cooperate fully 
     and provide access for any official of the United States to 
     the contractor's records, documents, persons, or premises, if 
     requested by the official for the purpose of determining 
     whether forced or indentured child labor was used to mine, 
     produce, or manufacture any item furnished under this 
     contract.

  I believe this is clearly unconstitutional. I know the intent was 
good. We all have the same intent with regard to the end result here. 
But we have picked out a particular area--not drug dealing, not selling 
faulty parts for an airplane that crashes and kills our pilots, and not 
faulty parts that go on machines that kill our Armed Forces--all the 
terrible things that could happen.
  We have picked out one and have given some Government officials, any 
Government official, total, unlimited access to the books, records, and 
persons of anyone whom they choose to exercise that with regard to.
  There is a body of law, of course, with regard to unwarranted 
administrative searches. Under certain circumstances, warrantless 
administrative searches are permissible. But we have to keep in mind 
that under those circumstances, under the warrant clause of the 
Constitution, there is no probable cause requirement.
  So these are dangerous things that the courts have said you have to 
be careful with, and you have to have certain requirements in the 
statute giving you the right to carry out these warrantless searches, 
if they are going to be constitutional.
  First of all, the Government needs to have a substantial interest. I 
think that is covered here.
  Second, the regulation of the business had to serve that interest. I 
am willing to concede that.
  Third, statutory safeguards are needed to provide an adequate 
substitute for a warrant requirement.
  We have a warrant requirement. Whether we are dealing with the most 
heinous criminal activity imaginable, we have generally been speaking 
about a warrant requirement, a due process requirement, under the 
Constitution. But the courts have said that if you do not have that, if 
you are going to carry out a warrantless administrative search, you 
have to have certain statutory safeguards.
  They have discussed what they are. None of them is here, Mr. 
President.
  First of all, there is total discretion with regard to the Government 
official as to which business he decides to check on that day, or which 
individual. There is no probable cause requirement, or no evidentiary 
requirement at all. He has total and complete discretion under this 
language to decide which business he wants to check on.
  That is constitutionally suspect from the outset, according to the 
court cases.
  Second, any official of the United States can do it.
  I don't know if that includes me or not, or the staff. But any 
official of the United States, I guess from fire marshals to officials 
over at the Department of Energy, or whoever.
  Third, there is no statutory procedure for challenging of the warrant 
at all. Some of the statutes say that if the concern refuses to consent 
to this kind of process, search and seizure, there is a statute, a 
civil provision, whereby it can be contested. That is not here.
  Lastly, it is not just the premises that we are talking about here, 
but it has to do with all records and documents and persons apparently 
that are subject to this particular provision. It is a provision that 
has not been applied to and cannot constitutionally be applied to the 
most heinous criminal activities imaginable. And although these are 
certainly reprehensible activities we are dealing with, they cannot 
amend the Constitution of the United States with regard to all of the 
various things for which a person or a business can be debarred. Your 
imagination is the only limitation as to what those things might be. 
There could be some very, very terrible things, as I indicated, and 
this is one of them. But here we have selected this particular activity 
and placed a burden on the supplier of Government goods that, frankly, 
cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
  The bill in section 642 has an exception, and it says that this 
section does not apply to a contract that is for the procurement of any 
product, article, material or supply containing a product that is 
mined, produced or manufactured in any foreign country or 
instrumentality if the foreign country or instrumentality is a party to 
the agreement on Government procurement annexed to the WTO agreement.
  In other words, this provision that I have just been talking about 
does not apply to a foreign country if it is a party to the WTO 
agreement or a party to the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement. As I 
understand this, if a country is a party to the WTO agreement or is a 
signatory or a party to NAFTA, they are not covered by this, and 
presumably goods coming from that country would not be covered by this, 
so a manufacturer in a country that is a part of NAFTA or WTO 
presumably would not be covered by this.
  The United States of America is a party to NAFTA, but goods emanating 
from this country would not be covered by this. Now, I am not sure in 
practical terms how this would work out or what kind of problems this 
would present, but I do not see why companies of a foreign country 
should be exempted from this law when companies from this country are 
targeted by this law and are having these, what I believe are fairly 
clearly unconstitutional, requirements and burdens placed on them.
  So the proper action would be to bring this language back to the 
Governmental Affairs Committee and consider it in the normal course of 
Senate business. But the fact remains that the language is pending 
before the Senate so we must deal with it.
  So, Mr. President, I am offering an amendment which will give Federal 
agencies the ability to debar or suspend companies. And I repeat that. 
This will give, if there is any question--I don't think there is any 
question that they have the ability to do that now. It is against the 
Federal law, and it is provided for in the FAR. But in case there is 
any question about that, my amendment will give Federal agencies the 
ability to debar or suspend companies which use forced or indentured 
child labor, but in a way that is consistent with the current 
procurement system of the delicate balance that has been worked out 
which has specific regulatory history and due process requirements, and 
not in the vague way that this language addresses it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I request that we defer action on this issue 
until Senator Harkin, who has taken the lead on this issue, returns. He 
is away today in Minnesota at a funeral of his father-in-law. I 
understand he will be back tonight, but I cannot be certain of that. It 
seems to me, until he is back to respond to Senator Thompson's 
concerns, it would not be fair to take up this amendment. So I request 
that this amendment be laid aside at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. THOMPSON. If the Senator will yield, I have absolutely no 
objection. I was not aware of Senator Harkin's situation, and I will 
certainly defer it until he can be here. I have no objection.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be set 
aside.
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. While we have a few moments, I thought I would describe 
a couple of sections of this bill. One that might be of interest to our 
colleagues deals with the vehicle program description.
  This bill contains a significant amount of funding for the Treasury's 
law enforcement activities. Senator Kohl and myself are very strong 
supporters of Treasury's law enforcement efforts.
  As our colleagues know, in our fiscal year 1998 bill, we included a 
request for GAO to do a study on the utilization of vehicles by 
Treasury's law enforcement bureaus. I have to tell you at the outset, 
this committee does all it can to

[[Page S9110]]

ensure that the law enforcement agents within Treasury are well 
equipped to do their duties.
  However, when I became chairman of the subcommittee, I noticed that 
all law enforcement bureaus in Treasury would put forth requests for 
new vehicles, stating that many of their vehicles ``were well above GSA 
standards,'' which in this case means the speedometers said 100,000 
miles or more on them.
  Upon further discussion with the bureaus, it became apparent that 
agents have door-to-door use of their vehicles. The rationale here was, 
if the law enforcement officer is called for duty during their off-duty 
hours, they need to be able to reach the scene in a vehicle which is up 
to law enforcement standards.
  Having been a former law enforcement officer myself, as I mentioned 
earlier in the day, I understand and support that rationale that agents 
must have a vehicle in case they are called to duty unexpectedly. But I 
do have some difficulty with the fact that it appears that all agents 
are getting cars which they use for home-to-work transportation, 
regardless of their position, regardless of the probability of being 
called while they are at home at all.
  The GAO study told us that there is no consistent management of these 
vehicles, nor is there any determination of need based on how likely it 
is for one agent to be called to duty once at home. Many of our 
colleagues may not know this, but when the Government purchases a law 
enforcement vehicle, it is different from a vehicle that we drive on 
the highway. For example, it has to be especially equipped with a 
larger engine, sometimes the springs or shocks are reworked, and they 
certainly have special radios, and it is not uncommon for this special 
equipment to cost $10,000 or more per vehicle.
  Therefore, when the vehicles are used for transportation to and from 
work, the useful life of the vehicle is certainly decreased, and the 
Government carries the burden of replacing the vehicles sooner than 
they had planned. Given our tighter budgets, I felt the Treasury needed 
to get a handle on how they manage this vehicle pool. This year alone, 
the Treasury requested approximately $30 million to acquire new 
vehicles. Currently, the bureau manages the usage terms of the vehicles 
and all the associated costs in a rather indiscriminate fashion. In 
Treasury's defense, we were pleased to see that they had requested $1 
million in this year's budget for a vehicle tracking program, which we 
have funded.
  What we did not fund was the acquisition of new vehicles beyond what 
the bureaus are already carrying in their budgets. However, I should 
make it clear that there is funding contained in each bureau's budget 
to cover the cost of replacing the oldest vehicles. So what we are 
really doing here is maintaining the current fleet while replacing the 
oldest, while not adding to the total number of vehicles in the fleet. 
The rationale here is that the Treasury needs to put this management 
system in place before we appropriate additional moneys to purchase 
even more new vehicles. I tell my colleagues, it is a very plain and 
simple, good Government provision. Senator Kohl and I support law 
enforcement agents within the Treasury, but I cannot imagine that each 
and every one of them will have a reasonable chance to be called for 
duty every night.
  As an appropriator, I think it is my responsibility to ask questions 
about cost management, and we have told the agencies that we will hold 
them accountable for their costs. In this case, it is vehicle usage 
which directly impacts the life of the vehicle and ultimately the cost 
to the Government. During fiscal year 1998, the Department of the 
Treasury spent a great amount of money for vehicle-related expenses.
  I believe this is a much-needed step, and I hope this new vehicle 
management program will improve Treasury's ability to accurately 
project vehicle replacement, maintenance, and need for new vehicles. In 
addition, I hope the Treasury's program will include the impact that 
portal-to-portal usage has on the maintenance or life of the vehicle. 
We are certainly looking forward to working with the Treasury to put 
this new system in place.
  Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.


                           amendment no. 3355

   (Purpose: To extend certain prohibitions relating to undetectable 
                               firearms)

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to continue 
protecting our airports and our government buildings from terrorist 
threats. Our proposal would extend the already existing ban on 
undetectable firearms--guns that don't set off metal detectors--for 
five more years.
  In 1988, we passed the Undetectable Firearms Act to bar the 
manufacture, sale, and possession of any firearm that is not detectable 
by metal detectors or the type of x-ray machines commonly used at 
airports. It passed unanimously in the Senate. It was endorsed by the 
NRA, and the NRA has no objection to this amendment being offered 
today.
  At the time we passed this law, ``plastic'' or undetectable guns were 
not yet developed. But Congress was concerned that technology might 
make ``plastic'' guns possible. Ten years later, plastic guns are still 
not a problem. This law deserves some for that. In fact, on a few 
occasions, ATF has refused to approve guns intended for commercial 
distribution because the guns didn't have enough metal in them.
  The Act, however, is scheduled to ``sunset'' this December. The 
sunset provision exists because in 1988 it was predicted that new 
technology would soon be able to detect non-metallic firearms. 
Unfortunately, technology has not developed so rapidly, so extension of 
this law appears to be warranted.
  While the Department of Treasury has requested a permanent extension, 
we propose a five year extension. A five year extension allows us to 
study whether a permanent law is necessary, and whether non-detectable 
guns are really a possibility.
  But an extension is appropriate, especially in light of recent 
events. Indeed, several years ago, it was reported that the columnist 
Jack Anderson sneaked a ``plastic gun'' past security into the Capitol. 
More recently, the New York Times reported that tiny guns made to look 
like ``key chains'' could get around metal detectors in Europe.
  Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk, and I ask for its 
immediate consideration. I ask for unanimous consent that it be 
accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3355.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 104, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:

     SEC. 644. EXTENSION OF SUNSET PROVISION.

       Section 2(f)(2) of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 
     (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by striking ``(2)'' and all 
     that follows through ``10 years'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Sunset.--Effective 15 years''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this amendment is not new language, as 
Senator Kohl has alluded, because under current law, there was an 
original ban of 10 years. This simply extends that current language for 
another 5 years.
  I have checked with the majority, and the people I have checked with 
so far are supportive of this amendment, but Senator Hatch has asked if 
we can lay this amendment aside for a few minutes because he would like 
to read it more carefully, if that is acceptable to Senator Kohl.
  Mr. KOHL. That is acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be set 
aside.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.




                          ____________________