[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.
____________________