[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 12, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5105-S5151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




VIOLENT AND REPEAT JUVENILE OFFENDER ACCOUNTABILITY AND REHABILITATION 
                              ACT OF 1999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 254, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 254) to reduce violent juvenile crime, promote 
     accountability by rehabilitation of juvenile individuals, 
     punish and deter violent gang crime, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Leahy Amendment No. 327, to promote effective law 
     enforcement.


                           Amendment No. 327

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 1 hour for debate on the 
Leahy amendment No. 327 to be equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may suggest 
the absence of a quorum without it being charged to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. President, I understand we are now on the Leahy amendment to S. 
254.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this amendment is intended to address the problem of 
youth violence with tough law enforcement initiatives at the Federal 
level, with assistance to State and local law enforcement, proven 
prevention programs for juvenile delinquency, and measures to keep guns 
out of the hands of children.
  Many of the proposals in this amendment were part of a bill I 
introduced, along with Senator Daschle and other Democratic Members, 
last year in the Safe Schools, Safe Streets and Secure Borders Act of 
1998. That was S. 2484. We have introduced it this year as S. 9.
  These are carefully crafted proposals. They were not done as knee-
jerk responses to the school shootings, or even the most bloody murders 
in Littleton. We talked with prosecutors and police officers and 
teachers and everybody else in putting these proposals together. The 
series of proposals in the amendment have been ready since last year, 
but this is our first opportunity to present them to the Senate for 
discussion and a vote. While these proposals predated the events at 
Columbine High School, it escapes nobody's notice that the events at 
the high school give them added urgency.
  This amendment is part of the Democratic multipronged agenda for 
action that embraces tough and more aggressive law enforcement 
initiatives, plus those initiatives in our other amendments to help 
teachers, counselors, parents, and children with afterschool

[[Page S5106]]

programs, with effective and proven school safety strategies and, of 
course, treatment programs for high-risk youth. It faces the reality 
that we live in a different world, not like when I was going to school, 
or when most of us in this Chamber went to school. It is a complex 
world and you do not attack the problems of it on just one front; you 
have to attack them on many.
  We Democrats look forward to the Senate debating and taking action on 
proposals that can be enacted now and working over the long haul on 
additional structural remedies. No matter what legislation we pass this 
week, we also need long-term solutions to school violence. These 
solutions include getting smaller classrooms; smaller schools--not 
these schools that are cities in and of themselves where students don't 
even know each other and the teachers don't know them--helping parents 
spend more time supervising their children, realizing that is the bond 
that is often broken in today's society; and working constructively 
with the movie, television, and video game industries to adopt rating 
systems that parents can understand and use.
  This law enforcement amendment is substantial and comprehensive. It 
has five separate parts. I will highlight a few of the important 
proposals in this amendment. It addresses some of the same subject 
matter areas as S. 254. I will highlight some of the differences in our 
approaches.
  In the area of federalization, my amendment also proposes reforms in 
the Federal juvenile justice system. We do so without Federalizing run-
of-the-mill juvenile offenses and ignoring the traditional prerogative 
of the States to handle the bulk of juvenile crime. Too often when we 
have talked about crime on the Senate floor in recent years, we 
basically have told the States, the State legislatures, State law 
enforcement, and State prosecutors, that they are irrelevant, that we 
will run everything out of Washington, and the Federal Government knows 
better. I don't believe that.

  My proposal for reforming the Federal juvenile justice system heeds 
the advice of Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Federal judiciary and 
reflects the proper respect for our Federal system.
  Let me explain. My amendment retains the provision in current law 
which establishes a clear presumption that the States should handle 
most juvenile offenders. S. 254 repeals that provision.
  Furthermore, current law directs that most juveniles ``shall'' not be 
proceeded against in Federal court, unless the Attorney General 
certifies certain things--in most cases, that the State does not or 
refuses to exercise jurisdiction over the juvenile. Judges may review 
that certification to see whether the threshold for exercise of Federal 
jurisdiction has been met. S. 254 changes that.
  As I mentioned in my statement yesterday, the bill before us gives 
conflicting signals. S. 254 contains one welcome change over S. 10 from 
the last Congress by requiring the Attorney General or the U.S. 
attorney, depending on the charge, to ``exercise a presumption in favor 
of referral'' of juvenile cases to the appropriate State or tribal 
authorities, where there is ``concurrent jurisdiction.'' But, in 
contrast to the law today, that certification is not reviewable by any 
court. My amendment would continue to permit such court review in most 
cases but not cases involving serious violence or drug offenses.
  Because of the repeal of the important State presumption provision 
and the lack of review of the Federal prosecutor's decision to proceed 
against a juvenile federally, many rightly fear that the State 
prerogative to handle juvenile offenders will be undermined by this 
bill. My amendment would not do that. Basically, what I am saying is 
that we are not going to stand in the U.S. Senate and tell the 50 State 
legislatures that they are irrelevant and tell the prosecutors of the 
50 States that they are irrelevant because 100 U.S. Senators know 
better and we can do it better from Washington.
  Ironically enough, some of the same people who will vote for 
something that would take it away from the States and turn it over to 
Washington are the same ones who go back to their States and give great 
speeches about: We know better here in our State, and we don't need 
Washington to tell us what to do. And then they come up here time after 
time and vote to federalize cases that are being handled by the State 
courts and make irrelevant the State legislatures, State prosecutors, 
and State law enforcement. Sooner or later, some of those speeches are 
going to catch up with us and haunt us.
  Our law enforcement officials should be proud of the decline of the 
violent crime rate and murder rate we have experienced since 1993, 
because it is largely due to their efforts and innovative programs like 
the COPS Program and community policing. There is nothing like seeing a 
police officer on the corner to make a criminal move on. We want that 
decline to continue, particularly in schools. Certainly, it does not 
take a criminologist to know that if you have the presence of the 
police, crime will go elsewhere, or not occur at all.

  The strong bipartisan report for this proposal was demonstrated 
yesterday on passage of the amendment by Senator Gregg, which was 
cosponsored by Senator Boxer and myself. That amendment set up a new 
grant program with eligibility requirements to put cops in schools. The 
proposal in my amendment would expand the COPS Program and waive the 
matching non-Federal fund requirement to put more police in and around 
our schools.
  My approach builds on a program with a proven track record. It is not 
a hypothetical. The States are familiar with it. We, at the State 
level, know how it works. This amendment extends grants to local law 
enforcement for other programs, such as rural drug enforcement and 
Byrne grant funding.
  My amendment also provides, in section 124, funding for the juvenile 
State court prosecutors. Yesterday, the Senate passed the Hatch-Biden-
Sessions amendment which authorizes $50 million per year for 
prosecutors. As I pointed out yesterday, this amendment does not 
authorize any additional money for judges, public defenders, 
counselors, or correctional officers. By leaving them out, you could 
end up exacerbating the backlog in the juvenile justice system rather 
than helping it, because it requires all those parts within the 
juvenile justice system to make it work.
  In contrast to Hatch-Biden-Sessions, my amendment authorizes funding 
for ``increased resources to State juvenile court systems, juvenile 
prosecutors, juvenile public defenders, and other juvenile court system 
personnel.'' I hope that will be something my distinguished friend from 
Utah, the exemplary chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, might 
support.
  We need to do more to protect our children from drugs. My drug 
amendment would increase certain penalties for drug sales to children 
or near schools or for using children in the illegal drug trade.
  As terrible as it sounds, Mr. President, we see this--where children 
are being used in the drug trade and where they abuse children as 
runners for distributors. It is one of the cruelest, most cynical 
things that can be done.
  We also establish juvenile drug courts that are modeled on the 
successful drug court programs for adults, because it gives special 
attention to supervision and treatment of offenders, and how to get 
them clean.
  It doesn't do any good to simply prosecute a drug offender if they 
are going to come back out and be just as addicted. We should try to 
get them off their dependence on drugs.
  Let's talk about guns. Everybody tiptoes around this Chamber when it 
comes to the question of guns. On the one hand, you have people who 
feel there should be no guns at all, who couldn't even conceive of 
handling a gun, to those who feel that everybody should walk around 
with their own arsenal. The reality is somewhere in between.
  Growing up in Vermont in a rural State, I grew up with guns. I have 
owned guns from the time I was a youngster. I went through the usual 
gun safety courses, became a champion marksman in college, and, in 
fact, competed in schools all over the country, and still shoot 
competitive target shooting.
  I also taught my two sons and my daughter how to use and enjoy guns 
safely. We have very strict rules, and still have very strict rules at 
our home in Vermont in using guns, or in target practice--a lot 
stricter rules than most gun clubs would have.

[[Page S5107]]

  But having said all of that, every gun owner, or not, is sickened by 
the school shootings and the tragic murders of the young children and 
dedicated teachers.
  We recognize we have to take steps to protect our children from gun 
violence--steps that might go beyond just one parent to their child. 
Nothing can substitute for parental involvement and supervision.
  Let me emphasis that. Most of us know as parents that nothing 
substitutes for parental involvement and supervision. But we also know 
we can take constructive steps to keep guns out of the hands of 
children when they are not under that kind of parental involvement and 
supervision.
  The statement of administration position on S. 254 points out that 
this bill does not include any provisions on guns, and that this should 
be part of the broad-based, comprehensive approach to juvenile crime.
  This amendment contains a number of proposals to protect children 
from guns.
  I ask Senators: Are you willing to stand up and vote for or against 
these proposals?
  Let me tell you what you are going be voting on, that every Senator 
is going to determine whether they want to vote for it or against.
  We ban the transfer to and possession by juveniles of assault weapons 
and high-capacity ammunition clips.
  Are you for or against that?
  We increase criminal penalties for transfers of handguns, assault 
weapons, and high-capacity ammunition clips to juveniles.

  Senators are going to have to ask themselves when they vote on this: 
Are we for or against that provision?
  We ban gun sales to persons who have violent crime records, even if 
those crimes were committed as juveniles.
  Senators, are we for or against this provision?
  We increase penalties for certain gun offenses involving minors.
  Senators, are you for or against this provision?
  We provide grants for the children's gun safety programs and for 
juvenile gun and youth violence courts with dissemination of model 
programs via Internet web sites.
  Senators, are you for or against this provision?
  We expand youth crime gun interdiction efforts in up to 250 cities by 
the year 2003.
  Senators, are you for or against this provision?
  We grant priority for tracing of guns used in youth crime, with 
increased Federal resources dedicated to the enforcement of firearm 
laws.
  Senators, are you for or against this provision?
  We have heard that this administration is not enforcing our gun laws. 
Let's stop the political mudslinging and ignoring of important facts 
and realize that as Americans we are in this together. The murder rate 
for juveniles rose sharply in the late 1980s and the early 1990s due to 
a rise in gun violence. Since then, with some strong programs by this 
administration, the murder rate is on the decline. In fact, juvenile 
murder and non-negligent manslaughter arrests declined almost 40 
percent between 1993 and 1997.
  According to the Justice Department, Federal enforcement has focused 
on serious firearm offenders. These prosecutions are up 30 percent from 
1992--up 30 percent. Federal and State law enforcement are working 
together more and more resulting in a 25-percent increase in combined 
annual firearm prosecutions since 1992--a 25-percent increase. The 
violent crime rate has come down. The murder rate has come down. The 
prosecution of gun offenses has gone up.
  Those are indisputable facts. But having said that, we should strive 
to improve enforcement of our gun laws. That is why my law enforcement 
amendment provides $100 million for the next 2 years dedicated to 
Federal firearm prosecutions.
  It also establishes grant programs to replicate successful juvenile 
crime and truancy prevention programs, such as the program in Boston 
where they had a terrible, terrible slew of juvenile murders. They 
started this program and the murders stopped. We can replicate that in 
other cities.
  As an aside, I strongly urge that those who prosecute cases involving 
weapons--be it at the Federal level or the State level--do what I did 
as a prosecutor. When I had a case involving a weapon of any sort--a 
gun, a knife, in a couple of instances a baseball bat--I sought, under 
our State law, a law that is similar to almost every State, an 
additional penalty for the use of a weapon. It can be anything that was 
used as a weapon in the commission of a crime. The word got around 
pretty quickly that if you used any kind of a weapon in a crime, 
assault, or burglary, or anything else, you were going to pay some 
additional penalty and you served additional time.
  Finally, we commit resources and attention in this amendment to 
preventing juvenile crime with grant programs to youth organizations 
for supervised youth activities and afterschool programs.

  The amendment would authorize spending $2 billion over the next 2 
years on juvenile crime prevention and intervention.
  Mr. President, everybody in law enforcement will tell you the same 
thing. The easiest crime to handle is the crime that never happened. 
And our crime prevention programs are modeled after what the police and 
others have told us work the best to prevent crimes.
  I do not know and have never worked with a police officer who hasn't 
told me to help them prevent the crime from happening in the first 
place--juvenile crime especially. There are proven ways that work.
  We are talking about spending billions and billions and billions of 
dollars more on the Kosovo crisis, along with the billions and billions 
and billions of dollars we spend in bombing Belgrade and elsewhere. Why 
don't we take a small part of that and invest it on our children, the 
safety of our children in a nation of a quarter of a billion people? 
Why not spend some money to protect our children within our own 
borders?
  Similarly to S. 254, my amendment would reauthorize the Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. But in contrast to S. 254, my 
amendment preserves intact four core protections for youth in 
detention, but it also grants flexibility for rural areas.
  We can come to the floor of the Senate and vote for feel-good 
proposals. We can pass resolutions condemning crime and violence--as 
though any Senator within this debate is for crime and violence; we are 
all against it. The reality is sometimes more difficult than the 
rhetoric. We need more than feel-good efforts. Parents and children in 
this country want concrete proposals. We give them those in this 
amendment.
  As I said earlier, the question will be, Are Senators for or against 
them? We will have the vote and we will make that determination. These 
are proposals put together by Senators whose political philosophies go 
across the spectrum, by law enforcement officials who have testified 
and given Members their best analyses, by those who have run successful 
juvenile programs that have lowered juvenile crime and have stopped 
juvenile violence. We have put all this together. We have taken off any 
mantles of partisanship. These are proposals that we know work, not 
pie-in-the-sky but proven proposals.
  The American people send Senators here to do a job, to pay taxes, to 
help parents seek a life where they do not have to fear for their 
children when they go to school, where parents do not have to fear for 
their children while they are at school, where there will be some 
control of juvenile violence. That is what is in this amendment.
  How much time remains for the Senator from Vermont?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Seven minutes 45 
seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I enjoyed listening to my colleague and I 
appreciate his efforts.
  Before I move into the substance of Senator Leahy's substitute, which 
is essentially an amendment, I note that we have had very little time 
to study and consider this amendment. We saw this amendment, which is 
211 pages long, for the first time yesterday. The Senate has held no 
hearings--none whatsoever--on this amendment, nor has the amendment 
ever been referred to the committee as a bill or otherwise. 
Consequently, not only has the Senate

[[Page S5108]]

not considered Senator Leahy's substitute, no outside groups in law 
enforcement or the juvenile justice communities have had the 
opportunity to examine this amendment. Having said that, that doesn't 
mean we should not consider it at this time.
  By contrast, the Judiciary Committee has worked on S. 254 and its 
predecessor, S. 10, for more than 2 years. The Youth Violence 
Subcommittee, under the leadership of Senators Sessions and Biden, has 
held numerous hearings on S. 254 and its predecessor. These hearings 
have examined S. 254 from different angles and perspectives. A variety 
of experts have testified in favor and in detail about this bill. S. 
254 is the most thoroughly considered juvenile crime legislation in my 
23 years in the Senate and service on the Judiciary Committee and it 
has bipartisan support, as we saw yesterday on the vote.
  Senator Biden, the ranking member of the Youth Violence Subcommittee, 
one of the leading Senators on crime issues, supports S. 254. We 
appreciate the efforts he has made. Moreover, the Fraternal Order of 
Police, the National Sheriffs Association, the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, the Boy and Girl Scouts, and the 
National Collaboration for Youth, among other organizations, have 
examined S. 254 in detail. These groups have written letters of support 
for S. 254. Needless to say, these groups have not endorsed Senator 
Leahy's substitute, because they have not had a chance to consider the 
amendment.
  I don't mean to imply that this substitute does not contain some good 
proposals. In certain ways it is similar to S. 254. For example, I 
commend Senator Leahy for including funds for juvenile prosecution and 
drug treatment, but funding for these purposes is already in S. 254. In 
fact, virtually every basic fund for prevention is in S. 254. Also, 
this substitute changes procedural reforms to the Federal prosecution 
of juveniles that are very similar to S. 254, the bill before the 
Senate. Again, we address this area in the underlying bill.
  In particular, the substitute contains a reverse waiver that allows 
Federal district court judges to reverse any Federal prosecutor's 
decision to prosecute a juvenile as an adult. Under both S. 254 and 
Senator Leahy's substitute, the juvenile defendant must prove by 
``clear and convincing evidence'' that he or she should not be tried as 
an adult.
  In short, there is much in the Leahy substitute that Senators will 
have the opportunity to vote for when we pass S. 254.
  Despite some positive provisions, the Leahy substitute is, in my 
opinion, badly flawed. For example, the Leahy substitute changes the 
provision to encourage and assist States to upgrade and share juvenile 
criminal records. One of the major features of our juvenile justice 
bill is improving criminal records sharing--I might add, that is a 
uniquely Federal role--but the Leahy amendment does not improve 
juvenile records in a meaningful way. It would effectively strike the 
provisions governing the upgrading and improving of juvenile felony 
records. This is an important part of our bill. We found that if we 
don't keep these records, people don't realize when violent juveniles 
reach the age of maturity, or of majority, they don't realize what 
these young people may have done with regard to violence in their 
youth.

  In addition, the Leahy substitute is not a balanced approach toward 
the accountability program. It provides only $150 million for 
accountability programs, such as graduated sanctions and detention for 
juveniles, out of an annual authorization of $1.86 billion in that 
bill, in that substitute. In other words, only 8.9 percent of the total 
funding goes to accountability programs. We all want prevention, but 
accountability is important, too. I have worked long and hard to remedy 
what some have thought in the past to be a failure to have enough 
prevention in these bills, as we are concerned about accountability. So 
we have made those changes on S. 254 to try to make this a more 
bipartisan bill for all Members to support.
  We need to support and encourage a full range of graduated sanctions 
from the earliest acts of delinquent behavior to help ensure that early 
acts of delinquency do not grow into more serious problems.
  This chart indicates that the earliest acts of delinquent behavior 
start at age 7, the green line. That is the average age where 
behavioral problems really come into focus and start with young people. 
They continue to grow worse as they get older if there is no effective 
intervention. The underlying bill, unlike my colleague's substitute, 
recognizes this and addresses it thoroughly.
  Although we showed this chart yesterday, it is worthwhile going over 
it again and again. People need to understand the history and the 
probabilities of misbehavior by young people. Minor problems of 
misbehavior generally start at age 7, usually because of broken 
families or the lack of a father in the home, with the mother doing her 
best to try to help the children but having to work generally or, if 
not working, on welfare. It starts then. It isn't necessarily the 
child's fault. So we need to do what we can to intervene at that time 
when we have some of these minor behavior problems. That includes both 
correction and enforcement.

  Now, moderately serious problem behavior really starts gaining focus 
at 9.5 years. As a child grows to 9.5 years old, if that child has not 
been helped between 7 and 9.5, you start to get moderately serious 
problem behavior.
  Then it becomes serious delinquency by almost 12 years of age, or 
11.9 years of age. Then the first court contact generally, for index 
offenses--in other words, offenses that are quite serious--happens 
really at about 14.5 years of age.
  This is important stuff, because we have to balance both sides of 
this equation, not just prevention but accountability as well. If we do 
not expect young people to be accountable and we don't put the 
resources into helping them be accountable, they are going to get to 
14.5 years and we are going to be left with a hoped-for prevention that 
really isn't going to work in many cases. It may work, but we almost 
guarantee it will work if we can require a certain aspect of 
accountability during these years of age, 7 to 14.5.
  That is one of the things we are trying to do in this bill. This is 
not a partisan bill. This is not a bill that is a triumph of Republican 
principles over Democrat principles. We have taken the best from both 
parties and tried to mold it together into a bill that really will work 
and make a dent in some of these problems that really are despoiling 
our society.
  Prevention programs are not effective unless there are some 
accountability measures to reinforce them. Providing only 8.9 percent 
for accountability measures is not a balanced approach. S. 254, by 
contrast, provides approximately 40 percent for accountability 
programs. We balance the two.
  By the way, we are spending an extra half billion dollars, if we pass 
the Leahy substitute, an extra half billion dollars on top of what we 
are spending, which is a monumental amount of money, over $1 billion, 
$1.1 billion in the Hatch-Biden-Sessions bill. It is important we do 
the accountability aspects of this.
  On what does Senator Leahy's amendment propose spending funds? In 
enforcement, it authorizes rural drug training, grants for State courts 
and prosecutors, and the Byrne Program. All of these are generally 
worthy programs, and I commend the Senator for recognizing them. 
Indeed, I have been a vocal critic of the recent efforts of the Clinton 
administration to cut funding for some of these very same programs. 
What of the $200 million the Leahy amendment purports to spend on more 
police officers in schools? This is in reality just an extension of the 
existing COPS Program, and it is not targeted at juvenile crime. Some 
COPS funding can of course be used for school security. In fact, 
Republicans last Congress, led by Senator Campbell, amended the COPS 
Program to allow its grants to pay for school security officers. But to 
call this general reauthorization a program dedicated to cops in 
schools is a bit inaccurate.
  What is left of the Leahy amendment? Prevention, which of course we 
all agree is important, no question about it. The Hatch-Biden-Sessions 
amendment the Senate adopted yesterday increases our bill's commitment 
to prevention to $547.5 million per year, as this chart indicates.

[[Page S5109]]

  Just so we all understand this, from the juvenile crime prevention 
standpoint, the funding of the OJJDP prevention programs, you can see 
that in 1994 we spent $107 million on these juvenile justice 
delinquency prevention programs--$107 million, which many in that year 
thought was quite a bit of money. I did not. Senator Leahy did not. I 
don't think Senator Biden did. But the fact is it was $107 million.

  We have in 1995 jumped to $144 million, and in 1996 as well. Then in 
1997 we went to $170 million; then in 1998, $201.7 million. We have 
been bringing it up gradually. But look, in our bill we put it up to 
$267.6 million. As we have gradually worked hard to do, we put it up. 
Then in our bill, starting in the year 2000, we go all the way up to 
$547.5 million. We double the money in this bill. That is a lot of 
money. And we ought to make sure that money works. We should not get 
into a contest of throwing money at these problems and saying that is 
going to solve them.
  We have a balanced bill here that takes care of the accountability 
aspects, about 40 percent of our bill, and about 60 percent is for 
prevention. Those green lines, from 2000 through 2004, represent almost 
$600 million a year on top of other prevention funds we already have in 
other programs. So it is not as if we are letting prevention down. In 
fact, we have balanced it so we have both accountability and 
prevention.
  I might add, our prevention is more balanced than that in the Leahy 
amendment. Mr. President, $850 million of Senator Leahy's amendment's 
``juvenile crime prevention'' is focused exclusively on crime 
prevention. I think that is important, but we do that as well. And $400 
million of that funding is not even dedicated to the juvenile drug 
problem. So that bothers me a little bit, too. We are now working on a 
juvenile drug bill.
  Yesterday, we got into a little bit of a hassle on the floor because 
Senator Robb and Senator Kennedy and others wanted to add SAMHSA money, 
mental health moneys, to this bill. We provide that our prevention 
moneys can be used for mental health, but we do not try to rewrite in 
the bill the whole of mental health legislation in this country. We are 
going to do that later. I will help them do that, because I am as 
concerned about mental health issues as Senators Kennedy and Robb and 
the others who voted for that. But that is not the purpose of this 
bill, when we provide that is one of the alternatives, one of the 
options that State and local governments will have in resolving this.
  It is the same thing with juvenile crime prevention and drug 
prevention. We provide for that in this bill. Moreover, this 
substitute, the Leahy substitute, is not narrowly focused on the 
problem we should be debating, and that is juvenile crime. Indeed, of 
the advertised $3.581 billion over 3 years, by my count, only $1.6 
billion, or 45.6 percent, is dedicated to addressing juvenile crime.
  We would like to make this bill be a juvenile justice/juvenile crime 
bill, and not make it a big social spending bill, when we have other 
programs that literally can be beefed up for those purposes. I am not 
necessarily against doing that in other programs, but this bill is 
balanced and we want to keep it that way.
  So of the advertised $3.581 billion over 3 years, only $1.6 billion, 
or 45.6 percent, is dedicated to addressing juvenile crime. My omnibus 
crime bill, the 21st Century Justice Act, which is S. 899, is a 
comprehensive approach to our general crime problem. But the bill we 
are debating today is a juvenile crime bill, and that ought to be our 
focus, our total focus. If we can pass this bill, we will do more to 
solve and resolve juvenile crime problems than almost anything we have 
done in history. That is why it is such an important bill, especially 
when we have had to go through some of these very difficult times that 
this country has gone through recently.

  In short, the Leahy substitute is no substitute for the effective 
comprehensive approach to juvenile crime proposed in the underlying 
Hatch-Biden-Sessions bill. So I urge my colleagues to reject this 
amendment, as much as it is well intentioned, as much as I respect my 
colleague. I really do respect my colleague, who works very hard on the 
Judiciary Committee. I know he is sincere in presenting these matters. 
But I want this bill to be balanced. I want it to be tough and lean--
and work. We have added plenty of money, as you can see. We are jumping 
those funds dramatically in 1 year to where we have very significant 
amount of funds. We have doubled them, in essence.
  There will be people around here, no matter how much money you spend, 
who will always want to spend more. There comes a time when you have to 
do what is best under the circumstances and what is right under the 
circumstances. That is what will get this bill through both Houses of 
Congress and will do what really needs to be done for our young people 
in this society who are troubled and who have difficulties and whom we 
can save if we pass this bill. We can prevent some of the things that 
have happened in the past that have literally disrupted our society and 
hurt so many people.
  Finally, S. 254 is supported by real people who took the time to get 
involved in juvenile justice. For example, more than a year ago, I 
received a letter from a woman named Cris Owsley in Sunnyside, WA. She 
wrote about how her son, Shaun, was knifed to death by a 15-year-old 
attacker in January of 1997. Shaun was just 2 days past his 18th 
birthday, and he was murdered at his birthday party.
  Shaun's parents are courageous people. They took their grief and 
turned it into activism. Working with other parents and the State 
legislature, they became advocates for laws that would appropriately 
punish juveniles like the murderer who killed their son. Then they 
contacted me and asked what they could do to promote reform nationally. 
I invited them to Washington last summer where they joined me and 
others on the Judiciary Committee and numerous law enforcement groups 
to urge passage of this juvenile crime bill. I am sure they will 
approve the amendment we adopted yesterday, the Hatch-Biden-Sessions 
amendment. They have set up a web site to advocate the passage of S. 
254. That is how much it means to them and, really, millions of parents 
across this country.
  I close my remarks with this exhibit. This box that I have contains 
more than 1,000 letters in support of S. 254 generated by these folks. 
These are real people who have endorsed this bill. Given their support, 
I urge the Senate to reject the Leahy substitute and support S. 254, 
and let's get this done. I hope we can move this ahead today and get it 
done today, because the sooner we get this bill passed, the more likely 
we are going to have greater tools and greater efforts to resolve some 
of these problems that are tearing our society apart. This is an 
extremely important bill. It is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill that 
will make a difference, and I think we ought to do this as quickly as 
we can.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, first off, I thank my good friend from Utah 
for the kind words. I am reminded of Shakespeare and Julius Caesar: I 
am here not to praise Caesar but to bury him. I think my friend from 
Utah has expanded on that. He wants to both bury me and praise me. I 
thank him for one-half of that equation and regret the other half.
  I will point out a few errors, though, in his statement. One, this is 
an amendment. It is not a substitute. It is not intended as a 
substitute. It would not begin to be a substitute because there are 
many parts of S. 254 with which I agree.
  The distinguished chairman has talked about the hearings on S. 254. 
In fact, there have been no hearings on S. 254; not one, not one at 
all. In fact, my amendment, which is basically what was introduced over 
a year ago and not something that popped out here yesterday, has had 
just as many hearings as S. 254.
  There are things in S. 254 I like. I praised Chairman Hatch for 
including my reverse waiver in the bill. That is very good. Senator 
DeWine of Ohio and I worked on it, and we adopted a technology grant, 
the DeWine-Leahy-Hatch Law Crime Identification Technology Act that 
provides a $250 million block grant for States to upgrade their 
criminal records. It will be funded this year to help States upgrade 
their criminal history records.

[[Page S5110]]

  My amendment provides money for both intervention and primary 
prevention programs because we need primary prevention programs before 
children get into trouble. In some ways we fail, because the only time 
we step in is after they get into trouble. Let's stop it before they 
get into trouble.
  The distinguished chairman said that it is a lot of money, that I am 
adding $\1/2\ billion for prevention for children. Let's talk about 
this. That is a lot of money. That is close to $2 a person in this 
country. I think the math probably works out to about $1.85 or $1.90 
per person every year. That is almost enough to buy a small soda at a 
movie, or that is almost enough to buy a comic book.
  Let's be realistic. To help keep our children out of trouble, can we 
not afford $1.85 or $1.90 a year? Ask the parents in Littleton, CO, 
whether they would spend that kind of money, or ask the parents in any 
town in Vermont, California, Oregon, Utah, or Alabama if they would.
  We want to address youth violence and school violence problems in 
this country. This is a problem that is a lot bigger than just whatever 
happens in our courts, once the crime has happened, once the juvenile 
has been apprehended.
  We need an approach obviously to handle juvenile crime after it 
happens, but let's spend that extra $1.85 or $1.90 to try to use 
programs that have been proven to work, that our own hearings have 
shown work to prevent a crime from happening in the first place.
  How much time do I have left, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield 2 minutes of that to the distinguished Senator 
from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont.
  I rise because I think it is very important to point out to my 
friend, Senator Hatch from Utah, that what we are trying to do on this 
side of the aisle, under the leadership of the Senator from Vermont, is 
put more of a stress on prevention.
  Here is the point. The good Senator from Utah, working with Senators 
Leahy, Biden, and Sessions, had an excellent amendment that moved more 
toward prevention. We, on our side of the aisle, support the 
enforcement part, the tougher penalties part, but we want to see even 
more of a balance. There is still an imbalance.
  I say to my friend from Utah, and I know he has had a similar 
experience or I think that he has, if you talk to law enforcement--and 
I have so many times in my State--they tell me: Senator, once the kids 
get into these teenage years, until they are 19, 20, 21, it is too late 
to turn them away from crime. Do more for prevention.
  Law enforcement has been the driving force behind my afterschool bill 
because they understand if the kids get the attention after school, 
they will not go home, get in trouble, and choose a life of trouble.
  What the good Senator from Vermont is doing in this amendment, and I 
hope he will get bipartisan support, is to say, let's stress prevention 
as much as we do enforcement. He has pointed out quite eloquently, yes, 
we are talking about a couple of dollars out of the pockets of the 
average American every year, a couple of dollars to prevent crime from 
happening in the first place. I can assure you, Mr. President, it is 
much cheaper. Many have said, and it is a fact, that it costs more to 
imprison one of our youngsters than it does to send him or her to 
Harvard for a year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. We know what we are doing. I ask for 30 more seconds to 
wrap up.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield 30 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, to address the issue that Senator Hatch 
raised, the vast majority of the programs in Senator Leahy's amendment 
are proven programs. A couple of them that are new are essentially 
taking adult programs and applying them to the juveniles in our 
country. So this is a tried and true amendment.
  I am very hopeful it will pass. It would put more cops on the street. 
Senator Leahy waives the matching requirement if you place a community 
policeman in a school. This is very important. I think those of you who 
really want to help our children should vote yes on the Leahy 
amendment.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. How much time is remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 10 minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. I want to yield some time to my distinguished colleague, 
the chairman of the subcommittee. We are both thinking of the same 
thing. If I could just take a minute.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Please.
  Mr. HATCH. And you can reemphasize it, if you could.
  Look, one of the things that has always bothered me about Washington, 
and especially the Congress of the United States, is no matter how much 
money you put up that is reasonable, there is always going to be 
somebody who says we have to spend a lot more. Generally, it does come 
from the other side of the floor.
  In this particular case, we have just shown you how we double the 
prevention moneys for the next 5 years, each year, over what they are 
today and how they have gone up. They will go up about five times what 
they were in 1994.
  Now look, today, before this bill passes, let me show you the 
imbalance in the law right now. We are spending $4.4 billion on 
juvenile prevention programs--117 programs. That is what we are 
spending. That is going to be spent whether this bill passes or not.
  We are going to add another $547 million to that. It will bring it up 
to about $5 billion that we are spending on juvenile prevention.
  One of the problems I have with the amendment of Senator Leahy--he 
says it is not a substitute. That is fine. But one of the problems I 
have with his amendment is he is only spending 8.9 percent on the 
accountability side of the equation, where we spend 40 percent in our 
bill.
  Look how much we are currently spending: zero dollars for juvenile 
law enforcement or accountability. You wonder why kids are in trouble 
today. We made the case. The troubles begins at age 7; they escalate 
until age 14\1/2\, when it is too late, and they then go to court. That 
is what accountability is going to do. It will help to make them 
accountable up to age 14\1/2\, and hopefully the prevention moneys will 
work then, because you will have both sides of the scale, admittedly 
not an awful lot for accountability in comparison, but we will have 
accountability money and we will have even more prevention money.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from 
Alabama, who has made this case over and over.
  But what never ceases to amaze me is, whatever money we put in these 
programs, there is always going to be someone who wants to spend a lot 
more. The point we make is there is a lot more there now, and we are 
going to add a lot more. And we do not need to add $400 million for 
each year for the next 5 years.
  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the distinguished chairman of our Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Hatch. He is right on point.
  I have a similar chart here. There has been $4.4 billion spent on 
juvenile prevention programs, 117 separate juvenile programs. We have 
had no money for law enforcement, make no mistake. The point I really 
want to make is, when you spend money strengthening our juvenile 
justice system, giving juvenile judges alternatives and possibilities 
to intervene effectively through the appropriate discipline when young 
people go wrong, that is prevention--that is prevention.
  Fox Butterfield in the New York Times had a front page article about 
Chicago's juvenile court system. They spend 5 minutes per case. It is 
just a revolving door. We need to strengthen the ability of juvenile 
judges to intervene effectively when kids first start getting into 
trouble, because if you have a limited amount of money for prevention, 
you should apply it where it works best, for those people who are 
already beginning to get into trouble.
  Let me show you a Department of Justice study done recently by a 
professor at the University of Maryland on behalf of Attorney General 
Reno.

[[Page S5111]]

  The chart says, ``The findings of the Department of Justice 
Prevention Evaluation Report.'' What did they find? Most crime 
prevention funds are being spent where they are needed least. That is a 
condemnation of us in Congress and the Department of Justice. Most 
prevention money is being spent where it is needed least. That is 
President Clinton's own Department of Justice.
  Most crime prevention programs have never been evaluated. We have 117 
of them. They have 4-H Clubs in inner cities that are supposed to keep 
people from committing crime. I do not know if that works or not. I 
used to be in a 4-H Club, but I do not know whether that is a good 
idea. There are 117 of these programs.
  Among the evaluated programs, some of the least effective receive the 
most money. We want to just do more, more, more.
  We have worked for over 2 years on this legislation. We have given it 
a lot of attention. Chairman Hatch has given it his personal attention. 
We have now worked with Senator Biden and have his support. In the 
committee, the bill came out with bipartisan support last year. It has 
bipartisan support.
  Here we have an amendment of 100 or more pages, submitted by the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont. I know that as a former prosecutor 
he cares about these issues, but we get it this morning--I think my 
office got this morning probably the only two copies in existence. He 
wants to spend, what, $3.8 billion--just $3.8 billion. We have not even 
had time to read the amendment.
  There are a couple of things that are important to me. There is no 
money dedicated for law enforcement. I tell you, the people think 
juvenile judges do not care about kids. The Juvenile Judges Association 
is supporting this effort because the money is coming in a way that 
requires a committee, a coordinated committee in a community. Our 
vision is that the community would come together--the judge, the 
prosecutor, the sheriff, the probation officers, civic leaders--and 
prepare a plan to deal with young people who are getting into trouble.

  Everyone needs to be drug tested upon arrest. If you do not care 
about the kids, you will not drug test them. If you love them and care 
about them, you will find out if part of their criminality is being 
driven by drug use; and if so, then you need to have treatment and 
continued monitoring of them if they are let go.
  Parents need to know if the reason their children got involved in 
theft was because they were strung out on drugs. That is an important 
thing. That is how you intervene effectively. The power of a court 
gives credibility to the process that no other drug treatment center or 
mental health center can give because a judge can order things to 
happen. You talk to your prevention people, the drug treatment people, 
the mental health people. They like the order of a judge requiring 
these things to happen.
  So I believe that a good criminal justice system is prevention. And 
what they comment on is a ``lock them up'' mentality. This is what our 
accountability block grant provides: drug testing of juveniles upon 
arrest; and it provides the money for State and local people to do 
that, and the renovation or expansion of detention facilities.
  The truth is, we have quadrupled the amount of bed space for adults 
coming in and have driven down adult crime dramatically because we 
focused significantly on repeat, dangerous adult offenders. But we have 
spent very little money at the same time that juvenile crime has been 
increasing dramatically.
  That is why, as frugal as I am about government money, I think it is 
appropriate for us as a nation to rise up and address the shortcomings 
in juvenile court systems in America and try to give them some 
strength. You have to have some detention.
  People across the aisle have a little mantra. They are saying: Well, 
we want to really lock up these tough kids. But when you have three 
times as many people committing murder as a juvenile, three times as 
many committing assault with intent to murder, and rapes, and that kind 
of thing in the last 15 years, then we have to have more capacity, 
don't we?
  What are judges doing with a second-time burglar when the only bed 
space in the State juvenile center is filled with a youngster charged 
with murder? Where are they going to put these kids? That is what they 
are telling me.
  Police officers say: Well, police officers want prevention. Look, I 
was a prosecutor. I had been a prosecutor for nearly 17 years. Many of 
my best friends are police officers. You ask them: Don't you wish we 
could prevent crime?
  Oh, yes, they answer, I wish I could prevent crime. I am tired of 
arresting these kids.
  They will always say that. But you ask them about what they know, you 
ask them how the juvenile justice system is working, and they will tell 
you it is in a state of collapse. They have told me over and over 
again: Jeff, these kids are laughing at us. We can't do anything to 
them, and they know it. We arrest them, and they are released within 
hours of their arrest. Nothing happens to them, time after time.

  This isn't a first-time offense. People act as if you are going to 
take some youngster----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time in support of the amendment has 
expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. People act as if first-time young offenders are getting 
sent off for long periods of time. That is not so. It is just not so. 
Ask people who know about the system.
  What we need, though, is for that seriously disturbed youngster who 
is heading down the wrong road to get to a juvenile court system where 
the judge can look them in the eye with toughness, concern, and tough 
love, and be able to discipline them, to set forth a program that fits 
their needs, whether it is mental health, drug treatment, family 
counseling, or prison.
  We do not have that in America, because we don't have any money spent 
for that. We need to do it, and this bill will do so.
  I thank the chairman for his time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 1 minute.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATCH. All time is all yielded back?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. HATCH. Then I move to table and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 327. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Cochran) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 109 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed

[[Page S5112]]


     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cochran
     Moynihan
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect 
to the next amendment, the Brownback amendment on code of conduct, no 
amendments be in order to the amendment for 30 minutes after it begins.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, do I understand, then, the 
unanimous consent is not to preclude amendments but to preclude 
amendments for 30 minutes?
  Mr. HATCH. As we work out the difficulties. We are trying to have an 
interim period of time.
  Mr. LEAHY. This is consistent with what the distinguished chairman 
and I discussed.
  I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last evening, Senator Robb, Senator 
Leahy, Senator Kennedy and other Democratic Senators offered two 
amendments to S. 254 that were developed by a working group within the 
Democratic Caucus. Those amendments, together with an amendment to be 
offered by Senator Boxer to extend after-school programs, provide a 
comprehensive, measured response to youth violence.
  Children today face incredible emotional and societal pressures that 
most people my age never had to worry about. An average of 12 children 
die each day from gunfire in America. The National School Board 
Association estimates that 135,000 guns are brought into U.S. schools 
each day. This reality was painfully reinforced by the terrible, 
senseless tragedy that occurred in Littleton, Colorado, only a few 
weeks ago.
  The fear of school-related violence can have a profound effect on 
children's ability to learn. This fear has increased over the last 
decade. Fear for personal safety causes a significant number of 
students to stay home from school, or avoid certain areas of their 
schools. A full 71 percent of children ages 7 to 10 say they worry they 
will be shot or stabbed while at school.
  The root causes of the Columbine High School shooting, and wider 
threats to our schools and communities, are complex and deep. Finding 
solutions will require a national commitment that goes far beyond 
legislative proposals. It will require students, parents, teachers and 
principals, business leaders, faith-based organizations, youth groups, 
law enforcement officials and many others working together to reduce 
the threat of violence.
  While government--alone--can't solve the problem of youth violence, 
government must be part of the solution.
  The amendments that make up the Democratic package to S. 254 would 
help America's communities reduce violence in our schools and 
communities.
  Our caucus is united in our support of these amendments. We are also 
united in our determination to continue to seek long-term solutions to 
the problem of youth violence--solutions that will encompass both 
legislative and non-legislative strategies.


       Providing Resources and Services to Prevent Youth Violence

  More than 9 out of 10 police chiefs agree with the statement, 
``America could sharply reduce crime if government invested more in 
programs to help children and youth get a good start'' by ``fully 
funding Head Start for infants and toddlers, preventing child abuse, 
providing parenting training for high-risk families, improving schools 
and providing after school programs and mentoring.''
  Nine out of 10 police chiefs also agree that ``if America does not 
pay for greater investments in programs to help children and youth now, 
we will all pay far more later in crime, welfare, and other costs.''
  They know, and we know, that prevention works.
  Efforts to prevent delinquency before it starts can make a real 
difference in keeping children and communities safe. That's not 
conjecture. It's a fact.
  A recent study on the effectiveness of after-school programs looked 
at 2 housing projects. One of the projects instituted an after-school 
program, the other did not. In the project with the after-school 
program, juvenile arrest rates declined 75 percent. In the other 
project, juvenile arrest rates rose 67 percent.

  In housing projects with Boys and Girls Clubs, juvenile arrest rates 
are 13 percent lower, and drug activity is 22 percent lower, than in 
projects without clubs.
  In Boston and Los Angeles, comprehensive efforts to prevent juvenile 
crime have significantly reduced the number of murders of young people.
  Violence prevention saves lives. And it saves money.
  A RAND study found that crime prevention efforts were three times 
more cost-effective than increased punishment.
  A Vanderbilt University study estimates that each high-risk youth 
prevented from adopting a life of crime could save the country from 
$1.7 million to $2.3 million.
  That is why our leadership amendments sought to balance smart 
prevention and tough enforcement.
  Senator Robb's amendment would have created a National Center for 
School Safety and Youth Violence--a national clearinghouse of 
strategies that work.
  A Center could provide expert advice to schools and communities.
  It could establish a toll-free number for students to seek help and 
anonymously report criminal activity and other high-risk behaviors.
  It could provide assistance to parents and communities to address 
emergencies.
  The Center could also conduct research on and evaluate effective 
school safety strategies.
  It could serve as a clearinghouse of model programs, and establish a 
web site on school safety.
  It could also work with local communities to strengthen school 
safety.
  It could do all of those things if the Senate had chosen to adopt the 
amendment.
  The Robb amendment also built on the existing Safe Schools/Healthy 
Students program. This is a program that brings together schools, law 
enforcement and the mental health community to reduce both juvenile 
violence and drug and alcohol abuse.
  We think this program should be available to 150 additional 
communities, not just 50. Charges that the Robb amendment would create 
a whole new bureaucracy and duplicate existing programs are just not 
true.
  Mr. President, I find it ironic that Republicans in the Senate voted 
against the Robb amendment, yet voted in support of the Gregg 
amendment, which claims to do many of the things the Robb amendment 
would do with fewer resources. Making our schools safe should be one of 
our highest priorities.
  Preventing youth violence also requires a special focus on after-
school hours.
  Many students today spend more of their waking hours alone than they 
spend in school.
  We know that children left home alone are more likely to become 
involved in risky behaviors.
  Most juvenile crime occurs between 3 p.m and 8 p.m.
  We also know that children who attend quality after-school programs 
are less likely to engage in delinquent activity than children who do 
not. They have better relationships with their peers. They're better 
adjusted emotionally, get better grades, and they're better behaved in 
school.
  So, our package includes an amendment, to make quality, school-based 
after-school programs available to more students, in more communities.
  Our amendment triples funding authorization for the existing 21st 
Century Learning Center grant program, from $200 million to $600 
million. This proposal is in S. 7, our education agenda bill, and was 
in the President's budget.
  By investing in prevention, we can prevent a lot of good kids from 
going bad.
  But we know there are young people who need tougher measures.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont would have provided 
those measures as well. It was tough on juvenile crime--especially 
violent juvenile crime.
  It gave the Attorney General greater discretion to prosecute violent 
offenders as adults in the federal courts, and streamlines the process 
for doing so--without trampling on the rights of juvenile suspects.

[[Page S5113]]

  It established a program of flexible, graduated sanctions.
  Our amendment also provided grants to States to incarcerate violent 
and repeat offenders. We need to get violent kids off our streets, and 
out of our communities.
  When police chiefs were asked to rank the long-term effectiveness of 
a number of possible crime-fighting approaches, they chose ``increasing 
investments in programs that help children and youth to get a good 
start'' nearly 4 times as often as ``trying more juveniles as adults.''
  Four times more often!
  Our law enforcement amendment reflects the police chiefs' judgment. 
It invests in programs we know work, from ``Say No to Drugs'' 
community-based centers, to incentive grants for local delinquency 
prevention programs and drug prevention education programs.
  We also proposed to better protect children from drugs by expanding 
drug treatment opportunities, and increasing penalties for people who 
sell drugs to children.
  In addition, our amendment built on one of the most successful 
initiatives of the 1994 Crime Act, the COPS program.
  We proposed to put 6,000 more police officers in our schools and our 
communities.
  Mr. President, I think we were all disturbed by the bomb scares that 
were called into schools all across our nation in the wake of the 
Littleton tragedy. South Dakota has had to deal with 30 bomb scares or 
threats of violence since that incident.
  One of those bomb scares was called into Tri-Valley, a school in a 
rural community outside Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
  Fortunately, Tri-Valley has a police officer, called a ``school 
resource'' officer. His name is Deputy Preston Evans. His position is 
funded by a COPS grant. He actually covers two schools.

  On the day of the bomb threat, as students were being evacuated from 
the school, a number of students came up to Deputy Evans and told him 
they knew who had made the threat. By the end of the day, two students 
had been arrested.
  Those students were able to confide in Deputy Evans because they 
trusted him. And they were able to trust him because they knew him. 
They had a relationship with him.
  By expanding the COPS program, and giving kids the opportunity to 
have police as mentors and role models when they are young, we can 
reduce the chances that they'll need judges and wardens when they're 
older. That makes sense for our children, for our communities, and for 
our future.
  Mr. President, I never had to worry about assault weapons or pipe 
bombs when I was in school. No child, and no parent today should have 
to worry about those things, either.
  We simply cannot provide hope for our children if we cannot guarantee 
their safety in the very institutions where they go to learn the skills 
they need to succeed in life.
  I know that gun control proposals alone will not keep our children 
safe when they leave our homes in the morning. But we can--and we 
must--do more to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of children, 
and away from our schools.
  Our law enforcement amendment banned the possession of assault 
weapons and high capacity ammunition clips by anyone under the age of 
18.
  It also increased criminal penalties for those in the deadly black 
market of selling handguns, assault weapons and high-capacity 
ammunition clips to juveniles.
  Finally, when juveniles commit violent crimes and put the lives of 
others at risk, our amendment took away their right to possess a gun--
ever--regardless of whether they are prosecuted as adults or juveniles.
  In all this talk about juvenile crime, it's important for us to 
remember that the vast majority of our young people are good kids. They 
work hard in school. They're involved in their communities.
  Our goal should be to empower these young people, and their 
communities, to take action against crime, rather than be victimized by 
it.
  I've seen what can happen when we harness the power of our young 
people in my own state.
  Not long ago, a student in our capitol city, Pierre, took his own 
life.
  Many of his classmates were deeply affected. In addition to mourning, 
they also resolved to try to prevent other young people from making the 
same tragic mistake.
  High school students Craig Schochenmaier, Nick Johnson, and Blair 
Krueger have been working to raise money to give away gunlocks 
imprinted with the number for a suicide prevention hotline to parents 
who own guns.
  Instead of simply becoming numb to violence, Craig and his friends 
have found a way to fight it, and help others.

  I believe there are young people in communities all across our 
country who feel as Craig, Nick, and Blair do. They want to make their 
schools and communities safer. They're willing to work to end the 
violence. Our amendments would have given them, and their communities, 
the tools and support they needed to do that.
  I think we have missed two key opportunities on this bill. The 
provisions we have proposed and would make a real, positive difference 
in the lives of the people of this country. They represent the next 
right step in our ongoing effort to secure the safety of our schools 
and communities. My colleagues and I may offer some of these as 
individual amendments before the debate on this bill is over.
  I certainly encourage my colleagues, especially on the other side of 
the aisle but on both sides of the aisle, to reconsider these issues, 
to reconsider how we address these problems, and to vote in support of 
these amendments when they are offered again.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like briefly to respond to the 
distinguished minority leader's comments. I agree with the Senator from 
South Dakota that we need long term solutions to the problem of youth 
violence. S. 254, a comprehensive package designed to combat youth 
violence through multiple approaches--like prevention and 
accountability programs--is a long term, but flexible, approach to 
assist the States in curbing youth violence.
  My colleagues across the aisle want more funding dedicated to 
prevention programs, despite the funding increases approved yesterday 
in the Hatch-Biden-Sessions amendment. In addition, the Federal 
government, according to a 1999 GAO study, spends over $4 billion 
annually on 117 prevention programs. The Robb amendment was wisely 
tabled, since it added an additional $1 billion to Federal programs 
that already exist. S. 254 and the pending Republican amendments 
already address programs to steer youth away from a life of crime. For 
instance, S. 254 has a unique mentoring program that utilizes college 
age adults and retired couples that are matched to troubled juveniles 
and their families. By giving the juveniles proper guidance, 
communities can prevent youngsters from choosing to commit crime.
  Furthermore, although there were some similar provisions between the 
Leahy substitute amendment and the underlying bill, the devil is always 
in the details. Upon close inspection, this amendment was not an 
adequate substitute for the most thoroughly considered juvenile crime 
legislation in my 23 years in the Senate.
  First, the Leahy amendment duplicated programs that are already in S. 
254. My bill gives the Attorney General greater discretion to prosecute 
violent juvenile offenders that commit Federal crimes in adult court, 
and streamlines the process to do so. S. 254 already has a flexible 
accountability block grant that provides funding for a system of 
graduated sanctions to hold violent and repeat offenders responsible 
for the crimes inflicted on their victims. Since S. 254 provides a 
comprehensive package to fight juvenile violent crime, the Fraternal 
Order of Police supports the bill.
  Second, the Leahy amendment was not narrowly focussed on the problem 
we should be debating--juvenile crime. Indeed, of the advertised $3.581 
billion over three years price tag, by my count only $1.632 billion, or 
45.6 percent, is dedicated to addressing juvenile crime. In the law 
enforcement category, the imbalance is even more startling. Of the 
$1.684 billion the amendment claimed to spend on juvenie crime law 
enforcement, only $150 million, or 8.9 percent, is targeted at reducing 
juvenile crime.

[[Page S5114]]

  This $150 million is for juvenile and violent offender incarceration. 
I certainly agree with Senator Leahy that we need to provide assistance 
to States and local governments for secure juvenile detention. But, we 
need to fully support and encourage a full range of graduated sanctions 
from the earliest acts of delinquent behavior, to help ensure that 
early acts of delinquency do not grow into more serious problems. 
According to the OJJDP, the earliest acts of delinquent behavior start 
at age seven, and continue to get worse if there is no effective 
intervention. S. 254, unlike my colleague's amendment, recognizes this, 
and addresses it.
  So what did the Leahy amendment propose spending funds on? In the 
enforcement area, it reauthorizes Rural Drug Enforcement and Training, 
grants for state courts and prosecutors, and the Byrne program. Now, 
all of these are generally worthy programs. Indeed, I have been a vocal 
critic of recent efforts by the Clinton Administration to cut funding 
for some of these same programs. And my crime bill, the 21st Century 
Justice Act (S. 899) is a comprehensive answer to our general crime 
problem. But the bill we are debating today is a juvenile crime bill, 
and that should be our focus.
  And what of the $200 million the Leahy amendment purports to spend on 
more police officers in schools? This is, in reality, just a two year 
reauthorization of the existing COPS program. Some COPS funding can, of 
course, be used for school security. In fact, I supported the bill by 
Senator Campbell we enacted last Congress to amend the COPS program to 
allow its grants to pay for school security officers. But to call this 
general reauthorization a program dedicated to cops in schools is a bit 
inaccurate.
  What is left of the Leahy amendment then? Prevention. Which, of 
course, we all agree is important. The Hatch-Biden-Sessions amendment 
the Senate adopted yesterday increases our bill's commitment to 
prevention to $547.5 million per year. And, I might add, our prevention 
is more balanced than that in the Leahy amendment. $850 million of the 
Leahy amendment's ``juvenile crime prevention'' is focussed exclusively 
on drug prevention. And $400 million of that funding isn't even 
dedicated to the juvenile drug program, which I agree is in dire need 
of attention.
  In short, the prior Democratic amendments are no substitute for the 
effective, comprehensive approach to juvenile crime proposed in the 
underlying Hatch-Biden-Sessions bill. This bill, and the amendments we 
will offer, address our juvenile crime problem in four key areas. These 
include:
  (1) prevention and enforcement assistance to state and local 
government;
  (2) parental empowerment and stemming the influence of cultural 
violence;
  (3) getting tough on violent juveniles and enforce existing law; and
  (4) safe and secure schools.
  So far, the amendments to this serious juvenile crime package have 
been simple calls for increased spending and rhetorical trinkets. So 
while I respect the minority leader's views on this issue, I must 
disagree with his conclusions.
  Mr. President, before we begin the Brownback amendment debate, I ask 
unanimous consent the distinguished Budget Committee chairman be 
granted 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to offer my thoughts on the 
juvenile justice legislation before us here today. I want to commend 
the majority leader for bringing this important bill to the floor this 
week.
  I think it is time for the Senate to have a full debate about our 
Nation's juvenile crime policies, and the role the Federal Government 
should play in addressing youth violence.
  The Federal Government should provide greater funding to the States 
to combat juvenile crime, but without tying the hands of the States and 
their ability to implement new and innovative approaches to the 
problem. The bill before us is a step in that direction.
  In the wake of the tragedy in Littleton, CO, this will be a 
particularly timely debate. But I want my colleagues to know that, in 
the view of this Senator, this is a debate which is long overdue.
  As far back as 1995, I held field hearings in my home State of New 
Mexico to talk to people about their experiences with escalating youth 
violence.
  I brought in judges, law enforcement officers, youth counselors, and 
prevention experts, as well as victims of juvenile crime, to see what 
the Federal response to the problem ought to be. I then introduced 
legislation based on what I heard from the experts in New Mexico.
  And I must say to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator 
Hatch, and his colleague, Senator Sessions, you all must have heard the 
same things from your experts as we heard in new Mexico. Because many 
of the same concepts and ideas which I heard during those discussions 
in New Mexico have found their way into your bill before us today.
  Ideas like graduated sanctions, so that kids are punished the first 
time they commit a bad act, and given more severe punishment for 
subsequent, more severe offenses.
  In New Mexico, I heard countless stories of juveniles who committed 
10 or 15 minor crimes before they ever were given even the slightest 
punishment. It is not wonder that so many kids disrespect our justice 
system. This bill will encourage States to adopt graduated sanctions 
policies, and provide resources to do so.
  Another theme echoed throughout the field hearings and meetings I 
held in New Mexico was the need to better address the rights of the 
victims of juvenile crime.
  Often, the victims and their families are forgotten in the juvenile 
justice system. States frequently require closed court hearings, rarely 
notify victims when offenders are sentenced or released, and often fail 
to allow for restitution.
  One issue that is critically important to a rural State like New 
Mexico is the need to address the Federal mandates imposed upon the 
States as a condition of receiving Federal funds.
  I have been working with Congresswoman Heather Wilson of New Mexico's 
First District on this issue since the time when she served as the 
Secretary of Children, Youth and Families in our State. One problem she 
always faced was how to deal with the Federal ``sight and sound 
separation'' mandate, which led to arbitrary, burdensome, and often 
times ridiculous restrictions placed on my State's use of juvenile 
facilities.
  Let me make it clear to the critics of this bill's handling of the 
mandates: no one, including this Senator, wants to house juveniles in 
the same cell as adults or to allow adults the ability to physically or 
emotionally abuse juveniles held in secure facilities.
  All this bill seeks to do is impose some common sense, to allow 
States the flexibility to use their facilities and staffs in a 
rational, but responsible way. I think Senators Hatch and Sessions have 
done a good job addressing the problem.
  I have before me a list of the 15 Federal and 7 State gun laws 
already on the books which were violated by those disturbed youths in 
Colorado. I want my colleagues to know that I think that we should do a 
better job of enforcing those laws already in place, particularly at 
the Federal level, before we consider enacting a laundry list of new 
gun laws. There may be some suggestions offered this week which are 
reasonable, and which might be acceptable to a majority of Senators. I 
wait to see what will be offered.
  Mr. President, I thank you for recognizing me. Again, I commend the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and the chairman of 
the Youth Violence Subcommittee, Senator Sessions, for their hard work 
on this bill. I do not agree with every single provision, and I may 
offer some amendments later in the process, but I think they have done 
a fine job getting this legislation to the floor. And I look forward to 
working with them as we continue to shape the bill.
  Mr. President, while this bill will be contentious and we will have 
scores of amendments, it is the right debate at the right time in the 
right place. I think after we have fully debated this we are going to 
come up with a bill that will help our sovereign States and the 
governments within those sovereign States to do a better job with 
juvenile crime policies. We do not have

[[Page S5115]]

a major role, but we have certainly not had a sufficient role. This 
bill will expand that and modify and make more responsive some of the 
mandates we have in our laws today with reference to juveniles.
  First of all, there is a great discussion taking place about firearms 
and guns. While I do not address that in my few remarks, in due course 
we will have a significant debate on this. Clearly, we will all listen 
attentively and pay attention. We will try to do the very best we can. 
I will certainly try to do that.
  But essentially there is a much bigger issue. The issue is the 
criminal justice system. In our land we have an adult criminal system. 
We all hear about that regularly. It is jury trials for serious crimes. 
It is whether or not to have death penalties. It is do we have enough 
district attorneys to prosecute. It is what is happening to the 
families of these adults against whom these crimes have been committed. 
And it is a myriad of things that apply to adults.
  For the most part, the juvenile justice system in America has been 
almost mysterious, because we have been bent on protecting the young 
people and protecting their rights and protecting their reputations--
and properly so. But I submit much of that apprehension about 
disclosing what crimes teenagers and juveniles have committed, keeping 
their records separate such that they can have the equivalent of two or 
three felonies and nobody ever knows about it when they enter the next 
phase of life--many of these things were done in a completely different 
era. Clearly, we have a small portion of America's young people 
committing crimes. The overwhelming number, as the minority leader 
said, are diligently doing their jobs, trying to grow up, learning and 
conducting themselves in a very, very good manner.
  There is a growing number of teenagers that has become just as 
dangerous as adult criminals. They commit the very same crimes from 
rape to murder to mayhem to burglary to robbery. Drive-by shootings are 
not just done by adults. Many of them are done by teenagers and young 
people. The time has come, it seems to me, to give a little more 
recognition to that and to help our States and their juvenile apparatus 
for helping them do a better job.
  I held hearings in my State the year before last, and I introduced a 
bill, along with my colleague from the House, Representative Heather 
Wilson. Many of the ideas in it which we got from our educators, from 
our judges, from our policemen, are in this bill. I compliment those 
who put it together. It moves in the right direction, without any 
doubt.
  Frankly, there are young people who commit significant crimes over 
and over who deserve to be treated as adults. We do, to some extent, 
urge the States to move in that direction--and many are--to treat as 
adults those young people who commit certain kinds of crimes which are 
just abhorrent to society.
  We are moving in the direction of making sure that the records of 
severe juvenile criminals are made available so that the courts can be 
apprised in later years as these juvenile criminals commit other 
serious crimes. It is not as if the first 5 years of criminality as a 
youngster do not count. We are moving in that direction, and I think we 
are moving there correctly.
  Likewise, it is obvious that we ought to be doing some things to help 
in the prevention area. I am very pleased that we are urging our 
schools that have great physical capacity--their gyms, their recreation 
centers, their classrooms--to make them available for afterschool, 
weekend and even summer activities so that our young people have more 
to do with their enormous amount of spare time, other than to spend, on 
average, 7 hours--it is not just teenagers, but televisions in our 
homes are on 7 hours a day, a rather incredible number. Probably with 
so many of our young people with nothing to do in the afternoons, it 
would not be a surprise if for a substantial number of those 7 hours, 
teenagers and our youngsters are watching, with no adults around, 
whatever they please.
  Clearly, this bill is moving in the right direction, with reference 
to another area which is totally frustrating for fellow New Mexicans 
and for Americans, and that is victims of juvenile crime. We are now 
finding how abusive a court system can be to victims if, in fact, the 
courts do not take the victims into consideration.
  I will be offering an amendment with reference to victims which, I 
believe the Senate will be pleased to hear, will take some things out 
of the proposed constitutional amendment that was offered with 
reference to victims and makes it statutory. A few of those ideas were 
in Dan Coats' proposal. I believe we can put in rights that victims 
will have under the juvenile codes of our land.
  Let me close by suggesting one other thing. Again, if we get away 
from the shootings and look at the ordinary daily operation of the 
criminal justice system for young people, we find a problem with 
reference to what we do with young people who commit small offenses. Do 
we do nothing? It is pretty obvious that small offenses repeated yield 
to more serious offenses, and if there is no corrective action, then it 
will yield to more egregious offenses. Go to one of our facilities in 
New Mexico and interrogate a 17-year-old boy and ask him why he is 
there. He will say: I am finally here, but I was arrested 17 times and 
I was found guilty of 14 crimes, and nothing happened to me. I ended up 
here.

  This bill talks about progressive punishment--little crimes, little 
punishment; bigger crimes, bigger punishment--but suggests that we will 
help with funding in the States if they have a system that, indeed, 
imposes some kind of corrective measure, even for the lesser offenses.
  This is not intended to create a situation where we are just being 
mean to somebody. As a matter of fact, it looks like young people learn 
when they are corrected, when they are told they cannot do something 
and when violating the law means they have to suffer in some way, be it 
mighty small when they are small offenses, or significant as they move 
up the ladder of criminality in terms of the number of times they 
violate our laws.
  I hope by the time we finish this bill, we will have taken a giant 
step forward in helping our States which, after all, do most of the law 
enforcement of this criminal behavior by our young people and most of 
the offenses that are taking place in our school systems, such as the 
events that occurred in my neighboring State of Colorado. Most of the 
authority to do something about that is not in our hands; it is in the 
hands of our States.
  We ought to be helpful to the States in this legislation by not tying 
their hands but giving them flexibility, and where we really think 
there ought to be improvements in the system, giving some benefit to a 
State that changes the system in a positive manner. This bill has that 
kind of incentive built into it which is the part I put in the bill 
which I introduced not too long ago, because I thought it was very 
important to encourage States to make changes.
  I thank the Senator for yielding to me, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                           Amendment No. 329

(Purpose: Relating to telecast material, video games, Internet content, 
                           and music lyrics)

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, by a previous unanimous consent 
agreement, I call up amendment No. 329.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback], for himself, Mr. 
     Hatch, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Abraham, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 329.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. 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 text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr President, I call up this amendment on behalf of 
myself, Senator Hatch and Senator Lieberman. I ask unanimous consent 
that Senator Abraham be listed as an original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S5116]]

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is a discussion we have been 
having within the country and we now need to have in the Senate. We 
have four provisions in the amendment. They are, basically, things that 
we can address in the Senate about the culture of violence that has 
enveloped the country and has taken us to the point where so many 
people have so many fears of what has taken place, and we see some of 
this acted out.
  This is not a panacea amendment. It will not solve all our problems, 
but I think it is a positive step in the right direction. It has 
bipartisan support, and I am hopeful we can get broad support 
throughout the Senate so that these amendments will become law. Let me 
go through each of them.
  The amendment will provide, first, a limited antitrust exemption to 
the entertainment industry enabling the industry to develop and 
disseminate voluntary guidelines for television programming, movies, 
video games, Internet content and music.
  What we are seeking is an antitrust exemption so that the industry 
can enter into its own voluntary code of conduct, the likes of which 
the television industry used to have and then left after there was some 
feeling that this was potentially an antitrust violation.
  We want to give them an antitrust exemption so they can set a code of 
conduct, a floor below which they will not go in the race to the bottom 
for ever more violent, ever more explicit, ever more troubling content. 
We want to provide that for television, movies, video game producers, 
Internet content, and music.
  These voluntary guidelines will be used to alleviate some of the 
negative impact of violent sexual content and other subjects 
inappropriate for children that are so pervasive throughout the 
television shows, movies, video games, Internet content, and music 
produced today by the industry.
  This amendment does not--does not--require the entertainment industry 
to develop or disseminate such guidelines, nor does it provide the 
Federal Government with any additional authority to regulate TV 
programming, movies, video games, Internet content, or music. Members 
can support this and know what this amendment does not do.
  The amendment does enable the entertainment industry to establish 
voluntary guidelines. I believe this is an appropriate way for us to 
encourage the industry to reconsider their entertainment products with 
an eye toward their corporate responsibility.

  My amendment would simply make clear that the entertainment industry 
would not be subject to antitrust scrutiny if its members create such 
guidelines. This amendment does not infringe upon the first amendment 
rights of the entertainment industry. It would provide us with the 
opportunity to give the industry the tools that are necessary to 
articulate what their standards are and to inform parents what they can 
expect from the industry.
  Why do we need a code of conduct? I think there are several very 
important reasons why.
  First, our popular culture exerts an enormous influence on our young 
children and on our entire society. What we see, hear, and experience 
helps shape how we think, how we feel, and how we act. This is 
particularly true for children. All too often, what kids see in movies 
or on television, what they hear in music, and what they experience in 
the games they play actually desensitizes them and debases rather than 
uplifts.
  Given that entertainment companies wield such enormous power in this 
country, it is only right that parents and consumers should know what 
their standards are and how they will use their media. This code of 
conduct will call on entertainment executives to define those 
standards, what levels they would not sink below, and what ideals they 
intend to uphold. I think the public has a right to know that as well.
  Second, establishing a code of conduct not only informs parents, it 
helps hold the entertainment industries accountable. Parents will have 
a written code by which to judge television, movies, music, and games 
and be empowered to demand that companies live up to their code.
  Third, a code of conduct says that entertainment companies do bear 
some corporate responsibility for the impact of the entertainment that 
they peddle. For too long, entertainment executives have insisted--in 
the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary--that the violence 
and sexual activity they depict had no impact, and that therefore they 
had no responsibility. A code of conduct recognizes that these 
companies wield enormous power and must therefore bear a corporate 
responsibility to the public at large.
  There are some who defend the extreme violence and sexual activity in 
some movies, television shows, or music lyrics by claiming they are 
merely reflections of the reality of life, that they hold a mirror to 
society. But it is not a mirror; it is a mirage. The world of 
television and movies is--thank goodness --far more violent, conflicted 
and sexually explicit than the life of the average American. There are 
far more Amish people in the United States than there are serial 
murderers. There are more pastors than prostitutes. But you would never 
know that from watching television.
  Enabling the entertainment industry to develop and enter into a code 
of conduct is not a panacea. It will not, by itself, put an end to all 
objectionable content, but it will be an important first step in 
encouraging the industry to reconsider the influence--for good or ill--
of its products, its internal standards, and its corporate 
responsibility.
  It will provide parents and consumers with information, and enable 
them to hold entertainment companies responsible for their product, and 
it will further an important national dialogue about what our duties to 
our children are and the role we play in determining whether we live in 
a culture that glorifies death, carnage and violence, or in a civil 
society.

  We also have other provisions that are in this amendment beyond just 
the code of conduct, the voluntary code of conduct. This amendment 
would also require the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of 
Justice to conduct a joint study of the marketing practices of the 
motion picture industry, recording industry, and video game industry.
  The amendment requires the FTC and the DOJ examine the extent to 
which the entertainment industry targets--targets--the marketing of 
violent, sexually explicit or other material unsuitable to minors, 
including whether such content is advertised in media outlets in which 
minors comprise a substantial percentage of the audience. We want to 
know, are these entertainment companies actually marketing violence to 
minors? Are they lacing more violence in their products to get more 
sales to minors?
  The effectiveness of voluntary industry ratings in limiting access of 
minors to content that is unsuitable is something else that we want 
studied as well. Further, we want to study the extent to which those 
who engage in the sale or rental of entertainment products abide by 
voluntary industry ratings or labeling systems. We want to know whether 
mechanisms or procedures are necessary to ensure the effective 
enforcement of voluntary ratings or labeling systems.
  We need to know the extent to which the entertainment industry 
encourages the enforcement of their voluntary ratings and labeling 
systems. And we need to know whether any of the entertainment 
industry's marketing practices violate Federal law.
  Recently, I held a hearing at which Senator Lieberman and Senator 
Hatch testified regarding the marketing of violence to our children, 
and whether violence is used to market products. There is a strong 
suspicion that, indeed, it occurs.
  I would like to draw the attention to the Senate to some of the 
advertisements of products to children. These are particularly of video 
games.
  This one that I am showing you now is an advertisement in a magazine 
for a video game rated for teens. This is rated for teenagers. This is 
the advertisement: ``Deploy. Destroy. Then relax over a cold one.'' It 
sure is laced with violence and uses violence to market a product to 
teens.
  Here is one, a popular video game, a video game called Carmageddon. I 
have shown this to the Senate before. Rigormotorist. It is about 
killing people in a car-driving video game.
  There is another video game that we have shown to the Senate before. 
It is

[[Page S5117]]

rated for teens. You can see the symbol there: ``Destroying your 
enemies is not enough. You must devour their souls.'' Clear use of 
violence and other imagery with that as well.
  There is in the amendment an NIH study. There have been literally 
hundreds of studies, some would estimate even more, conducted on the 
impact of television on our attitudes, thoughts, psychological well-
being, behavior, development, level of aggression, and predisposition 
toward violence. The more we study it, the clearer the link we have of 
the consumption of violent entertainment and increased aggression, 
fear, anger, emotional difficulties, even predisposition towards 
violence.

  However, there have been very few studies done on the impact of music 
and video games on young people. We need to know more. The other point 
of this amendment is to study that connection. By some estimates, the 
average teen listens to music around 4 hours a day. Between 7th and 
12th grades, teens will spend around 10,500 hours listening to music. 
Listen to that again. Between the 7th and 12th grades, they are going 
to listen, the average teen, to around 10,000 hours of music. That is 
more time than they will spend in school.
  Similarly, the popularity of video games is rapidly increasing among 
young people. One study, conducted by Strategy Records Research, found 
that 64 percent of young people played these games on a regular basis. 
Clearly, young people spend a huge amount of time focused on these 
kinds of entertainment.
  It stands to reason that music and games have some sort of impact on 
young people, just as it stands to reason that what we see, hear and 
experience has some impact on our thoughts and attitudes and, thus, our 
decisions and our behavior. Determining what this impact is, is clearly 
in the public interest.
  This amendment, sponsored by myself, Senator Hatch, Senator 
Lieberman, and Senator Abraham, provides for a study to determine that 
impact. We need to know more, and we need to start now.
  The first step towards addressing problems is to accurately define 
them. And for that, we need all the available information. This 
amendment is an important start in that direction.
  I point out something that I hope is becoming more familiar to 
Members of the Senate and to the country, the violence that is in some 
of the music. We talked about video games. We have studied music and 
television. In music, here is a person who is pretty famous now, 
Marilyn Manson, with an album ``Anti-Christ Superstar.'' You can look 
at all the words pointing towards ``Tomorrow's turned up dead.'' ``You 
can kill yourself now.'' Glorification of suicide and violence.
  Here is another record out of it. ``Anti-cop, Anti-fun.'' I am not 
going to read any of that. Here is another top record from Master P, 
``Come and Get Some.'' ``I got friends running out the blanking crack 
house.''

  You can go down through this and see the violent, in many cases, very 
hateful and misogynistic, some racist terminology. We need to know what 
is the impact on a young mind that is consuming, in many cases, on the 
average of 4 hours of this a day. That is the intent of this study to 
ask that those things be looked at.
  We think the evidence is clearly growing. We need to do something 
about what has happened to our culture. We are asking in this set of 
amendments, one, for an antitrust exemption for a voluntary code of 
conduct, for enforcement of industry rating systems, for a study on the 
marketing of violence to children, and for an NIH study of violent 
entertainment, particularly video games and music, and its impact on 
children.
  We have had terrible, unthinkable tragedies that have happened to our 
children in this country. We know there is a link between the violence 
and the action. Both the American Medical Association and the American 
Association of Pediatrics have warned against exposing children to 
violent entertainment.
  One 1996 American Medical Association study conducted concluded this: 
``The link between media violence and real life violence has been 
proven by science time and time again.''
  Another AMA study concluded that ``exposure to violence in 
entertainment increases aggressive behavior and contributes to 
Americans' sense that they live in a mean society.''
  Those are pretty clear points of view.
  Mr. President, we need to do something. These are modest steps. They 
will not, in and of themselves, change the society or change the 
culture, but they are appropriate steps. They can continue our national 
debate. I think they can help focus us on moving away from this culture 
of violence, this culture of death, towards more of a culture of peace 
and a culture of life that clearly we need to provide to our children.
  I note that there are a number of people who wish to speak on this 
amendment. I recognize first the chairman of the committee, who wanted 
to address this subject, Senator Hatch, and then Senator Lieberman has 
been on the floor to speak as well. I yield to Senator Hatch on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we keep the 
status quo with regard to no amendments to this amendment until 12:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I do not intend to 
object, but I want to make sure that others are going to be able to 
address the Senate during this period of time. I know the Senator from 
Utah, the Senator from Connecticut--I see the Senator from California 
has some inquiries. I would like to be able to speak as well. I would 
like to see that we have an opportunity for each of these Members 
before we get to 12:30. That is my only concern.
  Mr. HATCH. I hope everybody can be recognized, but I ask unanimous 
consent that at 12:30 I be permitted----
  Mrs. BOXER. I can't hear the Senator.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent to keep the status quo until 12:30 
and then at 12:30 I retain the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I object to that. We have an agreement 
now. The Senator is recognized for 30 minutes. Now we are in the 
position that we can offer second-degree amendments. The Senator is 
asking that we do not do that for 30 minutes. If you want to get this 
Senator to agree to it, we are going to have to give other Members the 
chance to speak on the floor. Otherwise, I am going to object to it. 
Why don't we just try to work this out with comity?

  Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to not speak at this particular time and 
have somebody from the Democrat side speak.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Why doesn't the Senator speak for 10 minutes, and the 
Senator from Connecticut for 10 minutes, and the remaining 15 minutes 
to Senator Boxer.
  Mrs. BOXER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Is that agreeable?
  Mr. HATCH. We also have to reserve 10 minutes for Senator DeWine.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Between now and 12:30?
  Mr. HATCH. We will go beyond 12:30. I think he can come after that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest that the Senator be recognized now for 10 
minutes; following that, the Senator from Connecticut, 10 minutes; 
following that, 15 minutes divided between Senator Boxer and myself; 
and following that, at 12:30, Senator DeWine be recognized for 10 
minutes; and that there be no intervening motions or actions or 
amendments.
  Mr. HATCH. Or amendments, and that I get the floor as soon as Senator 
DeWine has concluded with his speech.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, just with a question to my 
friend from Utah. It is my understanding that this amendment would be 
opened up to second-degrees.
  Mr. HATCH. We keep the status quo of not opening it to second-
degrees.
  Mrs. BOXER. At 12:35 the amendment would be opened for second-
degrees?
  Mr. HATCH. But the floor would be yielded to me.
  Mrs. BOXER. So you may well offer a second-degree?
  Mr. HATCH. I may well offer a second-degree at that time. We would 
prefer not to have any amendments to this, but that is what I may very 
well do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page S5118]]

  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Parliamentary inquiry: Just so we know, I am to speak for 
how many minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The order is as follows: Currently 10 minutes 
for the chairman, 10 minutes for the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. HATCH. Fifteen minutes divided equally between the Senator from 
California and the Senator from Massachusetts?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes between the Senators from 
California and Massachusetts.
  Mr. HATCH. And then 10 minutes for----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. And then 10 minutes for the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. HATCH. Then the floor would be yielded back to me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I first want to commend Senator Brownback 
for his initiative to curb the exposure of our youth to violence. I 
recognize that as early as last year Senator Brownback and I, and I 
have to add my dear friend from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and 
others, had developed legislation designed to encourage television 
broadcasters to join forces and develop a code of conduct for 
responsible programming. That legislation is part of the amendment 
being offered today, and it addresses the broader concern that our 
children are exposed to too much violence, too much obscenity, and too 
much filth--whether through television, in movies, in modern music, or 
in video games.
  Let me say for the record that I hope that as the new V-chip is 
implemented in televisions, our concern for the pervasive exposure of 
children to violence on the tube will be alleviated.
  Again, I commend my colleague for his leadership in efforts to 
encourage the broadcast media to exercise responsibility. I commend my 
colleague from Connecticut as well. They have been two great leaders on 
these subjects. There are others who deserve credit as well.
  Mr. President, I do not take the floor to attack the entertainment 
industry. It is well known that I work very closely with people in the 
entertainment industry, trying to make sure that their intellectual 
property needs are taken care of, and others as well. Indeed, it is 
just one part of a more complex problem. I do hope we can encourage the 
industry to work with us to do what is best for our children in 
America.
  As my colleagues know, I have long supported the creative industry, 
as evidenced by continued efforts to ensure strong intellectual 
property rights that protect the creative products of these industries.
  Why can't this industry, which is a source of so much good in 
America, do more to discourage the marketing of filth to children? Why 
shouldn't the industry help fight the marketing of violence to young 
people?
  Study after study indicates that prolonged exposure of children to 
ultra-violent movies and video games increases the likelihood for 
aggression and aggressive conduct on their part. As President Clinton 
noted in his radio address last week, the two juveniles who committed 
the atrocities in Littleton played the ultra-violent video game Doom--
that is this right here--the ultra-violent video game Doom obsessively, 
over and over and over. In addition, the 14-year-old boy who killed 
three in the Paducah, KY, school killing in 1997 was also an avid video 
game player. In fact, the juvenile had never fired a pistol before he 
accurately shot eight classmates.
  Let me give one typical example of how these games are advertised. 
This chart back here is a page from a video game company's web site. It 
is promoting a new video game called Turok 2--Seeds of Evil. This ad 
describes this game as--if you can read those words--``the undeniably, 
certifiably el numero uno death match Frag fest because we know what 
you want.''
  Now, this last sentence bears repeating: ``Because we know what you 
want.'' The ad describes ``over 24 devastating weapons'' and exclaims 
that players may ``unload twin barrels of ricocheting shotgun shells'' 
and ``blow enemies clean away'' with the scorpion launcher. And worst 
of all, it urges players to ``send brains flying'' with something the 
gamemakers call a ``skull drilling cerebral bore.''
  How much more graphic can this get? They emphasize how ``real'' the 
games are, too, with ``real-time flinch generation.'' ``Enemies flinch 
and spasm differently, depending on which body part you hit.'' Absent 
here is any realistic depiction of the consequences of real violence. 
This is just one example of the irresponsibility of these games being 
marketed and accessible to our kids. It is pathetic when you stop and 
think about it.
  I might add, given there is evidence that extremely violent or 
otherwise unsuitable material in movies, music, and video games have 
negative effects on children, many are concerned about how these 
products are marketed and sold. Do these industries specifically target 
products to minors that, according to their own guidelines, are 
unsuitable to minors? I think the American people deserve an answer to 
that question.
  As I testified before the Senate Commerce Committee last week, I was 
troubled to learn that according to the National Institute on Media and 
the Family, some manufacturers of video and computer games are 
marketing ultraviolent video games rated for adults only to children. 
In 1998, the National Institute on Media and the Family conducted a 
thorough study of the video and computer game industry. Some of the 
findings were very disturbing. For example, lurid advertisements for 
violent video games are aimed directly at children. The advertisement 
for the video game Destrega states: ``Let the slaughter begin,'' while 
the advertisement for the video game Carmageddon states: ``As easy as 
killing babies with axes.'' These and similar advertisements appeared 
in recent gaming magazines that are targeted to teenagers.
  Moreover, an advertisement for Resident Evil 2, a violent video game 
rated for adults only, was featured in the magazine Sports Illustrated 
for Kids. Few people would argue that cigarettes, alcohol, or X-rated, 
or NC-17 rated movies should be advertised in children's magazines. Why 
should such violent video games--games the industry itself has found 
unsuitable for children--be advertised and marketed to children? I 
think we need an answer to that.
  Nor is the problem of marketing violence to children limited to video 
games. In recent years, the lyrics of popular music have grown more 
violent and depraved. And much of the violence and cruelty in modern 
music is directed toward women.
  Here is one of the recent violent things. This is Eminem, and it is 
directed, in large measure, toward violence and cruelty toward women.
  As Senator Brownback noted on the floor two weeks ago, the group Nine 
Inch Nails had a commercial success a few years ago with a song 
celebrating the rape and murder of a woman. This is not an isolated 
example. Hatred and violence against women in mainstream hip hop and 
alternative music are widespread and unmistakable. Consider the singer 
Marilyn Manson, whom MTV named the ``Best New Artist of the Year'' last 
year. Some of Manson's less vulgar lyrics include: ``Who says date rape 
isn't kind''; ``let's just kill everyone and let your god sort them 
out''; and ``the housewife I will beat, the pro-life I will kill.'' 
Other Manson lyrics cannot be repeated here on the Senate floor.
  The weekend after the Colorado shootings, a 12-year-old boy whom I 
know, bought a Marilyn Manson compact disc from a local Washington area 
record store, even though it was rated for adult content. Ironically, 
the warning label on the disc was covered by the price tag. Here is the 
disc, and here is the way the warning label was covered. The tag 
covered the warning label, clearly making it easier for kids to buy 
these products. This indicates that these record warnings are not being 
taken seriously. Consider Eminem, which I mentioned before, the hip hop 
artist featured frequently on MTV who recently wrote ``Bonnie and 
Clyde''--a song in which he described his killing his child's mother 
and dumping her body into the ocean. Many of his songs contain violent, 
troubling lyrics with the misogynistic message.

  Despite historic bipartisan legislation by the State and Federal 
governments, it is stunning how much modern music glorifies acts of 
violence, sexual and otherwise, against women.

[[Page S5119]]

This music is what many children are listening to. This music is 
marketed to our youth, and we should not ignore the fact that violent 
misogynistic music may ultimately affect the behavior and attitudes of 
many young men toward women.
  One might argue that these groups are not embraced by the 
entertainment industry. How, then, would the industry explain a 1998 
Grammy nomination for Nine Inch Nails and a 1999 nomination for Marilyn 
Manson? It is one thing to say these people can't produce this 
material; it is another thing for the industry to embrace it.
  Many Americans were justifiably outraged when it was discovered that 
tobacco companies marketed cigarettes to children. I believe we should 
be equally concerned if we find that violent music and video games are 
being marketed to children. Limiting access to ultraviolent music and 
video games to children does not raise the same constitutional concerns 
that a general prohibition on such material would entail.
  For example, while some can reasonably contend that the first 
amendment protects certain X-rated material, no one can reasonably 
argue that the Constitution prohibits restricting such material to 
children.
  Now, that is why one provision of this amendment--a provision I 
developed with Senators Lieberman, Harkin, and Kohl--directs the FTC 
and the Department of Justice to examine the extent to which the motion 
pictures, recording, and video game industries market violent, sexually 
explicit, or other harmful and unsuitable material to minors--including 
whether such content is advertised or promoted in media outlets in 
which minors comprise a substantial percentage of the audience.
  The report will also examine the extent to which retailers, and in 
the case of motion pictures, theater owners, have policies to restrict 
the sale, rental, or admission of such unsuitable material to minors--
and whether the industry requires, monitors, or encourages the 
enforcement of their respective voluntary rating systems by retail 
merchants or theater owners.
  Mr. President, I do want to note that over the years each of these 
industries has taken some positive steps in developing voluntary 
labeling systems that provide notice to parents about unsuitable 
content of certain products.
  But as I have said before, it is important to see if such standards 
are enforced at the retail stage, and also see if, despite their 
standards, the industry targets unsuitable materials to minors.
  I also want to take a few moments to discuss another provision of 
this amendment that provides a limited antitrust exemption to the 
industry in order to empower them to develop effective enforcement 
procedures for their voluntary guidelines. This provision is different 
from the provision developed by Senator Brownback, which relates to the 
development of a code of conduct.
  For years, I and others in Congress have searched for solutions for 
limiting the negative impact exposure to violent or sexually explicit 
content--whether in motion pictures, television, songs, or video 
games--has on our children. This provision of the amendment is designed 
to achieve this objective by empowering the respective industries to 
develop and enforce responsible guidelines without the fear of 
liability under our antitrust laws. It will allow manufacturers and 
producers to agree among themselves to refuse to sell their products to 
retail outlets who do not follow the industry's standards and 
guidelines--if the industry chooses to do that.
  Mr. President, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am mindful 
of the first amendment concerns that could be raised by attempts on the 
part of the Federal Government to broadly regulate content, on the 
Internet or over the other media. But I do believe that we must do what 
we can do to promote responsibility on the part of the film industry, 
the recording industry and the entertainment software industry in 
meeting the needs of children. This amendment does that.
  Over the years each of these industries has taken positive steps in 
developing voluntary rating systems that either provide notice to 
parents about unsuitable content of certain products, or attempt to 
restrict the sale of unsuitable products to adults or mature audiences. 
Unfortunately, it appears that adequate and effective enforcement of 
these guidelines at the retail level is lacking. For instance, there is 
little enforcement effort that ensures children under the age of 17 are 
in fact prohibited from viewing NC-17 rated movies--or that children 
are not allowed to purchase music or video games which are purportedly 
intended for sale to adults. The inquiry by the FTC and DOJ directed by 
this amendment will further be helpful in this regard.
  I believe that the enforcement of the voluntary standards is 
necessary to make the system work. Proper enforcement will protect the 
integrity of the overall self-regulatory system. If the industry 
chooses to exercise responsibility and refuse to sell its product to a 
retailer who does not follow the industry code of conduct, it should be 
able to do so--without the fear of antitrust laws.
  Here is how this provision of the amendment works: to the extent that 
the antitrust laws might preclude the motion pictures, recording or 
video game industries from developing guidelines and procedures for 
their respective industries to limit the sale of unsuitable material to 
children, this amendment fixes that. It provides industry with limited 
fixes that. It provides industry with limited exemption from the 
antitrust laws in order to give them the freedom to develop and enforce 
voluntary enforcement mechanisms without the fear of antitrust 
liability or government regulation.
  But with this amendment I hope to encourage industry to limit the 
sale to minors of material, whether it is music, movies, or video 
games, which the industry itself deems unsuitable for children.
  Again, it is important to underscore that this provision does not 
tell industry to do or not to do anything. It simply gives them the 
power to join forces in order to develop enforcement mechanisms without 
the risk of liability under the antitrust laws.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Connecticut is 
recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment. I am privileged to be 
a cosponsor of the amendment with the Senator from Kansas, Mr. 
Brownback, and with the Senator from Utah, Chairman Hatch.
  This amendment incorporates several proposals which many of us have 
been working on together across party lines in this Chamber to try to 
tone down one of the influences that we are convinced is contributing 
to the outbreak and crisis of youth violence in our country.
  Two other colleagues whom I have been privileged to work with are 
Senator McCain of Arizona and Senator Kohl of Wisconsin. At this time I 
ask unanimous consent that Senators McCain and Kohl be added as 
original cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in the wake of the tragic shooting in 
Littleton, we as a nation, as individuals, are focusing in on an 
unsettling fact: No matter how good times are economically in America, 
something seems to have gone wrong in our country, something that is 
whetting the taste for blood and death in our children, turning too 
many of them into killers in our schools, in the suburbs, on the urban 
street corners, and in the homes of every kind of community throughout 
our country.
  As I have listened to this discussion at home in Connecticut, and as 
I have listened to it here on the floor of the Senate, in the 
committees and caucus rooms of this Capitol, I think what is important 
is that we are all recognizing and accepting that this is an extremely 
complicated problem without a single cause, fueled by an amorphous mix 
of factors.
  A child is not, if I may say, a natural born killer. A child, 
unfortunately, is affected by a variety of circumstances that make him 
into a killer, from the disengagement of parents, from the makeup of 
the child himself, to the disconnection and alienation that many 
children feel from their families, their peers, their communities, to 
the weakening of our moral and community safety nets. This is a mix 
that has been

[[Page S5120]]

made more deadly in our time by the easy access many children have to 
guns.
  Most of what we know for sure, as we consider the complexity of the 
problem, is, unfortunately, in the statistics, there is a Littleton 
every day. An average of 13 children die from gunshot wounds every 24 
hours in America--some self-inflicted and more from murder.
  The fact is that no civilized country in the world comes close to 
matching this level of homicide and suicide, let alone the massacres we 
have seen committed in public places. The more we look at this problem, 
the more we understand--many of us--that the environment in which we 
are raising our children, with all of the death and destruction and 
dismemberment and degradation that we expose them to in the 
entertainment media, with the wealth of perverse messages we send them 
romanticizing and in many ways sanitizing violence--all of that has an 
effect. All of that draws a connection between the culture and the 
killing, between the viciousness pouring out of our children and piling 
up throughout our society.
  I know there are skeptics and naysayers who, despite the reams of 
evidence and scientific and anecdotal information gleaned from 
Littleton, Jonesboro, Paducah, and elsewhere--despite all that our 
intuition tells us about the omnipresence of electronic media and the 
pull on our society, despite all of this--cling to the notion that the 
culture of violence is harmless, that the relentless assault of virtual 
murder and mayhem on our children is having no effect, and that it 
can't be true. There has always been violence in our country, these 
skeptics rationalize. There has always been violence in the culture. So 
the answers must lie elsewhere.
  But the answer lies within each of us, and within each of the groups 
and industries we are referring to here. The truth is, we have always 
had alienated, disaffected, and in some cases mentally troubled 
children. We have always had the cruel taunting of adolescents, the 
cliques in schools, and in many parts of the country we have also 
always had guns within easy reach of children. And yet, never before in 
the history of our country have we seen this level of violence among 
our children. Something entirely different, chillingly different, is 
happening, and we have to find out what it is and do something about 
it.

  We could spend weeks discussing this question. In fact, in another 
amendment several of us will be proposing a year-long commission to 
look at the problems underneath the problems.
  Clearly, some of it has to do with the fact that many of the 
traditional transmitters of values we have long relied on to shape the 
moral sense of our children--family, community, faith, and school--have 
been weakened in recent years, and more and more what is filling that 
value vacuum is the enormously alluring and powerful, influential 
entertainment media which too often has become a standard shredder 
instead of a standard setter.
  So how do we in this society that so values freedom of expression 
urge and push the entertainment industry to self-control, to self-
regulate, to acknowledge not that they are causing this problem but 
that they are contributing to a crisis that is killing too many of our 
children?
  It is not easy. I think in this amendment we have found a way to 
begin to do it with an industry code of conduct exempting those in the 
entertainment industry from the fear of antitrust prosecutions so that 
they can work together to develop a code of conduct which will protect 
them from what some of them claim to be: With the currently existing 
competitive pressure downward, if the other company produces an ultra-
violent movie and makes money, we have got to do it.
  Of course, nobody has to do anything. Lines should be drawn about 
what people won't do to make an extra dollar or two or an extra 10 
million dollars or two.
  This amendment enables the companies to get together to do just that, 
and also to enforce the rating system that they themselves put on. We 
don't want to be censors. Let the industries themselves rate their 
products, as they do now. But then let them agree not to market 
products that they have rated as inappropriate, as harmful to children. 
Let them agree that when they rate a movie as unsuitable for kids under 
17, there ought to be some responsibility in the theater owner not to 
let children under 17 into that movie, just the way there was 
responsibility on the owner of a bar not to serve liquor to a minor.
  Mr. President, last week I submitted evidence to the Commerce 
Committee, which I think is strongly suggestive of the fact that two 
major entertainment industries--the movies and the video games--are 
rating products as bad for our children and then, as my colleagues have 
shown here on the floor, directly marketing those products to our 
children, contributing to the culture of violence that is embracing, 
surrounding, suffocating, and too often motivating our kids.
  This amendment rightfully calls on the Justice Department and the 
Federal Trade Commission to conduct an investigation of the marketing 
practices of the video game, music, and motion picture industries to 
determine if they engage in deceptive marketing practices by targeting 
minors for the acquisition of material they themselves have deemed 
unsuitable for such minors.
  I am afraid to say that Joe Camel has not gone away. He seems too 
often to have gone into the entertainment business.
  Consider the anecdotal evidence from the movie industry, which 
indicates that violent films rated for adults only are being marketed 
to children. Over the last few years we have seen the rise of a new 
class of teen-targeted films--referred to by some as 
``teensploitation'' movies--which has engaged producers and directors 
in a conspicuous contest to see who can be more violent, more sexually 
provocative, and generally more perverse to attract youth audiences. A 
perfect example of this trend is ``Very Bad Things,'' a supposed comedy 
about a bachelor party gone wrong, which finds fun in the dismembering 
of a stripper and the successive mutilation of the partygoers.
  The latest entry is ``Idle Hands,'' which was released just last 
week. It is promoted as ``sick and twisted laugh riot,'' and it's not 
hard to see where this description comes from--according to reviews, 
the film features a severed hand that fondles a girl before strangling 
her, a knitting needle that is driven through a policeman's ear, and a 
decapitation by circular saw blade, all apparently played for laughs.
  What these movies have in common, beyond their violent and offensive 
content, is that they are rated ``R,'' meaning that they are not meant 
for children under 17. Yet according to several recent news media 
reports, most producers and studio executives assume that underage kids 
can and will get in. ``Well, let's hope so,'' says Roger Kumble, the 
director of ``Cruel Intentions,'' the teen remake of ``Dangerous 
Liaisons'' which is by all accounts far more salacious than the 
original. This sentiment was affirmed by Don Mancini, the writer of all 
four R-rated ``Child's Play'' horror films, who acknowledged that young 
teens were the target for his most recent release, ``Bride of Chucky,'' 
and other similarly bloody slasher films. ``They have grown up watching 
these movies on home video,'' he said. ``Now that there are new ones 
coming out, these kids are tantalized.''
  To apparently help lure in young audiences, these teensploitation 
movies are heavily advertised on MTV and network series that teens 
watch regularly, such as ``Dawson's Creek'' and ``Buffy the Vampire 
Slayer,'' and are stocked with actors from these teen-favored TV shows. 
This pattern succeeded with the teen slasher movies ``Scream'' and ``I 
Know What You Did Last Summer,'' and it continues with the current 
``Cruel Intentions''--the director said casting Sarah Michelle Gellar 
of Buffy fame was like ``dangling the carrot'' in front of young teens. 
This dangling is apparently working--according to a recent Gallup poll, 
half of American teens say they have seen an ``R''-rated movie in the 
last month, including 42 percent of those aged 13-15.
  The video and PC and arcade gamemakers are less candid about 
targeting their marketing to teens than the moviemakers, but the 
evidence is there just the same. Action figures based on bloodthirsty 
characters from ``Resident Evil 2,'' ``Duke Nukem,'' and

[[Page S5121]]

``Mortal Kombat''--three heavily-violent titles that are rated ``M'' 
for 17-and-up--are being sold at Toys-R-Us and similar toy stores. 
Those same toy stores, which cater largely to children, typically carry 
those games and many of ``M''-rated titles filled with guns and gore.
  Equally disturbing is the advertising that publishers place in the 
various glossy game-player magazines. These magazines are widely read 
by young gamers, and they are filled with perverse and antisocial 
messages. Here are just a few: ``Carmageddon'' boasts it is ``as easy 
as killing babies with axes''; ``Point Blanks'' claims it is ``more fun 
than shooting your neighbor's cat''; ``Die by the Sword'' instructs, 
``Escape. Dismember. Massacre.''; and ``Cardinal Syn'' features a 
severed, bloodied head on top of a spear, with the tag line, 
``Happiness is a Warm Cranium.'' A good indication these messages are 
reaching their target audience came from a survey done by the national 
Institute on Media and the Family last winter, which found that while 
only five percent of parents were familiar with the game ``Duke 
Nukem,'' 80 percent of junior high students knew of it.
  Taken together, the evidence here is enough to demonstrate that there 
is a troubling trend in the entertainment industry, one that it needs 
to stop now. The marketing of these ever-more vicious and violent 
products is making a mockery of the various rating systems, telling 
parents that these products are inappropriate for children but we're 
going to sell them anyway, and reminding us of similar behavior by the 
tobacco industry. More than that, it is unethical and unacceptable, and 
should stop now.
  We presented this evidence at a hearing before the Commerce Committee 
earlier this month, and the response from Hollywood was a deafening 
silence. There was no acknowledgment that this is going on, or even 
that it presents a problem. Their unwillingness to discuss this problem 
leaves us no chance to act. That is why Senator Hatch and I, along with 
Senator Brownback, are calling for an investigation into the marketing 
practices of the movie, music and video game industries, to determine 
to what extent they are targeting ultraviolent, adult-rated products to 
children.
  Finally, in this amendment we call for an NIH study on violent 
entertainment. NIH is directed to conduct a study of the effect of 
violence in video games and music, building on the studies that have 
been done which conclusively show that violence in movies and 
television affects the behavior of children and makes them more 
violent.
  This study would be a companion piece to the directive the President 
issued on Monday at the summit. He called on the Surgeon General to do 
a broad-based study of the causes of youth violence in our country, 
including the effect the entertainment industry is having on the 
violent behavior of our children.
  This amendment is one of several that will be introduced today. None 
of them individually will solve this problem. This is all a matter 
which in some ways is the history of human civilization and the extent 
to which we can improve the prospect that we will express our better 
natures and not our worst natures. As humans, we are far from perfect. 
Parents try to raise children and develop their better nature. Too 
often today those parents feel as if they are in fundamental and in 
some ways critical competition with the entertainment industry to raise 
their kids.
  All we are doing in these amendments and these statements is to 
appeal to the entertainment industry to exercise some responsibility: 
Help America raise our children so that society will be safer than I 
fear it is as a result of the violent material included in too many 
entertainment products.
  I hope--and I say this with some confidence based on the bipartisan 
reach of the cosponsors of this amendment--Senators Brownback, Hatch, 
McCain, Kohl, and myself at least--that this amendment will be passed 
across party lines with an overwhelming majority of colleagues of the 
Senate voting in favor of it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have 7\1/2\ minutes and Senator Kennedy 
has 7\1/2\ minutes; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appreciate the hard work the Senator 
from Kansas, the Senator from Connecticut, and the Senator from Utah 
have put into their amendment. I have no problem with looking at all 
the different causes of violence among our youth. As a matter of fact, 
it is very much called for.
  I also believe that anyone in our society who says, I have nothing to 
do with this, is simply not taking responsibility for something very 
pervasive in our society. That goes for every one of us, in our private 
lives as moms, dads, grandmas, and grandpas, in our public lives as 
Members of the Senate.
  There is one thing missing from this well-worded amendment. I know 
the Senator from Kansas is checking on some matters for Members who may 
have some concerns. What is missing from here as we look at the 
marketing practices of the entertainment industry--which, as I say, I 
don't have an objection to looking at that--I don't see anything in 
here at all that deals with the marketing practices of another 
industry, a huge industry in our country, and that is the gun industry.
  Why do I bring that up? We all say that angry kids and guns don't 
mix. We know we want to keep guns away from children. So it seems to 
me, as we see more and more kids with weapons, we ought to look at the 
marketing practices of the gun manufacturers if we are to be fair in 
this amendment. We should look at everybody if we are truly being fair.
  Why do I think this is important? Let me give my friend a couple of 
examples so I am not just being theoretical. I say to my friend from 
Kansas, the author of the amendment before the Senate, this is taken 
off the amendment. This is a picture directly from the Internet in the 
Beretta catalog. They call it their Youth Collection. We can see the 
bold colors in the gun. What they say in advertising--and I think this 
is very important--from their Youth Collection:

       An exciting, bold designer look that is sure to make you 
     stand out in a crowd.

  I don't know about my friend from Kansas, but I don't know what they 
mean, ``stand out in a crowd.'' If mom or dad takes them hunting, you 
``stand out in a crowd'' with your mom and dad? You already ``stand out 
in a crowd'' with them.
  This is from a gun magazine called Guns and Ammo: A young man who 
looks like he is about 13. It is titled ``Start 'Em Young.'' ``There is 
no time like the present.'' This young man is not holding a long gun; 
he is holding a handgun--which we believe is a make-believe gun--
holding a handgun in one hand and a bottle of Pepsi in the other hand.
  If we are going to look at marketing practices, we ought to look at 
them across the board.
  Here is another advertisement that will take your breath away. A 
little boy, who like my grandson's age, about 3\1/2\, is being used in 
a catalog advertising Browning guns. This child looks like he is about 
3\1/2\ years old.
  In the NRA Youth Magazine, it says, ``News for Young Shooters.'' It 
doesn't say young hunters. ``New youth guns for '97.''
  This is an advertisement in the NRA magazine. This is a handgun. The 
advertisement says, ``The right way to get started in handgunning.'' 
This is in a youth magazine.
  The law says you can't buy a handgun from a dealer unless you are 21; 
at a gun show you can purchase at 18.
  This is the Youth Magazine, I say to my friend from Kansas, Youth 
Magazine--below 18--and they advertise a handgun.
  I could show more examples of marketing practices that look to a lot 
of Members as if they are going after very, very young people.
  I understand the rules around here and I have great respect for my 
friend from Utah. He will second-degree the Senator's amendment with an 
amendment of his own, and I don't know exactly what it will contain. I 
hope it will be to expand this to gun manufacturers, expand our study. 
If it is, I would be delighted.
  I ask my friend from Kansas if he would accept this amendment, which 
simply adds a new title, takes the same study and includes a study of 
marketing practices of the firearms industry toward young people, so 
that we have a well-balanced amendment before the Senate that deals 
both with

[[Page S5122]]

what the entertainment industry is doing and what the gun manufacturers 
are doing. I ask my friend from Kansas if he is willing to accept this 
amendment that simply takes the same study and allows it to be made of 
the marketing practices of the firearms industry toward juveniles.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could respond to my colleague, I 
appreciate her bringing this up. It would have been nice, maybe, to 
have caught it at a little earlier time.
  The amendment itself is directed at a particular facet. I think we 
are going to have a number of different amendments that are going to 
affect the gun industry.
  We do not have an amendment here on marketing for the knife industry 
either. There are other places, I suppose, we could look at marketing 
issues as well, and perhaps should.
  This is particularly directed at a certain sector. I hope my 
colleague will bring this up at another time with another amendment. I 
am afraid I could not accept it at this point in time because I have 
too many cosponsors on this amendment and I would have to go around to 
those cosponsors and ask them.
  I think the Senator brings up a good point. I think this is a fair 
item to look at. It has been studied. There have been several studies, 
I am informed, on this very point she is raising. It might be good to 
look at some of those. The things we are trying to study here have not 
been studied before. That is why we particularly look at that set of 
points, because we have not. It is tied into a particular industry 
area.
  Mrs. BOXER. If I may reclaim my time, because I have limited time, 
the reason I wanted to find out if my friend would accept it--
obviously, he is not going to do it. I am happy to look at how many 
kids a year die because of knives, but I can tell you now, 4,600 kids a 
year die of gunshots. It is the leading cause of death among children 
in my State. It is the second leading cause of death among youngsters 
nationwide. If you want to look at knives, I am happy to look at 
knives. You show the numbers. They do not come close. Guns are the No. 
1 cause of death in California among kids; No. 2 nationwide. It has 
overtaken car deaths in my State, and it is about to overtake car 
deaths nationwide.
  All I am saying to my friend is this. I appreciate the hard work he 
has put in on his amendment, but I hope he will consider accepting this 
amendment. I think it is fair. We are looking at causes of violence, 
dealing with marketing practices in the entertainment industry. We 
ought to expand it to include this.
  I have the numbers: 137 children died of knives in 1996 compared to 
4,600 who died of gunshots. If you want to examine the knifing deaths, 
I am happy to do that, but the magnitude of the problem is not the 
same. We have the equivalent of one Columbine High School incident 
every day. I know the Senator from Massachusetts----
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield my time to the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. If my friend wants to continue the colloquy, I am happy 
to yield him 2 minutes. Then I can discuss this back and forth with 
him.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I would note, I think we should look at these prior 
studies that have been done on this particular issue. I think it would 
be wise as well to look at those. I appreciate my colleague raising 
this. We have a series of amendments that are bipartisan. We have a 
series of cosponsors on this amendment. It is an area on which we have 
held a number of hearings. That is what we seek to have addressed here.
  If she seeks to add it into another, or bring it up as a separate 
amendment, I think that would be a good thing to do. I am certainly not 
opposed. But on this, at this point in time, we have a number of 
cosponsors. I think we are up to eight cosponsors, bipartisan, on this. 
I would need to go to all of them and ask all of them to add this 
particular amendment. It is out of the flow of what we are trying to do 
with this amendment. We have announced this. I have been working with a 
number of people on a bipartisan basis. I think we need to stay with 
that at this time.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I have to say to him, why is it out of 
the flow of this amendment? I am just taking back my time at this 
point. I yielded my friend time. He made a statement that my amendment 
is out of the flow.

  I thought we were looking at reducing juvenile crime and juvenile 
death. I thought we were looking at reducing the culture of violence. 
All I am saying to my friend is, you are going after one industry here. 
Fine. They better stand up and be counted on this. But when it comes to 
the gun industry, you cited studies. What other studies?
  As a matter of fact, if you want to look at the way Congress has 
treated the gun industry, that is the only industry in the whole 
country that I know of which is not even regulated by any Federal law, 
in terms of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which they are 
specifically exempted from. I have to say I am disappointed because, in 
the spirit of bipartisanship, we should make every industry stand up 
and be counted when it comes to our children.
  Every day in America there is another Columbine. Every day, 13 
children are gunned down. They die. Yes, we need to look at the violent 
culture, as my friend from Utah has pointed out, and my friend from 
Kansas. Yes, we need to look at why that culture seems to impact our 
kids more.
  I was struck by a comment of Senator Levin from Michigan, who pointed 
out that in the town directly across from Detroit, in Canada, where 
they get the same videos, the same movies, the same music, there were 
hardly any gun deaths. He has those exact numbers, something like 300 
compared to 19.
  So there are a lot of factors that we have to deal with, including 
family lives of our children. Do they have enough to do after school?
  It is about prevention. Senator Kennedy has been eloquent on the 
point. Senator Leahy has been eloquent on the point, saying: Yes, we 
want to do even more on prevention. But when we are down to studying an 
industry, how do you say, I really can't study at this point the 
marketing practices of the firearm industry? To me, it is amazing that 
they would advertise a handgun in the NRA youth bulletin when laws in 
our country today say you have to be 21 to buy a handgun from a dealer, 
and, at a gun show, 18. But nowhere does it say in our law you can buy 
a handgun under 18. Yet, in the youth magazine, what does it say? ``The 
right way to get started handgunning.'' Here is this young man, 13 
years old, posing with a handgun replica. ``Start 'em young. There's no 
time like the present.''
  Here is the Beretta, painted in bright colors to attract children, in 
their youth collection of which they say, ``an exciting bold designer 
look that is sure to make you stand out in a crowd.'' You know, I think 
that ought to be investigated. What do they mean? I would love to know 
what they mean by that: ``An exciting bold designer look that is sure 
to make you stand out in a crowd.'' Those two shooters at Columbine 
wanted to stand out in a crowd.
  So I think if we are going to look at an industry and say we will 
only look at one and turn our back on the firearms industry and their 
marketing practice, that is wrong. I am disappointed that my friend 
from Kansas will not accept this amendment. He has eight cosponsors. I 
am sure a lot of them would support this amendment.
  It is my intention to offer this at another time, because I do not 
feel we should study one industry and bring all our efforts down on one 
industry while turning our back on another industry which looks to me 
as if it is going after our kids--really young. A picture of a 3\1/2\-
year-old child in one of these advertisements--maybe he is 2\1/2\, 
maybe he is 4.
  Let me express my deep disappointment we cannot do this by unanimous 
consent, and express my desire to offer this amendment, which is 
basically the same as the one before us, with the FTC looking at the 
advertising practices of the gun industry.
  I think not to take this amendment, I say to my friends on the other 
side of the aisle, is a sad day. It is a sad day because it looks to me 
as if you want to blame everything on one industry and turn your back 
on another one that is going after our children.
  It is not balanced; it is not fair. I hope to offer this amendment, 
and I hope to get support for it at a later time.

[[Page S5123]]

  Mr. President, I yield back my time to Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from California. I 
believe most of our time has been used. I will address the Senate on 
the matters which I had intended to address later in the afternoon. I 
see my friend and colleague from Ohio on the floor, so I will seek 
recognition later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the Senator 
from Ohio, Mr. DeWine, as an original cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in strong support of 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, and 
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. I want to 
discuss one of the provisions of this amendment. This provision is 
similar to legislation Senator Brownback and I introduced in the last 
Congress, and that bill was S. 539, the Television Improvement Act. We 
introduced that bill in the last Congress, along with the Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and my friend and ranking member of the 
Antitrust Subcommittee, Senator Kohl.
  This amendment will create an exemption from antitrust liability to 
allow the entertainment industry to develop and agree upon voluntary 
guidelines designed to alleviate the negative impact of numerous forms 
of entertainment--broadcast programming, movies, music lyrics, video 
games, and Internet content.
  In other words, this amendment will remove a legal obstacle that 
arguably could prevent decisionmakers in the entertainment industry 
from getting together to make responsible decisions about the products 
they produce. Specifically, this amendment will allow them to agree 
voluntarily to limit the amount of violence, sexual content, criminal 
behavior, and profanity that exists in their various mediums. It will 
also, equally important, give them an opportunity, if they chose to 
take it, to promote and provide entertainment that is educational, 
informational, or otherwise beneficial to children. In other words, it 
will allow them to come together to agree to limit the bad things, but 
it will also allow them to come together to try to improve the quality 
of product they are putting out and specifically when they are dealing 
with products for children.
  I emphasize that the purpose of this amendment is to allow the 
entertainment industry to voluntarily come together to address the 
American people's growing concern about the negative influence of 
television, movies, and other forms of entertainment on our children. 
Rather than mandate Government restrictions on programming content, 
this amendment is designed to give industry leaders the opportunity to 
improve on their own the quality of television programs, music, movies, 
videos, and Internet content.
  In the past, the television industry has had such a code of conduct. 
In fact, for most of its history, the television industry utilized the 
code in order to help it make programming decisions. But in recent 
years, many of the entertainment industry have expressed concern that 
such a code might expose them to legal liability and they, therefore, 
have abandoned it.
  As chairman of the Antitrust Subcommittee, I studied this matter in 
the last Congress, and I came to the conclusion that a code of conduct 
would be appropriate and legal under current antitrust laws. However, 
just to be sure and to remove any doubt, I am supporting this amendment 
exemption.
  This amendment exemption will remove any lingering doubts those in 
the industry might have. Quite candidly, quite bluntly, this will say 
to the entertainment industry: You have no excuse--no excuse--not to 
come together and try to improve programming for children. You have no 
excuse not to come together and try to limit the bad things that are 
on, to limit the things that the American people find so objectionable.
  Acting on this legislation gives the Senate the opportunity to urge 
entertainment providers to work together and to cooperate to ensure our 
children's best interests are, in fact, protected.

  This amendment encourages voluntary, responsible behavior. It will 
not give any Government agency or entity any new authority to regulate 
or control the content of television programs or the content of movies, 
music, video games, or the Internet. It merely gives those in the 
entertainment industry the freedom to regulate themselves and to do the 
right thing.
  I recognize that entertainment, like almost everything else in our 
economy, is driven by competitive pressures. Often in the heat of 
competition, those in the industry may believe they are offering a 
product that is of lower quality than they might like, but they may 
feel they have to do that. This amendment offers a way out of the 
situation.
  The amendment basically calls for a cease-fire among cable stations 
and the networks, the movie studios, the record companies, the video 
game industry, and the web sites. This is a cease-fire so they can try 
to work out an industry-by-industry response to the legitimate demands 
of millions of American parents for more family-oriented entertainment.
  When I look at this amendment, I look at it as I think many parents 
do. I am worried about what is happening in this country. There was a 
time, not too many years ago, when parents did not have to worry about 
what was on television during the so-called family hour. That is not 
true anymore. There really is not a family hour anymore. We have all 
seen the steady decline in the quality of television over the last few 
years.
  In addition, we all know music lyrics have become more graphic and 
more violent and, in recent years, video games and the Internet are 
providing more violent and sexually explicit material than we ever 
imagined possible.
  It is beyond dispute that these television shows, movies, records, 
and video games are having an effect. For a young person, for a 
teenager, popular music is really the sound track of their lives. 
Movies and television provide a lot of the context for their 
relationships. Video games and the Internet provide a great deal of 
their entertainment.
  As these movies become more violent, more sexually explicit, as these 
songs show more and more disrespect for life and for the rights of 
others, some of our children are starting to believe this behavior is 
acceptable and normal. Some are starting to believe this make-believe 
world of music and movies is the real world with sometimes very tragic 
consequences.
  I understand it is not the role or the responsibility of the 
entertainment industry to raise our kids or to protect them from the 
violence of the real world. That is our job as parents and as citizens. 
It is time that the entertainment industry did its fair share. That is 
what this amendment is calling for.
  I hope the entertainment industry takes the opportunity that is 
offered by this amendment and makes a commitment to provide the kind of 
entertainment of which we can all be proud.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for offering this very 
important and, I think, timely amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we lay the 
pending amendment aside so that the distinguished Senator from 
California may be able to call up a separate amendment, which we will 
accept.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 330

  Mrs. BOXER. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mr. Durbin and Mr. Lautenberg proposes an amendment 
     numbered 330.

  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.

[[Page S5124]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC.   . STUDY OF MARKETING PRACTICES OF THE FIREARMS 
                   INDUSTRY.

       (a) In General.--
       The Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney General shall 
     jointly conduct a study of the marketing practices of the 
     firearms industry; with respect to children.
       (b) Issues Examined.--In conducting the study under 
     subsection (a), the Commission and the Attorney General shall 
     examine the extent to which the firearms industry advertises 
     and promotes its products to juveniles, including in media 
     outlets in which minors comprise a substantial percentage of 
     the audience.
       (c) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission and the Attorney 
     General shall submit to Congress a report on the study 
     conducted under subsection (a).

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Utah and my friend 
from Kansas for indicating they will accept this amendment. All we do 
here is we extend this study to the firearms industry as it relates to 
their marketing practices aimed at children. I am very pleased that, 
after we had a chance to discuss this, they have agreed to accept it. I 
think it makes what we are doing here stronger and fairer, by looking 
at all the aspects of this problem.
  I thank my friend for indicating he will accept this amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could just comment, I have had no objection to 
this all along. We had a specific set area we wanted to talk about and 
to address and to have a discussion on. I have not had an objection to 
doing this. But we have had a focus and set of hearings on the things 
we talked about, and it has been well developed, and it had eight 
cosponsors to it. I just did not want to do that without having a 
chance for other people to look at it and have their point of view. I 
have no objection to this.
  Mrs. BOXER. Again, I thank my friend.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senators Kennedy and Durbin be added as 
cosponsors to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I look forward to working with my colleagues to reduce 
gun violence. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Lautenberg be 
added as a cosponsor as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friends and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 330.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 330) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair 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. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, what is the status of the time 
agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have no time agreement.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly in favor 
of the Brownback-Hatch amendment.
  I believe it is a good, realistic first step, because what it deals 
with is a voluntary step that would allow us to conduct a search and 
allow voluntary actions by the movie and entertainment industry to 
confront a problem many of us believe is affecting the culture of 
violence in America.
  All of us know that it is not a bomb or a knife that has the intent 
to kill. The intent to kill comes from the person who wields that 
weapon. There must be ``malicious intent'' under the law to constitute 
a criminal act.
  We believe, and I think most Members of this body believe, that 
something is awry, that somehow, some way we are allowing a plethora, a 
host, a bombardment of unhealthy messages to reach our children and 
that some of them are seriously affected thereby.
  I, for one, think that the reason we have had more than one of these 
mass shootings at schools is because a very, very small number of young 
people in America have found themselves able to immerse into a 
nihilistic, depressive, death-oriented, violent-oriented lifestyle. It 
surrounds them. If they are in an automobile, there is violent, 
depressive music on the radio. If they go to the movies, there are 
violent movies they can watch. They not only can see them in the 
theater, but they can rent the movies and play them time and time 
again, as some of these young people apparently have. These very 
dangerous movies are filled with anger and violence.
  There are such things more and more happening on television today. 
And a young person can get on the Internet and play very intense life-
and-death games in which youths are out to kill before they are killed. 
It is an intense experience for many young people.
  There are chat rooms on the Internet. You can get on the Internet and 
find somebody who can feed your negative thoughts, who believes that 
Adolf Hitler is worthy of respect. You can find somebody on the 
Internet who would agree with that and affirm this unhealthy view of 
life.
  I think we are seeing that kind of thing, and maybe that is a factor 
in what is happening in America.
  I would say there is no better champion than Senator Brownback, and I 
am so proud of the Senator from Kansas for raising this issue so 
articulately and so persuasively. I think this is just the beginning. I 
think we are called upon as leaders in the American Government to think 
seriously about what we are doing and how it affects our culture.
  One of the great Greek philosophers--Plato, I believe--said, ``The 
purpose of education is to make people good.''
  We think the purpose of education is to transmit technical knowledge 
and job skills, and that no teacher should even be empowered to suggest 
what is good and what is bad, to choose light rather than darkness, to 
choose life rather than death. Are we not capable of affirming those 
basic principles in our public life in America? I think we can.
  I think this is a bizarre and abnormal theory we have developed about 
the proper role of government with regard to matters of arousing 
religion and faith in this country. The Constitution deals only briefly 
with the right to express religious opinions. For example, I would like 
to make this point. It is the only reference in our Constitution about 
religion. The First Amendment says Congress ``shall make no law 
respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof.''

  People say, what about this ``wall of separation'' between church and 
state? Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter in which he made reference to a 
``wall of separation'' between church and state. This was later. Those 
who ratified the Constitution never ratified that. We don't even know 
what he meant by that, it was a private letter, not a formal opinion. 
That is not part of the Constitution. It has never been approved by the 
American people, adopted by we, the people of the United States of 
America, when they ratified the Constitution or voted on in 
Philadelphia by the people who were there. What they voted on was that 
Congress, the United States Congress, ``shall make no law respecting 
the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise 
thereof.''
  The President, sitting in the Chair--I happen to have done that a 
number of times in just over 2 years in this body. When you look out 
across the wall, you see in words 6 inches high, or higher, right up 
there over the door of this august room, it says ``in God We Trust.''
  If you go in the anteroom over here, in the President's Room, there 
is a figure holding a Bible in her arm. It is painted on the ceiling. 
How long it has been on there I don't know, but for many, many years. 
There is another one with a cross. There are four words on the four 
corners of the wall. I think one of them is ``philosophy.'' One of them 
is ``government.'' And one of them is ``religion.'' We made reference 
in our founding documents to divine providence, to our creator.
  So I believe we have established an extraordinarily bizarre 
understanding in recent years of what the meaning and the proper 
understanding of the

[[Page S5125]]

separation between church and state is. I believe that this Congress 
was prohibited by the American people and the Founding Fathers from 
establishing an official religion. I do not believe there is anything 
that any scholar can say that the Constitution is prohibiting 
acknowledgment of a higher being. In fact, we have done that throughout 
the history of this country.
  My personal view is that this legalistic approach has intimidated 
teachers and made them less willing to provide moral guidance and 
affirmation of religious impulses of their students. They feel that it 
is somehow illegal for them even to do so.
  I do not believe that is true. I think threats of lawsuits have 
intimidated natural free speech. The Constitution says Congress shall 
not prohibit the free expression of religion.
  I think we ought to have a more natural approach. I think any 
teacher, or any government official, ought to be sensitive not to use 
any position of authority they may have to impose their own personal 
theology or philosophy or political views on people who are in a 
captive audience. That is normal, natural decency. Where I grew up, I 
was taught to respect people's religion. If they disagreed with me, 
that was their prerogative. In this country, you are allowed to have 
and adhere to deep religious beliefs. If a religious faith called on 
students to pause at a certain time during the day to have a prayer and 
it is part of their doctrine and they believe deeply in this, why would 
we not allow that to happen? I was taught you tried to accommodate 
people's religious beliefs--not to get into debate and argument with 
them--because we respected people who had something more important than 
who made the highest test score.

  Griffin Bell, former Federal judge, and former Attorney General of 
the United States for President Carter once made a speech. It was 
suggested he might be critical of President Reagan--he was appointing 
judges and he said President Reagan had a litmus test for judges. Judge 
Bell was asked what he thought about this litmus test. He shocked the 
State bar association meeting members by walking to the microphone and 
saying, ``I don't know, maybe we ought to have a litmus test--nobody 
ought to be on the Federal bench who doesn't believe in a prayer at a 
football game.''
  I wonder about that. Why do we think you can't even have a voluntary 
moment so those people who choose to do so might bow for one moment at 
the football game to affirm that there is something more important in 
life than who is the biggest, strongest and who has the most points? 
How does this undermine our freedom as Americans? If you don't want to 
bow your head, you don't have to; if you think it is superstitious--
free country. If you respect other people's religion and if this is 
important to them, you will benignly allow them to carry on with their 
beliefs.
  I think we have gone way too far. I think it has affected the ability 
of the American leadership to assert certain cultural beliefs and 
values, and if we don't do that, we are suggesting directly and 
indirectly to our children that there are no permanent values, there 
are no values worth dying for.
  One reporter, referring to a prominent American, said there is not 
one single belief he would adhere to if he thinks it is against his 
political interest to do so. I hope we haven't reached that point. I 
hope there are still things that people are willing to stand for, pay a 
price for--yes, die for.
  That ought to be transmitted to our children. There are a multitude 
of ways that can be done. Even our televisions, our newspapers, and our 
radios affirmed those basic values consistently in the 1950s, for 
example. It was affirmed at our schools. It was affirmed in our 
families. It was affirmed in our churches.
  Now we have begun to lose our moral compass. How we deal with it, I 
don't know. The Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, has said he 
doesn't really know the answers but he is raising those questions. He 
is calling on us as a nation to analyze what is happening, to recognize 
that a culture that affirms life, a culture that affirms light, is 
better than a culture that affirms death and darkness. Honesty is 
better than dishonesty; kindness is better than meanness. There is 
right and there is wrong. We ought to adhere to the right even when, in 
the short-term, it is not helpful to us. Somehow we have to deal with 
this.
  These amendments are a step. We believe it is constitutional, 
appropriate, and fair.
  We believe we should analyze in one little area what is happening, to 
create some studies about the market, a National Institutes of Health 
study of violent entertainment and the impacts it may have.
  Just this week I happened to be passing a television set tuned to the 
Maury Povich show. A mother was expressing her concern about her 
daughter who was off stage. And they would flip back and forth. The 
mother said she is doing a lot of dangerous things, even saying she 
killed somebody. The daughter, off stage, hearing this was still 
smiling. The daughter even acknowledged throwing her own school 
principal on the floor.

  That is so bizarre. Some say television won't affect anybody. Well, 
maybe it won't one time. But what happens when you see this every 
afternoon after school? When certain children who are unhealthy receive 
these messages, can it distort their view of life? Make them less 
positive, more negative? Less peaceful, more violent? Less committed to 
honoring rules and civility and decency and order? I suspect that it 
does and can and it is not going away.
  We have a great economy; things are doing well. We are benefiting 
from some of the greatest technological achievements in the history of 
the world. I hope they will continue. It is making life better for us. 
However, if we have a danger, it will be that we as a nation will lose 
our way, lose our direction, lose our discipline, our commitment to 
order and peacefulness and cooperation. If we lose that, then 
improvements in technology that made our life so much better may not be 
able to carry us much further.
  When talking about how much money we spend on education, what good 
does it do to have a $500 textbook if the child won't read that book 
and he has no motivation, no commitment to improve himself or herself 
or the parents are not supportive? You have a state of the art 
classroom with the finest technology and students are not interested. 
You talk to teachers and they will say a lot of children in their 
classrooms are just not interested, they have no thought for what they 
are going to make of their lives in the future.
  I don't know all of the answers. I know this juvenile violence bill 
does not answer all of them. I know this: In America today, if we have 
criminal activity by young people, this society has to take that 
seriously. Even Doctor Laura tells us that. Everybody knows that. A 
football coach knew that. If you are in the Army and you get out of 
step, they get you back in line. There is punishment; there are 
expectations of people that we insist on. That is how you have good 
Army units, good football teams, good classrooms, and good nations.
  I am concerned with those issues. I think they are fundamental. I 
feel a burden to think more about it, to pray more about it, and try to 
be able to contribute effectively to it.
  We do need to make sure we are doing fundamental things well. One of 
them is to have a court system that works well. When a young child is 
arrested for a serious crime, he should be confronted by a judge and a 
probation officer and something should be done that is appropriate to 
that crime. You do not love children and you do not care for them if 
you blindly allow them to get away with serious wrongdoing. We are 
failing them when we do that. It is the concept of tough love. If you 
love children, you cannot have them break into a house and steal 
something and be caught and allow nothing to happen to them. That is 
happening in America today. You talk to your police officers, they are 
having to make these arrests. They tell me: Jeff, these kids are 
laughing at us. We can't do anything to them and they know it.

  Victims often are not even allowed to go into the juvenile centers 
and know what is going on. Their records are not maintained. Judges 
have no alternatives for punishment or mental health treatment or 
counseling or drug testing and drug treatment.

[[Page S5126]]

  We want to improve this system to focus on those young people who are 
going astray, to intervene in their lives and, hopefully, create a 
better America. It is just a small step. But we have an absolute 
obligation to make sure the moneys we expend are spent wisely and that 
they affirm the needs of our civilization; that is, the need for order, 
abiding by the law, peacefulness, and not violence.
  Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Brownback for their 
support of this amendment. It is a good step in the right direction. We 
are going to have to do more of that as the years go by.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his excellent 
remarks. He has been a major player in this matter from the beginning. 
I really appreciate what he has been doing.
  I appreciate the cooperation we have had from colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle because this is an important bill. This is going to 
make a difference as to whether we have, time after time, incidents 
such as we had in Littleton, CO, or whether we are going to do 
something about it. This bill will do an awful lot about it, although 
nothing is going to stop people who have an emotional disturbance from 
perhaps doing things we cannot contemplate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent with respect to the Brownback 
amendment on culture that the amendment be laid aside and no amendments 
to the amendment be in order prior to the vote on or in relation to the 
amendment.
  I further ask consent that Senator Lautenberg be recognized in order 
to offer an amendment regarding gun shows under the same terms as 
outlined above, and the amendment be laid aside, and Senator Craig then 
be recognized to offer an amendment regarding gun shows, and there be 
90 minutes equally divided for debate on both amendments, under the 
same terms as outlined above.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the debates the 
amendments be laid aside, with votes occurring beginning at 4 p.m., in 
the order offered, with 5 minutes prior to each vote for explanation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask I be allowed to speak for 5 
minutes on the pending bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I know we have been discussing the 
juvenile justice bill now for several days. I would like to compliment 
the leadership on both sides of the aisle for trying to move this bill. 
But this is not about a bill. It is not about an amendment. It is not 
about money. It is about America's children and how are we going to get 
behind our children so they are safer in their schools and safer on 
their streets.
  There are two aspects of this bill where I have had a longstanding 
passion. Number one is making sure we have the support services in our 
schools to back up our teachers and help our children. And number two 
is after school so we can provide meaningful, structured activities for 
kids so they will not only have a place to go but a place to benefit 
from both learning and character building.

  This is why in this legislation I support the Democratic initiative 
to put more mental health counselors into the schools and also to put 
school social workers and school nurses into the schools. Our teachers 
are very busy. I hope we pass the 100,000 new teachers initiative, so 
we have smaller class sizes so our teachers can give more attention to 
our children. But, while our teachers are in the classroom, there are 
other support services that help those children while they are in 
school.
  I want to see more school nurses in our schools to help our kids. Mr. 
President, a school nurse often provides the early detection and 
warning for other problems the children have. They know whether our 
children need eyeglasses or a hearing aid. Sometimes a child who 
doesn't have needed eyeglasses is a child headed for trouble out of 
frustration. It is often the school nurse who begins identifying the 
early warning signals of emotional problems. Or if a child is under 
treatment, it is that school nurse who is supervising that the child is 
taking his or her medication and staying on the medication. This is 
what helps our kids.
  Let me talk about the school social worker. This is not about Freud, 
this is not about Jung, this is not about in-depth counseling. This is 
making sure we know where these children are in terms of some aspects 
of the problems they are having. If a child is referred to a school 
social worker, that means the child is teeter-tottering and could go 
one way or the other. Often a child comes to school troubled because of 
problems at home. It could be a mother who has a substance abuse 
problem. It could be a father who is without a job. A school social 
worker first and foremost listens to the child and helps the family. 
Often it is the school social worker who takes the child in a teeter-
totter situation and makes sure they do not go off on the wrong track. 
It is the school social worker that can get them back on the right 
track.
  These are the kinds of things we want to have in our juvenile justice 
bill. Yes, we need more security. But I tell you, while we are looking 
for more cops in the schools, let's also get more counselors into the 
schools to be able to help our kids and our teachers.
  Our children are lonely. Our children are very lonely. Listen to 
them. They often turn to each other and, as we saw in some communities, 
they turn on each other. We have to reach out to our children so they 
have a significant adult they can relate to in their lives. Hopefully, 
it is their parents. That puts you on first base. Hopefully, they can 
relate to a good teacher. That can put you on second base. But often 
what puts you on the third base and brings you home is structured, 
afterschool activities. Our most famous general, Colin Powell, is 
devoted to these afterschool activities. It is the single most 
important prevention program for children. Afterschool can help kids 
avoid trouble. Or help them to move on, exercising the great talents 
they have. I visited the afterschool programs in my community. I even 
had townhall meetings with children in these communities. It was 
fantastic.
  You say: What do you like about the afterschool program?
  They say: At 3 o'clock we leave school and we walk in here and we are 
greeted with a snack and we are greeted with a smile. Often it could be 
a police officer in a PAL Program, a Police Athletic League, or it 
could be part of the Boys and Girls program. Then they learn. Often 
they do their homework. They even have computer classes.
  They are learning. They have activities. Then they move to sports or 
other programs. For the kids who go into sports, it is not only about 
playing basketball, it is about learning sportsmanship. This is about 
character building, confidence building, and so on. We can do no more 
important things than getting behind our teachers, supporting our 
families, and having these services.
  I hope we do not think our children should be taught in a prison-like 
atmosphere. We need to make sure they are safe. Let's have enough 
teachers, enough counselors, and enough support so the schools are not 
only safe, but our children's learning is sound.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that will 
close the gun show loophole which allows criminals, mentally deranged, 
and children easy access to firearms.
  First, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to offer an 
amendment at this time, which will be set aside, and then the Craig 
amendment will be offered and laid aside. There then will be 90 minutes 
for debate on both amendments.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I assume, Mr. President, that is equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Equally divided.


                           Amendment No. 331

        (Purpose: To regulate the sale of firearms at gun shows)

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

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself, 
     Mr. Schumer, Mrs.

[[Page S5127]]

     Boxer, Mr. Kohl, and Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 331.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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 text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Idaho is to be recognized to offer his amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Lautenberg 
amendment that was just offered will be laid aside or should I ask that 
it be laid aside?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that is the order.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, without objecting, this is simply to 
send up the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. To send it up to be read.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be laid aside, and the Senators will 
have 90 minutes for debate.


                           Amendment No. 332

   (Purpose: To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to 
preserve privacy and property rights, prohibit the collection of fees, 
 and the retention of information in connection with background checks 
              of law abiding citizens acquiring firearms)

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask that the Lautenberg amendment be laid 
aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 332.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have now offered a gun show amendment 
that I believe is an important counter to the one just offered by 
Senator Lautenberg. I yield the floor to Senator Lautenberg for the 
presentation of his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 331

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho, and I 
look forward to the discussion that will ensue, because we are going to 
decide, with serious debate, whether or not we are going to close this 
gun show loophole which, as demonstrated in this chart, shatters the 
image of the Brady bill that has been responsible for obstructing gun 
purchases 250,000 times in the years it has been in business.
  Some of my colleagues are well aware of criminals who have used gun 
shows to purchase guns to kill, maim and destroy the lives of others.
  I am going to talk about specific examples. Most of my colleagues 
also know that there are thousands of gun shows across the country each 
year. Last year, over 4,400 gun shows were advertised in the Gun Show 
Calendar, a trade publication.
  Ordinarily, these shows are held in public arenas, civic centers, et 
cetera. The gun seller rents a table--it could be a card table or any 
kind of a table--from a gun show promoter to display material for a fee 
ranging from $5 to $50. The number of tables at shows vary from as few 
as 50 to as many as 2,000.
  Fortunately, most of the people who participate in gun shows are law-
abiding citizens. Many families look forward to a Saturday or a Sunday 
spent at a gun show. But these families are not aware that they may be 
in the presence of dangerous criminals who use gun shows as cash-and-
carry convenience stores.
  I mentioned before there are many criminals who use gun shows as a 
place to shore up their weaponry to commit mayhem. In 1993, Gian Ferri, 
a mentally disturbed man with a grudge against lawyers, used a TEC-DC9 
to kill eight people and wound six others in a San Francisco law 
office. He walked in there and started shooting. He bought the gun at a 
gun show.
  In 1987, Robert Mire escaped from a Florida prison and got his 
weapons at a gun show to launch a lengthy robbery spree. Mire then took 
his own life when confronted by law enforcement at a Tampa gun show in 
1991.
  Perhaps the most notorious criminals associated with gun shows are 
Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. They used gun shows to raise money 
for the Oklahoma City bombing episode that took place in 1995.
  In fact, a recent study by the Department of the Treasury and the 
Department of Justice reveals that thousands of firearms from gun shows 
wind up in the hands of criminals. This may be just the tip of the 
iceberg. Because many vendors are not required to keep records of their 
sales, there is no way to precisely know how many firearms from gun 
shows wind up in the hands of criminals or the mentally unstable and 
children.
  The threat that gun shows pose for our children became clear with the 
terrible tragedy in Littleton, CO. Although all of the facts are not in 
yet, it appears that a female associate of the killers, Eric Harris and 
Dylan Klebold, purchased some of the guns that were used in the attack 
at a gun show. Regrettably, it has become clear to our youth that gun 
shows provide easy access to weapons.
  How did we get to this point? The problem is a loophole in Federal 
gun laws. The Brady law requires that federally licensed gun dealers 
complete a background check and keep certain records when they sell a 
firearm, whether at a gun store or at a gun show. But many individuals 
can sell firearms without a license, and they are not required to 
conduct a background check.
  Since between 25 and 50 percent of the gun sellers at gun shows are 
not licensed, tens of thousands of firearms are sold at these events 
with no background checks or recordkeeping. You can just walk into a 
gun show, put down your cash, and walk away with a shotgun, a 
semiautomatic handgun, or any other deadly weapon you can get your 
hands on. Of course, you can also sell a deadly weapon. If you have 
stolen a gun or are involved in a gun trafficking scheme, gun shows 
provide an easy opportunity to distribute firearms.
  While the gun show loophole helps criminals further their deadly 
schemes, it also places federally licensed firearms dealers--people who 
bought a license through the Federal Government and have been checked 
out--at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to the gun shows, 
because these guys can just sell it from their table, they can sell it 
from the back of their car, and they can sell as many as they want. 
They do not care who they sell it to, and they do not even have to ask 
the person's first name. Just give me the cash. I don't know if they 
use credit cards. Give me the cash and here are the guns you want.
  When federally licensed firearms dealers participate in a gun show, 
they have to comply with a background check and recordkeeping 
requirements of the Brady law. It is so simple but so appropriate.
  But an unlicensed seller at the next table can make unlimited sales 
to any person who comes up with the cash without any requirements.
  The ease of these sales drains significant business from the law-
abiding gun store owners and other licensees and penalizes them for 
following the law. So there are a good many reasons to close the gun 
show loophole, and there is no excuse not to. We have to act, and act 
now, to help make our communities safer.
  The amendment I am proposing would take several simple steps to 
prevent illegal activity at gun shows. First, I point out that this 
amendment is very clearly designed for gun shows, the places where 
these unlicensed dealers sell to anybody they want. Gun shows are 
defined as an event where two or more people are selling 50 or more 
firearms. So this amendment does not cover someone who is selling their 
favorite gun to a friend or a club member or a neighbor.
  The key provision would require that all gun sales go through a 
federally licensed firearms dealer. So if the person who is unlicensed 
wants to sell a gun to somebody over here, he then has to include a 
federally licensed firearms dealer in the process. The federally 
licensed firearms dealer then would be responsible for conducting a 
Brady check on the purchaser. This ensures that the prohibited 
purchasers--criminals, the insane, and children--cannot buy guns. This 
will not burden the vast majority of collectors or hunters or sportsmen 
who want to buy firearms.

[[Page S5128]]

  Of course, a gun sale may take a few more minutes, but why not? This 
minor inconvenience is a small cost to pay. And if you do not believe 
that, ask the 61 percent of the American people who think that the 
accessibility of firearms had a large measure of responsibility in the 
killings that took place at Columbine High School. This minor 
inconvenience is a small cost to pay when weighed against the need to 
keep guns out of the wrong hands.
  My amendment would also take other steps to help the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms investigate gun crimes and to help law 
enforcement prosecute criminals.
  Taken together, these provisions will prevent criminals from abusing 
gun shows to buy deadly weapons. For many Americans, as we note, these 
commonsense steps seem so obvious. They are probably wondering why we 
have not addressed this problem sooner. Frankly, I do, too. Well, I 
don't wonder, because there is an influence around here and around the 
House of Representatives that always intervenes when we try to get 
commonsense legislation in place.
  We are not taking away guns from people who have a legitimate right 
to buy them. But we are saying that gun violence is an unacceptable 
condition in our country.
  In the last 20 years, over 70,000 children have lost their lives--
70,000 families stricken with grief--because of the availability of a 
gun, obviously, we think, in the hands of the wrong person.
  I do not want to point any fingers or try to assess blame, but this 
is not the time for partisan politics. This is not the time for 
organizations, such as the NRA, that stand in the way of any sensible, 
commonsense legislation every time we bring it up--87 percent of the 
people in a poll just conducted said they want the gun show loophole 
closed. Why do we have to fight to make it happen?
  Everybody--every one in this Chamber--ought to stand up and salute it 
and say, yes, we want to save the lives of our kids who are going to 
school. Do they have the right to bear arms? That is a question, but we 
know people have a right to bear children. And we think they have a 
right to see these children live safely and that when they go to 
school, they do not have to worry as much about whether they are going 
to be injured or perhaps even killed than whether they do their 
homework.
  Our country has seen too much violence. Every year in this country 
over 4,000 children lose their lives to guns. Every day, 13 kids, on 
average, are gunned down by a gun, either in their own hand or someone 
else's. Too many parents have seen their children injured or killed. 
Too many families have been torn apart by grief and anguish as a result 
of the absence in their lives of a child they brought to this world.
  So, please, let us work together to pass this measure. I plead with 
my colleagues: Step up to the plate and be people of honor, people of 
concern. Let's try to prevent future tragedies. Let's make it harder 
for young people and criminals to gain access to guns.
  I think we are reaching a consensus on this issue. We are going to 
find out in a few minutes. There is a broad range of bipartisan support 
for closing the gun show loophole. Also, there is a broad spectrum of 
organizations that support this amendment.
  They know that it is going to help fight crime. Law enforcement 
officials support it. In addition to the Federal agencies that enforce 
gun laws, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Police Foundation, 
the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, and the 
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives have written 
letters of support. I ask unanimous consent that copies of those 
letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                              Police Executive Research Forum,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 1999.
     Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lott: The Police Executive Research Forum 
     (PERF)--a national organization of police professionals who 
     are dedicated to improving policing practices through 
     research, debate and leadership--believes that reasonable 
     measures need to be taken to protect our citizens and our 
     children from gun violence. We are currently studying the 
     President's proposed gun legislation and other pending 
     firearms proposals that affect public safety. While we cannot 
     give our position on every amendment that is expected to be 
     offered on the Senate floor this week, PERF has taken a 
     position on a number of the provisions, and supports the 
     goals of the remaining measures.
       It is estimated that there are 2,000 to 5,000 gun shows 
     annually across the nation that are not subject to federal 
     gun laws. Sales from ``private collections'' can be made at 
     these shows without a waiting period or background check on 
     the purchaser, unless the seller is a licensed Federal 
     Firearm Dealer. To close the loopholes that are exploited by 
     sellers who operate full-fledged businesses, but are not 
     FFLs, we believe the proposed legislation is needed and long 
     overdue. PERF has supported gun show legislation to this 
     effect in the past and will continue to work towards ensuring 
     reasonable measures that will help keep guns out of the hands 
     of criminals.
       PERF has also been a long-standing proponent of a waiting 
     period that would give local police the opportunity to screen 
     handgun purchasers using local records. PERF members believe 
     that there is also value in a ``cooling-off'' period between 
     the purchase and receipt of a firearm, particularly when 
     there are exceptions for exigent circumstances.
       We have witnessed again the carnage that results when 
     children have access to firearms. PERF has supported child 
     access prevention bills in the past because we see the horror 
     that can occur when angry and disturbed kids have guns. PERF 
     has supported measures that impose new safety standards on 
     the manufacture and importation of handguns requiring a child 
     resistant trigger standard; a child resistant safety lock; a 
     magazine disconnect safety for pistols; a manual safety; and 
     practice of a drop test. PERF has supported proposals to 
     prohibit the sale of an assault weapon to anyone under age 18 
     and to increase the criminal penalties for selling a gun to a 
     juvenile.
       We must do more to keep America's children safe--not just 
     because of recent events--but because of the shootings, 
     accidents and suicide attempts we see with frightening 
     regularity. These proposals are steps in the right direction. 
     We applaud your efforts to help police make our communities 
     safer places to live.
           Sincerely,

                                              Edward A. Flynn,

                               PERF's Legislative Committee Chair,
     Arlington (VA) Police Department.
                                  ____



                                            Police Foundation,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 1999.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lott: The Police Foundation is a private, 
     independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit organization 
     dedicated to supporting innovation and improvement in 
     policing. Established in 1970, the foundation has conducted 
     seminal research in police behavior, policy, and procedure, 
     and works to transfer to local agencies the best new 
     information about practices for dealing effectively with a 
     wide range of important police operational and administrative 
     concerns. Motivating all of the foundation's efforts is the 
     goal of efficient, humane policing that operates within the 
     framework of democratic principles and the highest ideals of 
     the nation.
       As a founding member of the Law Enforcement Steering 
     Committee, an unprecedented coalition of the nation's 
     foremost law enforcement organizations, the foundation worked 
     tirelessly for six years for passage of The Brady Law to 
     require a waiting period and a background check prior to the 
     purchase of a handgun. The foundation has also supported 
     efforts and legislation to regulate the sale of armor-
     piercing ammunition, and the importation, manufacture, and 
     sale of assault weapons, the high-capacity magazines.
       The reality of policing in America includes dealing with 
     citizens who possess firearms. About 200 million guns are in 
     private hands. So huge is the domestic arsenal that American 
     police must be aware that a firearm may be at hand in any 
     situation they encounter. Tragically, in thousands of 
     situations each year, the potential for injury or death by 
     firearms is realized.
       In 1994, almost 40,000 Americans died from gunshot wounds. 
     By the year 2003, according to the Centers for Disease 
     Control, the leading cause of death by injury in the United 
     States will be from gunshots. Yet we regulate guns less than 
     we do other consumer products such as automobiles.
       The legacy of disability and death that guns, especially 
     handguns, have wrought on American society is of concern to 
     law enforcement personnel, health officials, educators, 
     policy makers, families and communities across America. 
     Today, in the wake of yet another tragic episode of gun 
     violence by high school students, it is incumbent that these 
     same forces join together to formulate rational national 
     policies to address gun violence and children. Every day in 
     America, 13 young people aged 19 and under are killed in gun 
     homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings, a toll 
     equal to the tragedy in Littleton, Colorado.
       The Police Foundation, therefore, supports the following 
     amendments to S. 254:
       (1) An amendment to ban juvenile possession of assault 
     weapons;
       (2) An amendment that bans juvenile possession of high-
     capacity ammunition clips;

[[Page S5129]]

       (3) A ban on the importation of high-capacity ammunition 
     clips;
       (4) An amendment that requires that no guns are sold at gun 
     shows without a background check, a waiting period, and 
     appropriate documentation;
       (5) An amendment requiring anyone offering guns for sale 
     over the Internet to possess a federal firearms license and 
     to oversee all resulting firearms transactions;
       (6) An amendment that will provide: enhanced tools for the 
     prosecution of firearms laws, including substantially 
     increasing the scope of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
     Firearms' youth gun tracing program; additional resources to 
     investigate and prosecute violations of Federal firearms 
     laws; and resources for increased federal and state 
     coordination of gun prosecutions.
       (7) An amendment raising the minimum age to 21 for 
     possession of handguns, semi-automatic assault weapons, and 
     large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.
       (8) An amendment that requires the sale of child safety 
     locks with every handgun sold;
       (9) An amendment to reinstate a permanent, mandatory 
     national waiting period prior to the purchase of a handgun.
       (10) An amendment to limit handgun purchases to one per 
     month.
       The Police Foundation is committed to working with you and 
     your colleagues in the Congress in supporting and enacting 
     sensible gun control measures that protect all Americans and 
     most especially our children.
           Sincerely yours,
     Hubert Williams.
                                  ____

                                          Hispanic American Police


                                 Command Officers Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 1999.
     Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Lott: I am writing on behalf of the 
     Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, HAPCOA 
     to express our general support for the eight gun control 
     amendments that are expected to be offered on the Senate 
     floor this week. HAPCOA also supports President Clinton's 
     legislation. The 1999 Gun Enforcement and Accountability Act. 
     Both of these measures are designed to reduce child criminal 
     access to firearms.
       HAPCOA represents of 1,500 command law enforcement officers 
     and affiliates from municipal police departments, county 
     sheriffs, and state agencies, to the DEA, U.S. Marshals 
     Service, FBI, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Park Police and other 
     federal agencies and organizations.
       As a law enforcement association, we know only too well the 
     impact gun violence has on Communities. As with all law 
     enforcement officers, we too live in the communities. We have 
     witnessed first hand what happens when children and criminals 
     have too easy access to guns. Today, in every city in our 
     country, there are children in schools and homes with hand 
     guns. Children who are expressed to Violence on a daily 
     basis, children who feel they need protection--more than they 
     need an education. Children who should be enjoying life--
     rather than taking a life.
       We place profound responsibilities on our nation's police 
     officers asking them to combat Crimes, uphold the law, and 
     defend the lives of others while continually risking their 
     own. We trust the police to keep our homes, schools and 
     neighborhoods safe from crime. Police officers cannot achieve 
     these and other goals without legislation that supports their 
     work.
       These eight proposed amendments would do that--help law 
     enforcement officials in their efforts to reduce gun related 
     crimes. It is time to break the cycle of gun violence in 
     America.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jess Quintero,
     National Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                          National Organization of


                             Black Law Enforcement Executives,

                                      Arlington, VA, May 11, 1999.
     Hon. Rod R. Blagojevich,
     House of Representatives, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Blagojevich: This is to advise you that 
     National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives 
     (NOBLE) representing over 3000 black law enforcement 
     managers, executives, and practitioners strongly supports 
     your effort to provide a permanent legislative mandate (S. 
     443) to promote the fair, safe, and reasonable regulation of 
     gun shows.
       As the threat of violence against the police and citizens 
     alike has escalated, so has NOBLE'S commitment to the passage 
     of effective gun control legislation. The potential threat 
     posed to our members and to law enforcement personnel 
     nationwide by the unregulated selling of firearms demands 
     that S. 443 be enacted. Your efforts to bring fairness and 
     accountability to gun shows by holding all participants to 
     the same standards is commended and supported by NOBLE.
       If our organization can be of further assistance on this 
     matter, please call me.
           Sincerely
                                                Robert L. Stewart,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have also received support, surprisingly--and I 
say, hooray--from some in the gun industry. The American Shooting 
Sports Council, which represents the interests of gun manufacturers, 
and the National Shooting Sports Foundation have both endorsed my 
legislation. They say, ``Support the amendment that is proposed closing 
the gun show loophole.''
  The National Alliance of Stocking Gun Dealers, the trade association 
for gun dealers, has endorsed this legislation. I would like to read 
part of their letter:

       While it is uncommon for our organization to endorse 
     legislation that would place any new regulations upon the 
     sale of guns, we view the case of gun shows as an exception.
       As your legislation creates no new requirements or 
     regulations that don't already exist for law-abiding gun 
     owners, we find it a reasonable and necessary change to 
     existing laws and fully endorse the gun shows accountability 
     act.

  It is a letter that they sent to me.
  There are prominent Republican politicians--this isn't exclusively a 
Democratic matter--who support closing the gun show loophole, for 
instance, Texas Governor George W. Bush, a prominent name in national 
politics, as well as the Governor of one of the largest States in this 
country. Congressman Henry Hyde, a distinguished, respectable 
Congressman--he has always been a supporter of gun ownership--supports 
eliminating the gun show loophole.
  The amendment is also supported by Jim and Sarah Brady's Handgun 
Control, Incorporated, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, which 
represents a number of health, religious and civil rights 
organizations.
  When Sarah Brady, George W. Bush, Henry Hyde, gun manufacturers and 
gun dealers get behind closing a loophole, I think everybody here ought 
to listen, and we ought to close it. We ought to close that loophole, 
because what happens in that loophole is children fall through it, and 
lives, way too early, are permanently maimed as a result.
  All you have to do is remember a picture of the boy jumping out of 
the window at Columbine High and see what has happened to him. He is 
damaged, severely damaged. It looks as if those damages are going to 
last all of his life, impairing his speech, his ability to walk, and so 
forth.
  Americans are tired of it. They are tired of losing those lives to 
gun violence. Again, I do not understand why the opposition is trying 
to say, no, let's leave the loophole there. Let's make sure that we 
don't inhibit those purchases of guns by anybody who just wants to buy 
them.
  I do not understand it. I am sure the American people, whether they 
are here or watching television and seeing what is going on, don't want 
to have that loophole continue to exist.
  Every year we lose 34,000 Americans to gunfire. It is the number of 
deaths that we would expect to see in a war. In Vietnam, a terrible, 
terrible period in American history, we lost 58,000 people in the 11 
years of that war. Here we see more than half of that number lost every 
year. When will the public's rage finally reach into this place and say 
we have had enough? Instead, there is a war going on in our 
communities. We have to stop this senseless slaughter.
  Every day, 13 young lives end prematurely. The hopes and the dreams 
of 13 children, their families, their friends are destroyed.
  I urge my colleagues to take this step with all of us holding 
together in the battle against gun violence. Let those who want to 
oppose this legislation think about what they would say to a neighbor 
or a friend or someone in their community who lost a child: Well, he 
had the right to bear arms, or guns don't kill, people kill.
  They always blame it on the criminal. But for a lot of people, the 
first time they commit a crime is when they pull the trigger on that 
weapon.
  I hope we are going to pass this amendment, make it harder for 
criminals and children to get guns. We might not stop all the 
shootings, but we may stop some. I hope that the American people will 
notice everybody who votes for and against this amendment or what they 
try to do to water it down, to leave a glaring loophole sitting there.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 26 minutes 33 seconds.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the Senator from New York 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey

[[Page S5130]]

very much. I also thank my friend, the Senator from Idaho, for his 
graciousness in letting me take the floor right now.
  Let me say, as somebody who has been involved in this issue for a 
long time, today is a very crucial day in our fight to bring 
rationality to the laws that relate to guns in America. It is the first 
time we have had a real opportunity to make progress since the Brady 
law was passed.
  All we are trying to do here is make sure that Brady continues to 
work. The bottom line is a simple one; that is, as Brady has begun to 
work, the vast majority of Americans, gun owners and nongun owners, 
have abided by this law. Almost everybody believes it has worked, but 
those who wish to avoid the law have found loopholes--the Internet, 
which we will be dealing with later, an amendment I will propose, and 
most notably, gun shows, which the Senator from New Jersey has 
highlighted. I am proud to be his lead cosponsor of that legislation we 
have worked on.
  The problem we face in the law when we try to make laws on gun 
controls is we are always ruled by the least common denominator. If 99 
percent of the people obey the law, but 1 percent finds a loophole, 
then all the criminal element and everybody who wants to give guns to 
children, to criminals, to the mentally incompetent will use that 
loophole. So all the rest of the laws do no good.
  They say there are 40,000 laws on the books about gun control. But as 
long as you have a weak link in the chain, it is exploited, and we 
suffer. In my city, 95 percent of the guns that are used in crimes come 
from out of State, many of them from gun shows. Gun shows have 
proliferated as the loophole has become more obvious and more known to 
people.
  I plead with my colleagues--it is so important for us to continue the 
work of Brady. We are not seeking to go further in the area of gun 
control. We are simply trying to keep the status quo by plugging the 
loopholes that have allowed people to get around the Brady law which 
most people regard as very, very successful.
  I know that my friend, the Senator from Idaho, has an amendment to 
make it voluntary. The problem with that is very simple, in my 
judgment. Again, it would not work because it is the least common 
denominator. If you go to a gun show and nine of the sellers of guns 
are using the instant check system and one isn't, anyone who evades the 
law will go to that one. All the other nine law-abiding people will 
both lose business and not be able to stop it. So making these laws 
voluntary, you may as well not make them at all, because those who wish 
to avoid the law will go to the one person who doesn't participate in 
the system and send a cascade of guns forward.
  I am proud of this debate, Mr. President. First, I am proud that its 
tone is one of constructiveness in the light of Littleton, CO. Each of 
us is groping to see what can be done. We have differences of opinion, 
but there is respect in the debate.
  I thank the Senator from Idaho. When he added his amendment, he did 
not come up with an amendment that was a subterfuge. He did not come up 
with an amendment that simply diverted the issue, as we have seen time 
and time again. He came up with an amendment that would allow us to 
debate this issue foursquare.
  It is very simple. If you believe in closing the gun show loophole, 
you have to vote yes on the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey. 
If you vote no on that, the loophole will continue, because no matter 
how many people voluntarily comply at gun shows, those who wish to 
violate the law or turn the other way, as the law is violated, will 
continue to do so.
  This is an important crossroads in our debate. Just as in warfare 
there is defensive and offensive warfare and some move forward and then 
new mechanisms are found to get around those who move forward, we are 
at that point right now. If we allow people who wish to get around the 
Brady law and sell guns to criminals and sell guns to children and sell 
guns to the mentally incompetent, to use gun shows or use the Internet 
or any other way to get around it, we will have taken a dramatic step 
backwards. I believe the Brady law has in good part contributed to the 
decline in gun violence throughout America. Has it made it certain; has 
it made it so that there is no gun violence? Of course not. But why is 
it that gun violence has plummeted even more than other crimes since 
the Brady law has been passed?
  The best explanation is that, yes, it works. The best explanation is 
that despite the doom and gloom, when we debated Brady, from the 
opponents, it has not interfered with the rights of the legitimate gun 
owner. I ask my colleagues, if you believe in keeping Brady sound--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If I might ask for an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator, and I thank the Chair.
  If you believe in keeping Brady sound, if you believe that we can 
save lives without impinging on the rights of legitimate gun owners, 
then the only vote you can cast is yes on the Lautenberg amendment. Any 
other vote will not do the job.
  This is a modest but important first step that will continue to 
reduce the number of deaths caused by firearms without impinging on the 
rights of those who believe they need them. I thank the Senator, and I 
thank the Senator from Idaho, again, for his graciousness.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 332

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I hope that those of our colleagues who are 
not on the floor this afternoon will take time to watch this debate and 
listen on television, because today we have very clear comparatives of 
something that works, that lessens the impact of Government, lessens 
the creation of a bureaucracy, and something that doesn't work which 
creates a very large bureaucracy against a substantial American pastime 
and an American business activity in this country. We are talking about 
gun shows. Some 5,000 gun shows across America are attended today by 
between 4.5 million and 5 million people annually. They are not in some 
back room or in some dark alley creating the environment for 
clandestine meetings between criminals. They are at fairgrounds, large 
convention centers and hotel lobbies. They are something that many 
Americans attend today because most Americans who attend gun shows are 
legitimate law-abiding citizens who have disposable income and wish to 
collect firearms as something they do in their pastime. Those are the 
true dynamics of a gun show.
  Let me read to you what the President of the United States --and I am 
afraid what my colleagues have tried to generate this afternoon is that 
it may be some evil activity. This is a radio message from the 
President of the United States, November 7, 1998, speaking of gun 
shows.

       . . . illegal arms, bazaars for criminals, and gun 
     traffickers looking to buy and sell guns on a cash-and-carry/
     no-questions-asked basis, entirely without background checks.

  That is the rhetoric that has imbued this issue and came up with this 
neat little quick phrase called a ``loophole.'' That is the basis from 
which we come this afternoon to this debate. Five million people are 
clandestine criminals going to gun bazaars across this Nation? Five 
million? I doubt that very much.
  In fact, the National Institute of Justice, which is an arm of the 
Justice Department of this administration, said this about gun shows:

       Less than 2 percent of the guns used by criminals may have 
     come from gun shows.

  Less than 2 percent. So those are the dynamics and the realities of 
this debate. I don't know how you paint it any other way, except by 
using bright red and black paint, because other than that, you have to 
deal with the truth and the facts at hand.
  What is this great loophole that my colleagues are talking about at 
this time? The loophole, they would have you believe, happens to be the 
Federal law. That law is a very straightforward

[[Page S5131]]

law. That law of several years ago defines what a gun dealer is and 
what a gun dealer isn't. It is the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the 
Firearm Owners Act of 1986. In there it is clearly defined what a gun 
dealer is and what a gun dealer isn't and, most importantly, what a 
private citizen is allowed to engage in in an occasional sale or 
exchange or purchase of a firearm for the enhancement of a 
personal collection, or for a hobby and/or to sell all or part of a 
personal collection of firearms within their State of residence without 
obtaining a dealer's license.

  What the Senator from New Jersey has not talked about are the laws 
that govern gun shows. Mr. President, 98 percent of those who are there 
are dealers licensed under Federal law who must keep records and have 
those records inspected by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. 
That wasn't mentioned. Maybe it was simply forgotten. But there is no 
question, the Senator from New Jersey is right; there are private 
citizens who come to gun shows and engage in discussions with other 
private citizens and decide to buy or sell their gun or guns. Is that a 
loophole? No. It is provided for in the 1986 law. It is something this 
Congress has already decided is right and proper to do as a private 
citizen--to engage in the sale of his or her private property. And we 
have been very clear in tightening it up so they could not get beyond 
the law. But we have also talked about legitimate collectors, and they 
are very definable within the law.
  But what is important is that we make sure can clarify even the 2 
percent. My amendment works to do that. There are people who collect 
guns, and now and then want to sell more than just one or two of their 
guns. Guess where they would go. They would probably go to a gun show 
where there are a lot of people who are interested in guns. And we 
would say in my amendment that we would allow them a special license 
category, that they could become a licensed gun dealer for a short 
period of time for either the sale of their guns, or for gunsmithing, 
or for a firearm repair business. This would be a new category of 
license in the Federal law.
  This term of ``engage in business'' would not necessarily fit because 
they were not businesspeople. They didn't make their living from the 
sale of firearms or firearm equipment or gun cleaning equipment or 
loading equipment or all of those kinds of things that are the hobbies 
of millions of Americans. But we recognize that we ought to give them a 
category, and in that category, in selling their guns, they would be 
required to keep records. They would be required to keep records, and 
they could keep them at their homes. Those records must be available 
for inspection by the ATF because they don't have a business.
  Remember, those in business keep copious Federal records, and the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms can inspect them at any time. 
People who are involved in the sale of guns, and certainly in the 
importation of guns, all of those kinds of things today, under the 1968 
and 1986 laws, are clearly well defined and controlled. But we are 
saying in these special instances we want to make sure these people do 
it right.
  Now, this is more than just to protect the person who purchases; we 
want to protect the person who sells, because if that gun were to end 
up being used by a criminal in a criminal act, and an independent 
person sold it, they could be liable under local law, under State law, 
under Federal law. Remember, there are 40,000 gun laws in America 
today--city, State, county and Federal laws--40,000 gun laws. I would 
like to adjust it a little, and the Senator from New Jersey wants to 
add one more so that we would have 40,001.
  We also do something else. We spent a lot of time with Brady, and out 
of Brady we came up with the national instant check system. We created 
a large computerized system by which when a gun dealer sells a gun, he 
can check the background of an individual to see whether he or she is a 
convicted felon, or if they have some adjudication against their 
personality that would cause them not to be able to own a gun. We will 
create a special class of register to be at a gun show so that people 
engaged in the legal, private sale of guns under Federal law can go to 
that person and say: I have this individual who wants to buy one of my 
guns. Here is his or her Social Security number. Run it through your 
system.

  Now, what does it do if you comply with these two areas? It creates a 
safe haven against liability because you have been within the law. But 
what the Senator from New Jersey didn't say is that if you sell to 
minors at a gun show, you are breaking the law. If your sale at a gun 
show went to a felon and it is proven, you are breaking the law. I am 
talking about private citizens. It is as if he suggested that gun shows 
are big black holes that criminals congregate in because they can 
traffic in illegal gun sales. That is false, Mr. President. I don't 
know of any other way to say it more clearly and abruptly in order to 
catch the ear of my colleagues. It is not true, and there is no 
loophole, unless the Senator from New Jersey wants to say that the laws 
he voted for are loopholes.
  I doubt that he would want to do that, because I think at least he 
was here for the passage of one of those laws. I can't honestly tell 
you whether he voted for or against it. But it did restrict the rights 
and activities of individuals as they relate to guns. My guess is that 
he did. But I will let him speak to that issue.
  What we are talking about here is continuing to shape and refine the 
gun laws--all 40,000 of them.
  If my amendment passes, and we create a special new license for a 
temporary person, or if we create a registrant for gun shows so that 
private sales can have a background check, under either of the new 
license or the special registrant, which would be optional--I don't 
argue that because I don't want to infringe on the right of private 
citizens under the 1986 law; congress has already spoken to that--it 
would provide a very clear incentive to individuals to participate as I 
have suggested.
  Why? Because, as I have mentioned, if the firearm was later used 
illegally and caused harm, they would be immune from the civil 
liabilities of that action, except for a lawsuit based on negligent 
entrustment, or the negligence per se. That you will never get away 
from, nor should you.
  So I think therein lies the difference.
  Let me talk to one other thing about my colleague's amendment that 
concerns me a great deal.
  On page 4 of his amendment he tries to define what a gun show is. I 
must tell you, very frankly, it demonstrates to me that he doesn't 
understand collectors, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of 
Americans who own well more than 50 guns, from antique, Civil War 
weapons to World War II and World War I weapons, Revolutionary War 
weapons, are collectors. It doesn't define any of them; it just says 50 
firearms or more.

  What it says to me is that he has suggested by his law that he is 
going to move from about 35,000 gun shows a year to hundreds of 
thousands of gun shows.
  What do I mean by that?
  If two collectors happen to get together and they happen to own more 
than 50 guns, and they decide to trade a gun or sell a gun between 
themselves, they are in violation of the Lautenberg amendment.
  I think we have to be careful of that, because it says, ``at which 
two or more persons are offering or exhibiting one or more firearms for 
sale, transfer, or exchange.'' I know the law, or at least I know this 
language. I know that when ATF gets through interpreting it, it won't 
be any narrower than this; it will be considerably broader.
  What about a gun show promoter?
  Is that Marriott Corporation, which happens to be housing the gun 
show for participants next to the convention center, which has a sign 
up: Gun show participants, come stay at the Marriott, promoting the gun 
show? I think they would be, by definition of the Lautenberg law.
  In other words, what I am asking my colleagues today to do is to read 
the fine print--which is really not so fine at all--for the term ``gun 
show vendor.''
  What I am suggesting is, we don't change the law, that we strengthen 
the law at hand, that we give some options to the private individual, 
who still should have the right as a private citizen to sell his or her 
guns to other private citizens if those actions do not fall within 
Federal law where they are

[[Page S5132]]

 businesspeople making a profit and are not therefore licensed dealers 
under the law.
  It was interesting when the Senator from New Jersey quoted Handgun 
Control. They got involved in this issue, and they cranked up 
Americans, talking about this issue some time ago. They talked about 
``unlicensed dealers.'' But, all of a sudden, they found out they 
couldn't use that term, because all of the dealers are licensed by 
definition of the Federal law. They had to back off.
  In other words, they were more interested in the political impact 
than the legality and the correctness of their debate, and how tragic 
that is. So they backed away from that. But they kept the term 
``loophole,'' because somehow it conjures up this idea of this dark 
escape hatch through which criminals pass. That is not the case. It is 
not the case in 5,000 legitimate, publicly promoted gun shows which 
nearly 5 million Americans attend annually in city parks, in legitimate 
hotels, in State convention centers, and in State fairgrounds around 
this country.
  My amendment and the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey are 
distinctly different. We honor the right of the private citizen. But we 
give that private citizen options to protect themselves and to access 
the information system that the taxpayers of this country have spent 
millions and millions of dollars building so we could have an instant 
background check to make sure guns didn't get into the hands of 
convicted felons or other citizens who have adjudicated problems.
  I have supported that and have strongly fought for it, even though 
this administration was dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st 
century of computer background checks because they wanted the right of 
control.

  Therein lies the ultimate difference between these two pieces of 
legislation.
  I hope in the course of the debate we can hear a much clearer 
definition of what a gun show is, because now I have a lot of friends. 
If I walk into their home and they discuss the idea of trading a gun or 
selling a gun to me, I might be in a gun show, and that citizen and I 
would be engaged in an illegal act. Yet, up until now, that would have 
been a legal act, because of the right of the private nondealer citizen 
to engage in those kinds of activities.
  There is no loophole. It is only in the minds of those who see guns 
to be the evil instead of the problems that citizens have either 
abiding by the law or dealing with their own frustrations.
  We have offered a clear alternative, and I think an appropriate 
alternative, to deal with the question of the 2 percent of sales at gun 
shows that may on some occasions find themselves in the hands of 
criminals where that gun was used in illegal activity. Therein lies the 
difference.
  I hope it is clear to my colleagues, the importance of sustaining the 
gun laws we have and guaranteeing that private citizens have the right 
to engage in gun sales from their private collections and their private 
ownership, on a limited basis, clearly described by the law, without 
having to become a federally-licensed firearms dealer, as many would 
care not to be.
  I retain the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
  I want to tell those following this debate that you are never going 
to have a clearer choice than between the Lautenberg amendment and the 
Craig amendment. The Lautenberg amendment closes down the loophole that 
allows people to sell lethal weapons at a gun show--what they call 
``private sales''-- without a background check. The Craig alternative 
makes it permissible.
  What does that mean? It means if you want to get involved in a 
background check for sale at a gun show, you may. You may. How many 
laws do we write across America where you say ``you may'' observe the 
speed limit, ``you may'' observe the law when it comes to the sale of 
drugs, ``you may'' observe the law when it comes to treason against the 
United States? No. If a law is going to work, a law has to be sensible 
and enforceable.
  The Craig amendment is neither. It is neither sensible nor 
enforceable, because not only does it ignore the reality of the horror 
that is coming out of schools in America but it ignores the reality 
that at gun shows across America people are buying weapons without a 
background check and using them in the commission of crime.
  This is not my observation, it is the observation of the Department 
of Treasury, the Department of Justice, and ATF, and other researchers 
who reviewed 314 recent investigations involving gun shows across 
America. Their findings are chilling. Felons, although prohibited under 
the Brady law from buying firearms, have been able to purchase guns at 
gun shows. In fact, felons buying or selling firearms were involved in 
more than 46 percent of the investigations involving gun shows.
  There are plenty of gun shows in my home State of Illinois. Most of 
the people who attend are law abiding. Most of them follow the law and 
are glad to do it. Clearly, the criminal element is using this gun show 
as a way to launder weapons and purchase them when they can't buy them 
from a licensed dealer.
  Mr. Craig would suggest the people attending gun shows are much like 
those who come around to buy and sell baseball cards. There is a big 
difference. Of course, what you are buying and selling at a gun show is 
a lethal weapon.
  Senator Lautenberg is trying to close down a loophole which is a 
loophole for criminals. Why the National Rifle Association--which 
continues to say it is just defending the rights of hunters and 
sportsmen across America who want to use guns safely and legally--would 
come in with the Craig amendment in an attempt to undermine Senator 
Lautenberg's amendment is beyond me.
  That is not all that is in the Craig amendment. Read on, my friends, 
because he proceeds in this amendment to provide immunity from civil 
liability for those who would ask for a special license at a gun show. 
There are only two groups in America who can't be sued now--diplomats 
and some health insurance companies--and we are debating that 
particular element. And now the Senator from Idaho says we should also 
include in the group of Americans who cannot be held accountable in 
court those who want to sell guns at a gun show.
  The last point I want to make is this: As they poured through the 
records to try to figure out how these two children in Littleton, CO, 
came up with two sawed-off shotguns and other weapons, they were 
stymied because there were no records; they couldn't trace them. They 
were trying to figure out where they came from. Senator Craig's 
amendment would mandate that we destroy records about the sale of 
firearms, records that law enforcement needs to try to figure out when 
guns are stolen and used in the course of crime.
  I can't believe any gun owner, who as I do opposes the gun crimes 
across America, is going to stand up and defend what Mr. Craig is 
arguing for. Senator Lautenberg's amendment is clear and concise and 
hits the points in this loophole that many criminals are using to come 
into possession of guns which they are using to menace Americans and 
American families.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for 
his continued leadership on sensible gun laws. That is what we are 
talking about here: closing a loophole that is leading to trouble, that 
is leading to death. We have a chance to close the loophole. That is 
all the Lautenberg amendment does.
  Good people go to gun shows but not all gun shows are good. Let me 
read from an associated press article:

       Undercover state [this is California] agents found illegal 
     weapons so plentiful at a Los Angeles County gun show that 
     they ran out of money after shopping at a handful of booths.
       The weapons included rocket launchers and flame throwers, 
     Attorney General Bill Lockyer said. . . .
       They were readily available, all sorts of illegal weapons.

  He goes on to say:

       I don't know what hunter needs a flame thrower.

  I have to say to my friend from Idaho, if we followed his 
leadership--

[[Page S5133]]

and the Senator from Illinois has pointed out the flaws in his 
amendment--we would be saying something we don't say to any other 
industry.
  Let me explain what I mean. We have standards for cars. They have to 
have brakes, they have to have wipers, they have to have seatbelts. But 
guess what. If you sell them at a ``car show,'' as opposed to a ``car 
dealership,'' they don't need to meet any of the standards and you can 
sell a car to someone who hasn't got a license because none of the laws 
would apply.
  You could do that with pharmaceuticals. The FDA approves a 
pharmaceutical and says it has to contain certain elements, that is 
what they approve, but if you sell it at a ``pharmaceutical show'' you 
don't have to have any of those elements.
  We could do the same thing for industry after industry.
  There are more standards for toy guns in this country than there are 
for real guns, but even toy guns have to meet certain standards if they 
are sold at a toy show--the same laws apply.
  To make the law voluntary, as my friend from Idaho does, makes no 
sense at all. It exacerbates a problem that is already a serious 
problem.
  The Senator from New Jersey is saying people are dying unnecessarily 
from gun violence. There are people getting guns, getting their hands 
on guns at gun shows who couldn't do it if they went to a licensed 
dealer. Why on Earth would anyone in this Senate want to condone that--
no background checks at a gun show, nothing?
  All the Senator from Idaho is saying is make it voluntary. That is 
not going to fly. The bad people who want to get away with it aren't 
going to say: Do a background check on me; you might find out I'm a 
felon. They will say: No, I don't want to comply.
  I thank my friend, the Senator from New Jersey, for this intelligent 
amendment.
  I point out to my colleagues who may be following this debate, and I 
know we vote our conscience here, 87 percent of the American people 
support a background check on a gun buyer at a gun show--87 percent of 
the people; 83 percent support requiring background checks on gun show 
buyers, including dealers.
  The bottom line is people want us to take action. The people don't 
like the fact that thousands of people a year die from gunshot wounds. 
We can stop it.
  This is a good amendment. I hope we will support it and defeat the 
Craig amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, while the Senator from California is on the floor, I 
think it is important we understand the facts about which she talks. 
She is referencing a recent gun show in California where State justice 
department agents were involved. What she did not say is that every 
private sale in California, by State law, must be run through the 
department of justice background check. In other words, the very thing 
that she wants is now available in California but doesn't work.
  What is wrong? Why didn't it work? I guess she will have to answer 
that question. I am not sure. She is saying she wants what the Senator 
from New Jersey is offering, but they have it in California as State 
law and it doesn't work.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will allow the Senator to debate this on her own time.
  It is important we keep the record very clear. She said there are no 
background checks at gun shows. Only 98 percent of the transactions are 
background checked. She cannot come to the floor and make a broad 
statement that says there are no background checks. That is within 
itself a clearly false statement.
  In the State of California, the very gun show where there were found 
to be some violations of State law--and probably Federal law--somehow 
the State of California can't control it, either. Or should they? 
Therein lies the question.
  In the case of my legislation, private transactions would be given 
the opportunity of sanctuary, and it would be a tremendous incentive. I 
think what we need to do here is create incentives. In the State of 
California there are no incentives; there are mandatory laws, and 
apparently those laws were broken, at least in some instances.
  It is important the record show that it was instances of probably 
less than 2 percent. It is important the record show that well over 98 
percent of sales at gun shows--not by ATF but by the Justice 
Department's own figures--are background checked. Those are the facts. 
They shouldn't be just intentionally generated for this debate. They 
come from the Justice Department itself.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that time not 
in a quorum call is divided equally. If we want to stand here silently 
so that their rebuttal time is reserved for the Senator from Idaho, we 
are not going to do that; we will wile it away.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Idaho yield himself 
time?
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield myself time. I want to make a correction to one of 
the statements I made just a minute ago. Because I insist others use 
right figures, I must use the same rules. I said 98 percent. I am 
wrong. It is about a 60-40 percent relationship at gun shows; about 60 
percent are sold by licensed firearm dealers that require background 
checks. By the estimation of ATF and the Justice Department, there 
appears to be about 40 percent of sales that are private by definition 
of the law. That is a much more accurate statement than the one I just 
made. But it is clear the State of California does have a law that 
requires all private sales, all transactions, to be subject to 
background check.
  I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 10 minutes and 
39 seconds. The Senator from Idaho has 23 minutes and 9 seconds. If 
neither side yields time, time will be charged equally.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator from Idaho yield some time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee such time as he requires.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the proposal, the Democratic proposal to 
heavily regulate firearms at gun shows, while well intentioned, is an 
example of regulatory overkill.
  First, the proposal would require a law-abiding gun show organizer to 
notify Federal and State law enforcement prior to holding a gun show, 
and require substantial recordkeeping and reporting before and after 
the show. But gun shows are not conducted in a secret black market. 
They are publicly advertised for weeks in advance in order to generate 
public participation.
  Second, the proposal would require individuals to sell through a 
licensed dealer in order to obtain the background check and other 
information. While obtaining a background check is a laudable goal, 
requiring an individual to pay a dealer for the service could be cost 
prohibitive to a lawful business transaction. So that is a matter of 
great concern.
  The Republican proposal provides for a ``special registrant'' at a 
gun show that any nonlicensed seller can use to conduct a background 
check on the instant check system. This cost-effective mechanism will 
prevent any unlawful sales without unduly burdening a lawful 
transaction with regulatory costs. Thus, I must oppose the amendment to 
heavily regulate gun shows because it is overly burdensome on law-
abiding sellers.
  I strongly support the amendment filed by my colleague, Senator 
Craig, which will provide for increased safety and licensing of firearm 
sales at gun shows. This amendment contains several provisions that 
will make it more difficult for criminals to purchase firearms at gun 
shows, but this amendment allows law-abiding citizens to continue to 
buy and sell legal products.
  First, the Craig amendment will provide for ``special registrants,'' 
who may conduct background checks for individual sellers at a gun show 
using the instant check system. These checks will prevent criminals 
from purchasing a firearm from another individual, an unlicensed seller 
at a gun show. It will also provide an inexpensive and efficient means 
to facilitate the lawful

[[Page S5134]]

sale of a firearm by one individual to another.
  Second, this amendment will provide for special licenses for persons 
who want to buy and sell guns primarily or solely at gun shows. This 
will allow occasional sellers, such as gunsmiths, to avoid the expense 
and regulation of becoming full-fledged Federal firearms licensees.
  Third, the Craig amendment will prohibit Federal and State law 
enforcement officials from charging a fee to conduct a background check 
on the instant check system. This would reduce the cost of criminal 
background checks to individuals.
  Fourth, the Craig amendment would encourage the use of the instant 
check system by granting civil liability protection to those who use it 
at gun shows. Given the litigation climate we are currently 
experiencing, this will be a strong incentive to use the ``special 
registrant'' provision of this amendment.
  In short, this amendment will promote background checks on sales by 
nonlicensed individuals at gun shows without an undue financial burden. 
It will prevent crime without punishing law-abiding citizens. So, 
accordingly, I do believe this amendment deserves support.
  I respect the distinguished Senator from Idaho. In fact, I respect 
both Senators on the Democrat side and the Senator from Idaho for 
trying to resolve these difficult problems. But I do believe that the 
amendment of the Senator from Idaho resolves this problem in a more 
fair and reasonable manner while accomplishing just as much as the 
distinguished Senator from New Jersey is trying to do with his 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If nobody yields time, time 
will be charged equally by the Chair.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, since we have had the measure on the 
juvenile crime bill before us, this is really the first opportunity we 
have had to deal with one of the compelling aspects of reducing 
violence, not only in our schools but in our communities. We are 
talking about youth violence. We have had debate and discussion on how 
we can help schools, how we can help parents, and how we can help 
teachers. We have also considered, under the Leahy proposal, a series 
of different strategies to effectively use law enforcement to reduce 
violence.
  Now, we really begin the debate about the proliferation and 
availability of guns in our society. There are many who choose not to 
talk about this particular issue, but, hopefully, we will have an 
opportunity to debate and have votes. We will find out who in this body 
is serious about trying to reduce the availability and accessibility of 
guns whose only purpose is not for hunting, but for killing and maiming 
individuals.
  It is particularly important that we have this discussion about 
children. Every single day, 13 children die because of the use of 
guns--almost the equivalent of Littleton, every single day. We know 
that when we reduce the availability and accessibility of guns, it 
extends children's lives and the lives of others.
  I have just a few moments now. I will, later in the course of the 
debate, clearly demonstrate, how the United States compares to other 
countries in terms of the incidence of violence and the incidence of 
violence and the utilization of guns.
  One of the most extraordinary examples we have seen in recent times 
is what has happened in my own city of Boston. But before discussing 
Boston's success, I think it is important to understand the weakness of 
the Craig proposal. This proposal fails to meet the minimum standards 
of doing anything about guns because, as has been pointed out, this is 
a completely voluntary program. Those who are not interested in 
participating, will not participate in the program. It fails to meet 
the minimum standard of responsibility in dealing with the loophole 
which the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, has identified.
  If we are going to do something about gun shows, the Lautenberg 
amendment is the way to do it. I think any fair reading or listening to 
the debate will reveal that the Craig amendment fails, and fails 
abysmally, in reducing the availability and accessibility of guns.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 7 minutes and 16 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. On the time I was yielded?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes remaining on the Senator's 
time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in my 2 remaining minutes, I want to 
mention what has happened with the use of firearms in homicides for 
those 16 and under in Boston, MA. In 1990, we had 10; in 1995, we only 
had 2. In 1998, we had 4. In 1999, for youth homicides in Boston, MA, 
in 128 schools, zero so far. Zero so far. Something is working. 
Something is working.
  What is working is tough gun laws--and I will have a chance to go 
into greater detail on that later in the debate--tough law enforcement, 
effective programs in the schools, and working with children and 
parents to respond to some of the underlying causes, and the needs of 
children. It is that combination, but it is also effective because we 
have tough gun laws.

  The Lautenberg amendment is a downpayment on the things that are 
important in reducing violence. Many say here: This is a complex issue, 
and therefore we can't really solve the problem. What the Lautenberg 
amendment and other amendments say is, we can reduce the incidence of 
violence in our society and we will miss that opportunity if we fail to 
adopt them.
  This is about saving children's lives. That is what this proposal is 
about, and a number of other proposals. We should be willing to accept 
this in an overwhelmingly positive way. The Lautenberg amendment does 
something; the Craig amendment fails the minimum standard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 5 minutes 13 
seconds remaining. The Senator from Idaho has 18 minutes 29 seconds.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I understand it is possible to extend 
the time some because the vote, I am told, is going to be delayed from 
4 to 4:30. I ask the Senator from Idaho if he is interested in taking 
some more time for our discussion here. I do not want the time to go by 
without use.
  Mr. HATCH. I prefer to get these two amendments over with so we can 
move on to the next amendment. We do have one or two others that are 
going to come up today. I think we have covered it pretty well on both 
sides.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my friend from Utah.
  Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I have. I understand there 
is a 2\1/2\-minute presentation before each of the votes; is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes equally divided; that is correct. 
The Senator now has 3 minutes 49 seconds.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I listened with interest and felt like 
the famous philosopher from New Jersey, Yogi Berra, who said, ``This is 
deja vu all over again,'' because the Senator from Idaho and I have 
sharply disagreed on what constitutes freedom.
  I think there is a freedom that overrides all the others--the freedom 
to live, the freedom to send your children to school and not worry 
about whether or not they are going to get shot and permanently injured 
or worse yet, killed.
  The Senator from Idaho points out the fact that there is only a small 
percentage--he corrected that; he is an honest man. He corrected the 
percentage he ascribed to gun show purchases away from licensed 
dealers. A small percentage he said. What are we talking about? What 
percentage did it take to kill 13 kids in Littleton, CO? It could have 
been done with 1 percent or less. Four weapons, all of which had a 
history of gun show traveling.
  Four weapons killed those children. Ask those families whether they 
want tighter control or whether they are

[[Page S5135]]

worried about the menace that the Senator from Idaho presented. The 
menace, he says, is a bigger bureaucracy. How about the menace of 
losing your child? Where does that stand in the list of things? No, it 
is important that the Federal Government doesn't intervene; we ought to 
get rid of the Federal Government. Maybe we do not need any laws.
  He said only a small percentage are violators. Yes, we have in our 
country over 100 million cars on the road, but we have laws against 
drunk driving; we have laws against reckless driving; we have laws 
against speeding. Why? Because even though a car is a nice convenience, 
it can be a lethal weapon if it is mishandled.
  What is wrong with saying we ought to take some time, we ought to 
make records? I do not understand this sham attempt to obscure reality.
  He said we don't want to interfere; we will let private citizens--let 
a private citizen go to an FBI file and say: Listen, I want to look up 
this guy, and tell me what you will.
  A private citizen going to the FBI to find out what kind of history 
this person has, whether they have mental disease or mental illness or 
whether or not they have ever been in jail, in private records? But, 
no, we can't trivialize the gun show business. We are not trivializing 
it. We say if you want to buy a gun at a gun show, then let a licensed 
Federal dealer offer a check.
  The Senator from Idaho and I had a disagreement a few years ago about 
whether or not spousal abusers ought to be deprived of their right to 
own a gun. Beat up your wife as many times as you want, but you still 
should have your gun. We won that one. It took a heck of a fight to win 
it, and they are still trying to upset it, but the court upheld our 
right to say no to a spousal abuser, you don't have a right to own a 
gun if you are going to abuse your family. Mr. President, 150,000 times 
a year a woman has a gun put to her head with the threat: I am going to 
kill you. And the children are watching. What kind of trauma is that?
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will yield for a question on your time.
  Mr. CRAIG. Did I support you in the spousal abuse amendment? Did I 
support you and vote for it?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The vote was for it.
  Mr. CRAIG. Thank you.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. But the amendment died in committee. The amendment 
died because the NRA wanted to kill that amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. But the Senator from New Jersey said I did not support it. 
He is wrong. I voted for it, and I supported him.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We negotiated very hard as they tried to strip it 
bare but finally resolved it because it was too embarrassing in the 
public to vote against it, to say to the public: No; you still deserve 
a gun even though you beat the heck out of your wife.
  What are we talking about here?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. This is theater; this isn't government.
  How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I guess I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is important that facts be facts. The 
Senator from New Jersey and I did negotiate on the spousal abuse issue 
because there were some differences. When those differences were worked 
out, we agreed. So it is not correct to characterize on the floor that 
I opposed him. He and I agreed, we shook hands, and we voted for it. 
And I do not run from that vote at all. So let's set that one aside.
  Let's talk about the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which the 
Senator said some minutes ago had endorsed his legislation. We called 
the National Sports Shooting Foundation today, and they said they do 
not endorse the Lautenberg legislation.
  Just last Monday, the president of NSSF said the industry supports 
backgrounds checks at gun shows provided the FBI does not maintain the 
names in violation of the law and the White House agrees to a more 
aggressive prosecution of felons turned up by the background checks. 
That is what they said. They did not, by my checking today, support the 
Lautenberg amendment.
  I am also told by Governor Bush's office here in Washington that his 
office has now called the Lautenberg office to say they do not support, 
nor have they endorsed, the Lautenberg amendment. That is possibly why 
that placard a few moments ago that said George W. Bush supported the 
legislation has been taken down. I do not know that to be a fact. I 
have not talked with Governor Bush, but it is my understanding at this 
moment that that is the case from the Governor's office here in 
Washington. I will set that one aside.
  Let's talk about the facts. The facts are that there are 40,000 gun 
laws in America. Twenty of those were violated at Columbine High School 
in that tragic event which all of us mourn. We are here today in a 
juvenile justice bill trying to create a much stronger environment in 
which to deal with juveniles who act in violent and illegal ways. That 
is what we are trying to do. That is what the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee has worked for over 2 years to do. We are going to be 
treating violent juveniles more like adults--a significant change in 
our society and in our culture. And we should. We must.

  Well, then, why are gun shows a part of it? Because every time some 
people get an opportunity to talk about opposing guns, they take that 
opportunity. I do not deny them that right, but what is important is 
that we deal with the character of the law in the right and appropriate 
way.
  Private citizens are allowed to sell guns in private transactions--at 
gun shows, in the middle of the street, or in the privacy of their 
home. That is what the law says. There are liabilities to that. If you 
sell to a minor, that is against the law. If you sell in an interstate 
transaction, that is against the law. If you sell to a felon, you 
better be careful; you will be liable. Those are the laws that exist 
today.
  If you are a licensed dealer of guns, making your living from guns, 
then the laws are manyfold and you walk a very tight rope. You keep 
records, as you should, and you do background checks to deny felons 
access to guns or those who have an adjudicated problem that would make 
them unstable in the ownership of guns.
  Those are the laws today with which we deal. There are some 5,000-
plus gun shows annually that nearly 5 million people attend across 
America, where 60 percent of the gun transactions are done within the 
context of federally licensed firearms dealers, and 40 percent are not. 
We are saying something distinctively different than the Senator from 
New Jersey, who says: Federally controlled, federally defined, in a 
bureaucracy of recordkeeping that puts the private citizen at a 
tremendous liability, even though they are law abiding and do all the 
right things. We are saying we ought to allow background checks to 
private citizens if they are involved in those transactions. Our 
amendment would do that, would create a special registry to access, for 
that citizen, the NICS, instant background check system of the FBI.
  That is right, and it is proper, and it will go a long ways toward 
dealing with illegal activity--some exist; I cannot deny that. But 
clearly even the Justice Department says that of the guns that are sold 
at gun shows, less than 2 percent are found to be in illegal 
activities. That is this Justice Department. That is Bill Clinton's 
Justice Department. Yet, Bill Clinton, our President, who tried to 
characterize gun shows as being a bazaar for criminal activity, is 
wrong, and he knows it. But when he can play politics with this issue, 
he runs to do so, even though his own Justice Department would argue 
that the statistics are substantially different.
  We also provide for a unique status of licensure. But what we do most 
importantly is we do not increase the liability or the recordkeeping 
responsibility of the private citizen. No tripwires here, no failure to 
dot the ``i'' or cross the ``t'' of a Federal process for which the ATF 
can come into your home and find you liable. That is not the way it 
should be. Private citizens have rights in this country, and they even 
have rights to own guns within the law and under the Constitution. That 
is what

[[Page S5136]]

we guarantee here with clearer definition and clearer process.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator has 11 minutes 45 
seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, one other area that concerns me a great 
deal is the definition by the Senator from New Jersey of ``gun show.'' 
I have spoken to that to some extent. But I am tremendously fearful 
that law-abiding citizens, who are legitimate collectors of guns, all 
of a sudden will find themselves, where more than one should meet, 
automatically by definition of the Federal law a gun show.
  That is wrong. It should not be that way. But certainly if it becomes 
that way, their liability to even talk about guns and trade guns or 
exchange guns amongst their friends who are collectors is dramatically 
curtailed.
  Also, I do not think the Senator from New Jersey has done an 
effective job of refuting what ``gun show promoter'' means. Because he 
says that the term ``gun show promoter'' means any person or 
organization that plans or promotes and operates a gun show. These are 
the people who find themselves not only liable but having to get 
Federal licensure to do so. Does that include the Marriott Hotel next 
to the Convention Center with a sign out front: All gun show exhibitors 
stay here. We promote gun show X in city Y or Z? It could. Because we 
all know that what we mean here as legislative intent oftentimes 
becomes vastly different once interpreted by the Federal bureaucracy.
  Those are my concerns as they relate to these issues. I hope my 
colleagues will clearly understand those before they take the 
opportunity to vote this afternoon.
  I retain the remainder of my time and relinquish the floor.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would like to express my views with 
respect to the issue of background checks at gun shows in relation to 
the amendments we have today before the Senate.
  I am a strong supporter of the second amendment; however, I also 
believe we must maintain procedures to ensure that guns do not find 
their way to the wrong hands. This is why I have supported the instant 
check system which is currently in place.
  I have reviewed the amendment offered by Senator Lautenberg and the 
amendment offered by Senator Craig. I have concerns with both. In my 
view the amendment offered by Senator Lautenberg goes much further than 
simply requiring a background check for purchases at gun shows. It 
would put in place new and burdensome record requirements for gun show 
operators and vendors and provide the Secretary of the Treasury with 
unlimited authority to issue additional regulations.
  On the other hand, the amendment offered by Senator Craig, in my 
view, does not go far enough. Senator Craig's amendment merely outlines 
a voluntary or optional background check process.
  Mr. President, consistent with my view and past support of the Brady 
bill, I would support a straightforward background check system for gun 
show sales, but that is not the choice we have before us today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield to the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. With the permission of Senator Craig, I ask unanimous 
consent that the distinguished Senator from Arizona be given 7 minutes 
to offer his amendment, speak to it, and, as I understand, he is going 
to withdraw the amendment at the end.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, not objecting but clarifying, if I may, do 
I retain my time or is that simply used up in this----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho retains his 5 minutes, 
and the Senator from Arizona would have 7 minutes intervening. Is that 
the intent of the Senator from Utah?
  Mr. HATCH. The Senator's time would not come out of the time of the 
Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. May I ask a question, please? How is the time 
derived? Is the time now under the control of the Senator from Idaho?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time, the Senator from Idaho has 5 
minutes 2 seconds remaining. The unanimous consent request is that the 
Senator from Arizona have 7 additional minutes for his own purposes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 333

    (Purpose: To prohibit the receipt, transfer, transportation, or 
   possession of a firearm or ammunition by certain violent juvenile 
                   offenders, and for other purposes)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up an amendment at the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 333.

  Mr. McCAIN. 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, insert the following:

     SEC. __. FIREARMS PENALTIES.

       (a) Straw Purchase Penalties.--
       (1) In general.--Section 924(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), whoever knowingly 
     violates section 922(a)(6) for the purpose of selling, 
     delivering, or otherwise transferring a firearm, knowing or 
     having reasonable cause to know that another person will 
     carry or otherwise possess or discharge or otherwise use the 
     firearm in the commission of a violent felony, shall be--
       ``(i) fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 
     years, or both; or
       ``(ii) imprisoned not less than 10 and not more than 20 
     years and fined under this title, if the procurement is for a 
     juvenile.
       ``(B) In this paragraph--
       ``(i) the term `juvenile' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 922(x); and
       ``(ii) the term `violent felony' means conduct described in 
     subsection (e)(2)(B).''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Juvenile Weapons Penalties.--
       (1) In general.--Section 924(a) of title 18 United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``Whoever'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided in paragraph (6), whoever''; and
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) A person other than a juvenile who knowingly violates 
     section 922(x)--
       ``(i) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 1 year, or both; or
       ``(ii) if the person sold, delivered, or otherwise 
     transferred a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile, knowing or 
     having reasonable cause to know that the juvenile intended to 
     carry or otherwise possess or discharge or otherwise use the 
     handgun or ammunition in the commission of a violent felony, 
     shall be imprisoned not less than 10 and not more than 20 
     years and fined under this title.
       ``(C) In this paragraph--
       ``(i) the term `juvenile' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 922(x); and
       ``(ii) the term `violent felony' means conduct described in 
     subsection (e)(2)(B).''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah and also the 
Senator from Idaho for allowing me this time. I don't think I will use 
as much as 7 minutes. At that time, I will withdraw my amendment upon 
the completion of my statement.
  This amendment is designed to prevent juveniles from illegally 
accessing weapons and to punish those who would assist them in doing 
so.
  This amendment provides that whoever illegally purchases a weapon for 
another individual, knowing that the recipient intends to use the 
weapon to commit a violent crime, may be imprisoned for up to 15 years. 
Further, the amendment mandates that whoever illegally purchases a 
weapon for a juvenile, knowing that the juvenile intends to commit a 
violent felony with the weapon, will receive a mandatory minimum 
sentence of 10 years and may be imprisoned for up to 20 years. Current 
law provides a maximum prison term of 10 years, regardless of the age 
of the shooter.
  Additionally, if a person transfers a handgun or ammunition to a 
juvenile knowing that the juvenile intends to

[[Page S5137]]

commit a violent felony, that individual will receive a minimum 10-year 
sentence and may be imprisoned up to 20 years.
  Mr. President, as I just outlined, this amendment is very simple. The 
amendment targets the nexus of the youth gun violence issue. Despite 
the arguments of those who are pushing for more restrictive guns 
ownership laws, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of kids who 
are committing these violent acts are getting guns illegally. It is 
ludicrous to argue that gang members are going to gun shows or to 
Walmart to buy their weapons. For the most part, they are obtaining 
them illegally.
  Recent events have shaken the collective conscience of this nation. 
The murders at Columbine High School in Colorado have again brought 
home to every American the degree to which we are failing our children.
  The most basic and profound responsibility that our culture--any 
culture--has is raising its children. We are failing in that 
responsibility, and the extent of our failure is being measured in the 
deaths and injuries of kids in schoolyards and on neighborhood streets. 
Over the past 2 years, we have been jolted time and again with the 
horrifying news and images of school shootings. Every day, in towns and 
cities across this country, kids are killing kids, and kids are killing 
adults in a spiraling pattern of youth violence driven by the drug 
trade, gang activity, and other factors.

  Our children are killing each other, and they are killing themselves. 
We must act to change this.
  Primary responsibility lies with families. As a country, we are not 
parenting our children. We are not adequately involving ourselves in 
our children's lives, the friends they hang out with, what they do with 
their time, and the problems they are struggling with. This is our job, 
our paramount responsibility, and we are failing. We must get our 
priorities straight, and that means putting our kids first.
  However, parents need help. They need help because our homes, our 
families, and our children's minds are being flooded by a tide of 
violence. This dehumanizing violence pervades our society. Movies 
depict graphic violence, and children are taught to kill and maim by 
interactive video games. The Internet, which holds such tremendous 
potential, is used by some to communicate unimaginable hatred, images 
and descriptions of violence, and ``how-to'' manuals on everything from 
bomb construction to drugs. Our culture is dominated by media, and our 
children, more so than any other generation, are vulnerable to the 
images of violence and hate that are, sadly, the dominant themes in so 
much of what they see and hear.
  I recently joined with some of my colleagues to call upon the 
President to convene an emergency summit of the leaders of the 
entertainment and interactive media industry to develop an action plan 
for controlling children's access to media violence. I am pleased that 
the President heeded this call. However, I am very disappointed that 
the President's summit proved to be heavy on symbolism and light on 
substance. We can do more.
  I have also joined others to introduce legislation calling upon the 
Surgeon General to conduct a comprehensive study of media violence in 
all its forms, and to issue a report on its effects together with 
recommendations on how we can turn around the tragic tide of youth 
violence.
  Further, yesterday, I, along with Senator Lieberman and others, 
announced legislation that would establish a National Youth Violence 
Commission, consisting of religious leaders and experts in education, 
family psychology, law enforcement, and parenting, to produce a 
comprehensive study of the forces that are conspiring to turn our 
children into killers.
  Combined, these measures--along with this legislation--are important 
steps targeting various aspects of the complex problem of youth 
violence. However, if we are to turn this tide, we must press the fight 
on every front.
  One reality of the horrific schoolyard shootings, and the criminal 
gun violence that is so prevalent among our youth, is the illegal use 
of guns. The amendment I have offered is specifically targeted at the 
illegal means by which kids are acquiring guns. The extent of this 
problem is made acutely apparent by the events that unfolded in 
Littleton. From what we are told, 18 different gun laws were violated, 
including illegal straw purchases and transfers.
  This amendment states simply that, if you know a kid is going to 
commit a violent felony, and you give him or her the gun to commit that 
crime, you are going to go to jail for a long time.
  Mr. President, this amendment is not a panacea. As I have stated, the 
malady of youth violence that is eating at the soul of this Nation is a 
complex disease. It will require a multi-faceted cure. I believe we 
must push for a comprehensive approach. What we must have is the 
unqualified commitment of all Americans to raise our children, to put 
them first.
  This amendment is one step--one necessary step that will help us deal 
with the problem of kids killing kids. I hope the Senate will adopt 
this amendment.
  Mr. President, my understanding is that the distinguished manager of 
the bill has included this amendment in the package. I thank him for 
doing that. Therefore, it would be deemed unnecessary that this 
amendment be considered separately at this time. I thank the 
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for including this 
amendment in the package.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at 
this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 333) was withdrawn.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I compliment the distinguished Senator from Arizona for 
his leadership on this issue and for the work that he has done to help 
pass this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously stacked 
votes be delayed to begin at 4:30 this afternoon. We have three so far 
lined up. And further, following the debate outlined in the previous 
consent, Senator Thompson be recognized for up to 20 minutes for 
general debate on the bill, and then Senator Kennedy for 10 minutes and 
then Senator Leahy for 5 minutes.
  I further ask that following the votes, Senator Hollings be 
recognized to offer an amendment regarding TV violence limited to 3 
hours equally divided prior to a motion to table, with no amendments in 
order prior to that vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure I 
understand this. We are starting basically now, Senator Thompson will 
be recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Right.
  Mr. LEAHY. And then my 5 minutes is in there prior to the vote.
  Mr. HATCH. Following Senator Kennedy.
  Now, also if we have enough time left over after Senator Leahy 
speaks, I ask unanimous consent that we can work on a Republican 
amendment before the votes, too, so we can at least have one more. We 
will try to work that out between the two managers on the floor. We 
will begin with Senator Thompson for 20 minutes, Kennedy for 10, and 
Leahy for 5, and then we will see where we can go.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Utah and I 
congratulate him for his long work in this area. While I cannot support 
this legislation, it is certainly better than much I have seen in this 
area. I know he and Senators Sessions, Biden, and others, have spent a 
lot of time on this. I congratulate them for it.
  Mr. President, I rise not to debate any particular amendment. There 
has been a lot of good discussion as to the grants, the programs, and 
as to the various amendments and details of what we should do and how 
much money we should spend on various programs.
  I rise not to address that because I have a significant problem with 
the entire concept. I believe that our approach with regard to youth 
violence

[[Page S5138]]

here is misguided. First, I will address basically what this bill does. 
Among other things, it makes it easier to prosecute juveniles in 
Federal criminal court. We have from 100 to 200 prosecutions a year of 
juveniles in Federal court. It is a minuscule part of our criminal 
justice system.
  In 1998, there were 58,000 Federal criminal cases filed involving 
79,000 defendants. As I say, there were only 100 or 200 juvenile 
Federal crime cases among that group. This bill would make it easier to 
bring what has traditionally been a State matter into the Federal 
system. It makes it easier to try a juvenile as an adult. It would 
allow juveniles as young as 14 years of age to be tried as an adult for 
violent crimes and drug offenses--drug offenses, again, that are of the 
street crime category, where we have laws on the books in every State 
of the Union. It makes more local street crime Federal offenses--
recruiting gang members and things of that nature. It allows the 
Attorney General to send in a Federal task force if she deems it 
necessary.
  Then there is an array of programs and grants that this bill sets 
forth: Educational programs, educational grants for dropout prevention, 
school violence, restitution, child abuse, probation enhancement, 
mentoring programs, drug abuse, gang prevention, gun prevention, job 
training, afterschool activities, family strengthening, evaluation 
programs. Then this bill requires in a few instances, and in a few 
instances encourages, States to do certain other things if they want to 
participate and get this grant money and program money. It encourages 
boot camps, sentencing of juveniles who are as young as 10 years old as 
adults, encourages graduated sanctions, and encourages States to set up 
various kinds of programs for victims of juvenile crime. That is 
required if the States want this money. It requires communities to 
establish coalitions to replicate other communities. In other words, it 
requires coalitions of groups of law enforcement officers to get 
together and do some of the things that have been done in 
other communities where they apparently have had good results.

  Then we have seen research amendments with regard to crime in 
schools, establishing of hotlines, and increasing the penalties for 
various things. We have extended, by amendment, the 1994 crime bill 
that will spend about $31 billion over the next 5 years. This bill does 
all of these things.
  Mr. President, it is a tremendous conglomeration of grants and 
programs and mandates, whereby we spend additional billions of dollars 
on matters that are being, or should be, covered by State and local 
laws, or that should be handled by local governments--such things that 
would be anticrime measures, tough on crime measures; or we are dealing 
with areas in which we really don't know what we are doing, with all 
due respect, as a Federal Government. With that, I am referring to 
basically prevention programs.
  Basically, what we try to do is either get tough on crime programs, 
increasing penalties, and federalizing additional offenses, on the one 
hand, or coming in with prevention programs designed to reach young 
people before they get in trouble. Both are laudable goals. But not too 
long ago, I chaired the Youth Violence Juvenile Justice Subcommittee of 
the Judiciary Committee. We had extensive hearings. It is a subject 
that we are all concerned about. We are looking for solutions. I came 
away with the distinct feeling and impression that we need to 
concentrate more on research and evaluation of the underlying problems 
of juvenile violence. There is no question but that these are deep-
rooted, social, complex problems about which we know very little.
  I believe there is one thing the Federal Government does probably 
better than anybody else, and that is research and evaluation. We have 
the resources and we can get the capability and we can make the long-
term commitment if we desire to come up with evaluation programs over a 
period of time to really determine what kind of programs work. We spend 
all of this money, we put forth all of these programs, and we really 
have no idea what is working.
  We have 132 Federal criminal juvenile justice programs on the books 
today. I daresay we have very little idea what is really working and 
what is not working. We have another tragedy, so we double the money 
with regard, in many instances, to the same programs we have already.
  Professor Alfred Blumstein was a witness before our committee. He is 
a professor at Carnegie-Mellon University. He talked about the research 
and evaluation that was needed. You could not listen to him without 
coming away with a certain feeling of humility about how little we know 
regarding this matter. He said:

       The last 25 years has seen a considerable accumulation of 
     research findings and insights that were not available 
     earlier. Those research findings, however, reflect only a 
     tiny portion of what we need to know to make effective policy 
     and operational decisions in each of the many areas relating 
     to juvenile violence.

  He said:

       There have been some evaluations of various kinds of 
     rehabilitation programs, and these are encouraging, but we 
     have very little in the way of evaluation of prevention 
     programs. This is partly because so little has been done, but 
     also because it is very difficult to measure the effects of 
     programs whose effects may not be observed for a decade or 
     more.

  In other words, what he is saying is, in order to have an evaluation 
of a research program worth its salt, we need to set it up for a decade 
or more.
  He goes on to say:

       . . . Thus, while it is clear that much important research 
     has been conducted over the past decade, it is also clear 
     that we are still at an extremely primitive stage of 
     knowledge regarding violence, especially for directing 
     focused action, and that much more still needs to be done.

  He says:

       . . . we need much more and better information on the 
     development and the nature of criminal careers . . .

  He goes on and on and says:

       . . . The major growth in juvenile violence is not only of 
     concern itself, but it is symptomatic of many key aspects of 
     juvenile development that need major attention. The knowledge 
     base to address these issues is remarkably thin in terms of 
     knowing how best to intervene in these developmental 
     processes.

  So, Mr. President, instead of passing additional laws, additional 
get-tough-on-crime measures, instead of establishing a Federal entity 
that is sufficiently funded where there is a commitment over many, many 
years, instead of focusing on research and evaluation before we go 
about implementing these policies, we are now coming up with the same 
old responses that we have had in the past.
  In this bill, there is some research and evaluation provisions that I 
think are very good; in fact, some of the things we worked on in times 
past when I was on the Judiciary Committee. But it is minuscule in 
comparison to what we need. Research and evaluation programs are 
scattered out among the States, a little bit here and there. We need a 
long-term Federal commitment in the one area where the Federal 
Government does it best--for research and evaluation of programs. We 
can see what works--which of these 132 Federal programs are working--
and then be a clearinghouse for State and local governments so they can 
get the benefit of that knowledge, and they can go back and implement 
their own programs, instead of us instituting all of these grants and 
all of these programs directing States to do some things, and 
encouraging States to do other things, thinking that we have answers 
that we do not have. We are getting the cart before the horse because 
of the tragic circumstances we are faced with.

  We know now that some of these programs are very questionable in 
terms of results.
  The DARE program, the GREAT program, some of the mentoring programs--
we simply know that in some cases there is absolutely no objective data 
that indicates they are doing any good, and in some cases there is 
expert testimony that in fact they are doing some bad things.
  We cannot sit up here and have things occur to us that sound good to 
us and assume they are going to work out in real life. That is how we 
got the airbags that killed children. That is how we got the program of 
asbestos removal that we now know was the wrong way to go about that 
problem. We need to have a little humility as we approach this problem.
  We encourage things. There are some amendments, such as counseling 
programs for juvenile violence in schools,

[[Page S5139]]

and so forth. I understand they have a gymnasium full of counselors out 
there in Colorado now that people are not using. We encourage boot 
camps for juveniles as adults when we know now that in some cases 
juveniles treated as juveniles will get more than they do being treated 
as adults.
  We want to pass additional gun laws. Every State in the Union has 
laws against children taking guns to school. We came in and overlaid 
that with Federal law that made it a Federal offense for kids to take 
guns to school. Now we have State laws and a Federal law.
  Now we have had a tragedy. And goodness knows what the next batch of 
laws will be that portend to address this.
  When I see statements made that by this bill we are giving our 
children back their childhood, or we are empowering parents to be 
decent parents, it concerns me that we may really believe that, because 
we do not have that ability, we do not have that power, we do not have 
that knowledge, or know-how.
  What is the underlying philosophy for Federal involvement in this 
area, or Federal control in some cases? Is it expertise? Do we have 
more expertise on the Senate floor than out among the State and local 
people who deal with this problem every day?
  I doubt it, because we keep coming up with the same old programs and 
adding one every once in a while. We have the waterfront covered as far 
as programs are concerned. I can't think of a program that has not been 
covered or funded in some way.
  Is it because we have the money? Well, yes. We do have the money, 
because more and more we are depriving States and local governments of 
their sources of revenue, bringing it to Washington, then doling it 
back to them and telling them how to spend it, as if we knew.
  In this bill we have $450 million for juvenile accountability block 
grants, $75 million for juvenile criminal history upgrades, $200 
million for challenge grants, $200 million for JJDPA prevention grants, 
$40 million for the National Institute for Juvenile Crime Control and 
Prevention, of which $20 million would go to evaluation research, $20 
million for gang programs, $20 million for the demonstration programs, 
$15 million for mentoring programs.
  I defy anyone to point out to me which one of these programs is 
working or not working of the ones that we already have on the books 
that basically track these same kinds of efforts.
  Is the federalization of this matter because the problem is bigger 
and, therefore, we have to address it? I don't think that is the case. 
We continue to federalize matters that are so insignificant that we 
don't even prosecute them once they get on the books.
  We now have Federal laws with regard to animal enterprise terrorism, 
theft of livestock, and odometer tampering. There has been a total of 
four prosecutions nationwide for all three of those acts.
  Now we have a horrendous incident out in Colorado, which disturbs all 
of us. But the fact of the matter is that less than 1 percent of youth 
homicides occur in schools.
  Deaths by homicide is the second leading cause of deaths among 
children, second to accidents. And much of that has to do with driving 
while intoxicated and things of that nature.
  Mr. President, the 10th amendment was put in the Constitution for a 
reason. The Federal Government ought to do the things the Federal 
Government is good at and leave the States alone to do the things the 
Constitution gives them under the Constitution. There is no plenary 
Federal law enforcement power under the Constitution.
  We think we have a good result up here with a program in Boston, or 
wherever, so that we want to authorize the Attorney General to go in 
and put that program in other places. If it were a good program, logic 
would extend it to every place in the country, which means a Federal 
police power. And we do not want that.
  We held federalism hearings the other day. We had a consensus from 
Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, law enforcement 
officers and defense lawyers. And they are all concerned about the 
trend toward federalizing what essentially have been State and local 
matters for more than 200 years.
  There were 1,000 bills introduced in the 105th Congress. A lot of 
them had to do with juvenile crimes. No one knows actually how many 
Federal crimes are on the books now; the statutes are so complicated. 
Some people say 3,000. But with the administrative regulations, and so 
forth, there are thousands and thousands of statutes and regulations 
that have criminal consequences. That is the wrong direction.
  The Federal Government should cover things in the Federal criminal 
law that have to do with Federal people or property, and interstate 
transactions that are truly interstate. Local corruption conflicts, 
litigation of civil rights, and things of that nature; that is, the law 
enforcement side of the equation, that is the equation that the State 
and local governments have the responsibility for. If we take that away 
from them, either in one fell swoop or gradually, they will do a worse 
job of it in the future instead of a better job.
  On the prevention side, especially with regard to juveniles, let us 
have a little modesty and acknowledge that we do not know the answers 
to these problems. Some of them we will never know. They are complex. 
They are inherent societal problems that we did not get into overnight; 
we will not get out of them overnight.
  But I would suggest again that instead of spending these billions of 
dollars--literally billions of dollars on top of billions of dollars--
on programs about which we have no idea of their efficacy, what is 
working and what is not working, let's scale that way back and put some 
money up here for some long-term research and evaluation for over a 
decade or so, so we can really tell what works. Let us be a 
clearinghouse and an example then for the States. We don't have to dole 
out the money to them or suggest that they do this program or that 
program when we don't know what we are doing. They can see what works 
and what doesn't work.

  On the grounds of the Federal Government properly doing what it 
should be doing, letting the States do their traditional job under the 
Constitution, and, second, on the grounds of a little bit of modesty in 
terms of crime prevention--and that is where it is as far as these 
juveniles are concerned, on the prevention side--we have to get to 
these kids earlier. But the fact of the matter is, we are scattered to 
the four winds, throwing billions of dollars at a problem without 
knowing what the solution is.
  There is only one way that I see we can go, and that is more research 
for Federal evaluation and research, and in the meantime let's hold our 
horses and not respond to the headlines--the most difficult thing in 
the world to do. But by getting out front and pretending we can do 
things we can't do, we are setting the cause back; we are not advancing 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  I was listening to my good friend from Tennessee talking about what 
we need to do, that we need to give more time for research and 
evaluation of where we are in terms of violence among young people in 
this country.
  Quite frankly, I would invite our colleagues and Members of 
Congress--Members of the Senate in this instance--to look at what has 
happened up in my own home city of Boston, MA, in recent years.
  In Boston, Mr. President, we have had a dramatic strengthening of 
various gun laws in recent years, stricter enforcement of existing 
laws, and the implementation of very important programs in terms of 
help and assistance for the students, the teachers, and the parents, 
and the schools. We have had the community police men and women working 
in the schools, working with the superintendents, working with the 
parents, working with the children.

  There has been the development of support groups for the children. 
There has been the development of violence prevention and mediation 
programs; an important 2 to 6 program; an afterschool program which is 
so important

[[Page S5140]]

in terms of helping and assisting children in the afternoon with their 
various academic endeavors so when the children do go home in the late 
afternoon and see their parents--in most situations both of whom have 
been working hard--they will have quality time with them.
  It is an effective approach. We are not here to suggest this will be 
the only approach. I am not here to suggest that there shouldn't be 
additional reviews or studies. But as we look at the various challenges 
we are facing today, we shouldn't just throw up our hands and say 
because there are so many things to do, we can't do anything at all. 
There are important things that we can do.
  The Senate has made some judgments on some of those recommendations--
those which have been offered by Senator Robb, Senator Leahy, and 
others during the course of the last day or so. Now we are beginning a 
debate on another, I think, extremely important provision. That is the 
accessibility and the availability of these weapons, particularly to 
children, in our society.
  It is uncontrovertible that various societies that deny easy access 
and easy availability of these weapons do not have the kind of homicide 
records we have seen in the United States. Industrial nations that have 
strict restrictions on the access and availability of weapons see a 
fraction of the number of homicides that we have seen. There is a 
direct correlation. We have seen that ourselves over the years.
  We have had leadership from our colleagues, including Senator 
Feinstein, Senator Lautenberg, and others here on the development and 
the support of the Brady bill. We have made important progress. In my 
own State of Massachusetts, we have made significant progress in a 
variety of ways regarding gun laws.
  This chart describes firearm homicides by all ages in recent years in 
Boston. We see the dramatic reduction: 1993, 65; 1994, 62; 1995, 64; 
1999, 4. It seems to me it would be worthwhile to look and listen to 
those who are out there in the streets, in the schools, in law 
enforcement, who have witnessed this kind of result. We hear a great 
deal of postulating and theorizing about what may be done or what 
should be done, but we have a very practical example in this chart of 
what has been done and what is being done. So far in this particular 
year, with 128 schools, we have not had a single homicide in Boston, 
MA.
  The school lots of the city of Boston were fire zones, not too many 
years ago, but we have made important progress. One of the most 
important reasons is the gun laws that have been passed.
  The age for juvenile possession of handguns in Massachusetts is 21--
it is 18 nationwide--but it is 21 in my State of Massachusetts. We 
enacted the cap law, a law that says we are going to hold individuals 
who have weapons in their homes responsible, so that there will be a 
separation of the gun from the ammunition. We hear a great deal of talk 
about the second amendment, about responsible Americans. We say that is 
fine; we will hold you responsible. You are going to store your gun 
separate from your ammunition. If you don't and there is a crime, we 
are holding you responsible.
  That has had an important impact. There have been 16 States that have 
adopted similar laws, and we are beginning to see important progress 
made.
  In Massachusetts, we have a waiting period for handgun purchases. We 
have a State ban on all assault weapons, and we have yet to hear from 
any hunters that they need to have assault weapons to go out in the 
woods and hunt deer. We have effectively halted all assault weapons, 
and that has been an important addition.

  We have barred private sales of guns between individuals avoiding, 
circumventing the background checks.
  We have insisted we will have safety locks on the guns that are sold 
in Massachusetts. We have the technology for a gun safety lock to 
prevent children up to maybe 4 years of age from pulling the trigger of 
a handgun. Why aren't we putting those requirements into the 
legislation?
  We have important, strict, provisions in terms of reporting stolen 
weapons.
  Those are the kinds of measures we have passed in Massachusetts. I 
don't see how anyone can make the case that they provide much hindrance 
to individuals who want to exercise their right to go out and hunt. I 
don't see how those measures inhibit that opportunity.
  We are seeing, not only in the city of Boston, similar results in 
other cities around our Commonwealth. Something is working; something 
is happening. We are saying, let us try to find what is working, what 
is happening, what is tried and tested. We are not going to solve all 
of the problems, but we are going to reduce the number of youth 
homicides. We can see very clearly from this chart we are talking about 
15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 children who are alive today that would not be 
alive, I daresay, unless those steps had been taken. These are positive 
bottom-line results.
  We are going to see various amendments offered by Members on this 
side of the aisle--whether it is the Lautenberg amendment on the gun 
shows; whether it is the Durbin amendment; or whether it will be 
Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein offering amendments that have been 
along the lines of what has been proven and tested here. And I doubt 
very much we will have much success.
  The American people ought to pay close attention to this debate. We 
will have votes this afternoon. And hopefully, we will have the 
important votes on these issues tomorrow. We need to listen to the 
American people on these issues. We are talking not just about a policy 
on education. We are not talking about a health policy. We are not 
talking about an environmental policy. We are not talking about a 
defense policy. We are talking about whether there are steps that can 
be taken, by this body, that will make a difference in terms of the 
lives of children in our society.
  We can do it. We demonstrated it. We should do it. And we ought to be 
able to accept it here in the Senate during the course of this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Vermont, Mr. Leahy, is to be recognized for 35 minutes.
  The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know we are going to have a series of 
votes in a short while. I would like to speak about one of them, 
amendment No. 332, introduced by the distinguished Senator from Idaho, 
Mr. Craig. I have heard of the emperor not having clothes, but this 
amendment has no clothes.
  This is an amendment that speaks about controlling gun sales at guns 
shows, auctions or out of the back of your truck or whatever, and we 
are going to put some controls on it. We are going to put some controls 
on for background checks, but only if the person who opens the back of 
his trunk to sell these guns ``desires to have access to the national 
instant check system.'' Of course, if he doesn't want to, he can keep 
right on selling the guns, no checks, nothing. I am not that great at 
driving a truck, but I could drive an 18-wheeler through that hole.
  Then it has a whole lot of civil liabilities in here for certain 
future Federal firearm violations. But then there is probably the best 
sweetheart deal I have ever seen. It dismisses pending actions from any 
Federal or State court for gun dealers. It gives blanket immunity. This 
amendment might cover a State or a city, Attorney General or anybody 
else who sued a gun dealer and dismiss the case. Not even a TV judge 
could throw it out that easy, but this amendment could. It is not clear 
from its drafting who is covered by this immunity section of the 
amendment.
  I do not know why we do not amend it. I am sure there are some around 
here, because of their ties with the tobacco industry, who would like 
to do that for the tobacco industry. Can you imagine if anybody brought 
up a piece of legislation that said we will, by this amendment, remove 
all liability on tobacco suits? They would be laughed out of here. It 
would be a front-page story in the paper. Suppose somebody came in and 
said, I want to throw a little amendment in here to do away with suits 
against toxic waste sites. People would be calling up, saying, what, 
did you get a PAC contribution from Polluters, Incorporated?
  I have seen some remarkable amendments. I commend the distinguished

[[Page S5141]]

Senator. He has very strong feelings about guns and he has concerns 
about any limitations on them. But this is remarkable.
  I keep a file of extraordinary things I have seen during my 25 years 
here. This will go in the file. To put in an amendment, not even debate 
this line, but to say, anybody who has a suit against a gun dealer or 
perhaps a gun manufacturer, it might be thrown out. No hearings. No 
debate. Nothing. But the Senate has thrown it out. In fact, this 
section is just titled ``Immunity.'' That is pretty amazing. It says:

       A qualified civil liability action pending under the date 
     of enactment of this subsection shall be dismissed 
     immediately by the court.

  Man, every defendant is going to be rushing into court if we pass 
this, saying, I am home free. I get out of jail. I do not have to pass 
``go.'' I do get to collect the $200.
  Mr. President, every Senator who votes for this is voting to override 
the courts of their State. They are voting to override the 
municipalities of their State. They are voting to override the 
legislature of their State. They are voting to override the Attorney 
General of their State. They are voting on suits they have not even 
seen, to just throw them out of court. I have been here long enough to 
know special interest legislation makes it to the floor of the Senate, 
but this may be the all-time king.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Utah is 
recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we now have 25 minutes left. There are a 
few people who would still like to speak, especially the distinguished 
Senator from Alabama, in response to Senator Kennedy and his 
conclusions. I ask unanimous consent to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama, and then immediately thereafter 
call up the Hatch-Leahy Internet screening amendment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his leadership 
on this. I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, the Boston project 
has been a very successful project and contrary to his understanding of 
our legislation, it does model itself after the key successes of the 
Boston project. I have had members of my staff visit Boston. The number 
of murders and decline in crime have been remarkable. It is driven, if 
you talk to the people there, by a coordinated effort by the entire 
community, really led by the judiciary, the courts, the police and the 
probation officers.
  When judges give a young person probation in Boston, if he is a 
member of a gang and he is supposed to be in at 7 o'clock at night, a 
probation officer, along with a uniformed policeman, will go out at 
night, knock on the door and make sure he or she is home. This is not 
being done anyplace else in America.
  They are taking these young people seriously. They are following up. 
Judges and parole officers in Boston have the capacity to discipline 
them through detention facilities and other forms of discipline if they 
violate their probation, which most juvenile judges do not.
  The whole purpose, what we are doing here, is to try to empower other 
court systems in America to do the same type of innovative research. In 
fact, our bill, on page 230, requires this coordinated local effort, 
which was the key to Boston and several other cities which are making 
progress in juvenile crime.
  This requires, prior to receiving a grant under this section, that

       . . . a unit of local government shall certify that it has 
     or will establish a coordinated enforcement plan--

  That is what they have in Boston.

     for reducing juvenile crime within the jurisdiction of the 
     unit of local government developed by a juvenile crime 
     enforcement coalition, such coalition consisting of 
     individuals within the jurisdiction representing police, 
     sheriff, the prosecutor, State or local probation services, 
     juvenile court, schools, business, and religious affiliated, 
     fraternal, nonprofit and social service organizations 
     involved in crime prevention.

  So I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, this is what we are doing 
here. The key to the success of the Boston project, in my opinion, is a 
coordinated effort among Federal, State and local agencies under the 
jurisdiction of the court and probation officer, who actually monitors 
young people who started to be involved in violations of the law, with 
an intense interest, an intense interest borne out of love and concern, 
to insist that they stop their bad activities and, in fact, return to 
the rule of law.
  If we do that effectively, I do believe we have the capacity to 
reduce crime in America.
  I yield the remainder of my time to Chairman Hatch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 335

   (Purpose: Relating to the availability of Internet filtering and 
                          screening software)

  Mr. HATCH. 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 Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself and Mr. 
     Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 335.

  Mr. HATCH. 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 265, below line 20, add the following:

     SEC. 402. PROVISION OF INTERNET FILTERING OR SCREENING 
                   SOFTWARE BY CERTAIN INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS.

       (a) Requirement To Provide.--Each Internet service provider 
     shall at the time of entering an agreement with a residential 
     customer for the provision of Internet access services, 
     provide to such customer, either at no fee or at a fee not in 
     excess of the amount specified in subsection (c), computer 
     software or other filtering or blocking system that allows 
     the customer to prevent the access of minors to material on 
     the Internet.
       (b) Surveys of Provision of Software or Systems.--
       (1) Surveys.--The Office of Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice and the 
     Federal Trade Commission shall jointly conduct surveys of the 
     extent to which Internet service providers are providing 
     computer software or systems described in subsection (a) to 
     their subscribers.
       (2) Frequency.--The surveys required by paragraph (1) shall 
     be completed as follows:
       (A) One shall be completed not later than one year after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (B) One shall be completed not later than two years after 
     that date.
       (C) One shall be completed not later than three years after 
     that date.
       (c) Fees.--The fee, if any, charged and collected by an 
     Internet service provider for providing computer software or 
     a system described in subsection (a) to a residential 
     customer shall not exceed the amount equal to the cost of the 
     provider in providing the software or system to the 
     subscriber, including the cost of the software or system and 
     of any license required with respect to the software or 
     system.
       (d) Applicability.--The requirement described in subsection 
     (a) shall become effective only if--
       (1) 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Office and the Commission determine as a result of the survey 
     completed by the deadline in subsection (b)(2)(A) that less 
     than 75 percent of the total number of residential 
     subscribers of Internet service providers as of such deadline 
     are provided computer software or systems described in 
     subsection (a) by such providers;
       (2) 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Office and the Commission determine as a result of the 
     survey completed by the deadline in subsection (b)(2)(B) that 
     less than 85 percent of the total number of residential 
     subscribers of Internet service providers as of such deadline 
     are provided such software or systems by such providers; or
       (3) 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, if 
     the Office and the Commission determine as a result of the 
     survey completed by the deadline in subsection (b)(2)(C) that 
     less than 100 percent of the total number of residential 
     subscribers of Internet service providers as of such deadline 
     are provided such software or systems by such providers.
       (e) Internet Service Provider Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``Internet service provider'' means a ``service 
     provider'' as defined in section 512(k)(1)(A) of title 17, 
     United States Code, which has more than 50,000 subscribers.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this next amendment 
along with Senator Leahy, my friend and colleague, which I have 
developed with the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Leahy. This amendment is largely aimed at limiting 
the negative impact to children from violence and indecent material on 
the Internet.
  At the outset, let me note this amendment does not regulate content. 
Instead, it encourages the larger Internet service providers to 
provide, either

[[Page S5142]]

for free or at a fee not exceeding the cost to the ISP, the Internet 
service provider, filtering technologies that would empower parents to 
limit or block access of minors to unsuitable material on the Internet.
  We cannot place all the blame for today's culture of violence on the 
Internet. But we also cannot ignore the fact that this powerful new 
medium has the ability to expose children to violent, sexually 
explicit, and other inappropriate materials with no limits, not even 
the time-of-broadcast limits that are currently imposed on television 
broadcasters. Indeed, a recent Time/CNN poll found that 75 percent of 
teens aged 13 to 17 believed the Internet is partly responsible for 
crimes like the Columbine High School shootings.
  This amendment respects the first amendment of the Constitution by 
not regulating content, but ensures that parents will have the adequate 
technological tools to control the access of their children to 
unsuitable material on the Internet.
  Let me say that many Internet subscribers already have such tools 
provided to them free of charge. For example, the largest Internet 
service provider currently provides its 17 million subscribers with 
such filtering technology as part of their standard service.
  I honestly believe that other ISPs, or Internet service providers, 
who do not already provide filtering software to their subscribers will 
do so voluntarily. They will know it is in their best interests and 
that the market will demand it. That is why this amendment will not go 
into effect if, within 3 years, the service providers end up offering 
such technologies voluntarily.
  This is what we would like to do. We think it is a fair amendment. We 
think it is something that should be done, and we think responsible 
Internet service providers should be willing to do this, and I am very, 
very pleased to offer this with my esteemed colleague who has worked 
very, very hard on all software Internet issues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the generous comments of the 
Senator from Utah. This can be propounded later on, but we will be 
voting on this one tomorrow. I ask unanimous consent it be in order to 
ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment, the Lautenberg, the Craig, 
and the Brownback amendments at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the Lautenberg amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, first, on the Hatch-Leahy Internet 
amendment, let me just say I have worked on a number of these issues 
with the distinguished Senator from Utah. I think this is one that 
should get very broad support in this body.
  I have talked for years about how we should allow the users of the 
Internet to control limited access to objectionable material that can 
be found on line. Anybody with any kind of ability at all can find 
objectionable material on line. It fits the standard of objectionable 
by any of us in this body. Some of it is disgusting and obscene and 
nothing I would want even my adult children to see.
  But there is also a lot of amazing and wonderful material in this 
relatively new communication medium when you can go on the Internet and 
see people exploring in Antarctica or on Mount Everest, or see surgery 
being performed experimentally, or talk with astronauts on our space 
shuttle. These are the wonderful things on line and should be 
encouraged.

  What worries me is when Congress tries to regulate content on the 
Internet. I have opposed that. For example, I was against the 
Communications Decency Act, eventually found unconstitutional by the 
Supreme Court. The law was passed with the best of intentions. It was 
done to protect children from indecent on-line materials, something all 
of us as parents want to do. It did it by empowering the Government and 
was, thus, unconstitutional.
  What we should do is empower individual users and parents to decide 
what material is objectionable. This belongs to parents and users. 
Also, it brings parents and their children closer together if they 
actually work together and look at what is on the Internet.
  The amendment Senator Hatch and I have offered will require large on-
line service providers to offer subscribers filtering software systems 
that will stop material parents find objectionable from reaching their 
computer screen.
  I am supportive of voluntary industry efforts to provide Internet 
users with one-click-away resources on how to protect their children as 
they go on line. Senator Campbell, the distinguished Senator from 
Colorado, and I joined the Vice President at the White House just last 
week to hear about this One Click Away Program. Vice President Gore, 
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, I, and others across the political 
spectrum joined together to say this is something parents want, need, 
and can use.
  Our amendment promotes the use of filtering technologies by Internet 
users. It is a far better, more constitutional alternative to 
Government censorship. I commend the distinguished Senator from Utah. I 
appreciate working with him on this. While I realize we will not vote 
on this one until tomorrow morning, I look forward to joining the 
distinguished Senator from Utah and encourage all Senators of both 
parties to vote for it.
  Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am honored to have my colleague work with 
me on this. It always makes me feel good when we work together on these 
matters. This is an important issue, and since one ISP, or Internet 
service provider, already provides these services as a matter of 
course, it seems to us it is not asking too much for others to do so. 
If they do not want to do it without cost, then they should not charge 
more than what the actual costs are, which is what this amendment does.
  Do we have the yeas and nays on this amendment, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We do.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be put over 
and set aside until tomorrow morning, to be voted on at 9:40 in the 
morning with at least 6 minutes divided equally between the Senator 
from Vermont and the Senator from Utah for final debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. As I understand it, we are coming in at 9:30 a.m., so we 
have allowed for the prayer and 6 minutes for the distinguished Senator 
from Vermont and the Senator from Utah. Of course, if the majority 
leader wants to change the times--I understand the 9:30 time is all 
right with the majority leader, but if he wants to change it, we will 
be glad to do that.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Kansas 
is here. I understand he is prepared to go forward. There is 5 minutes 
to be equally divided between him and whoever decides to speak on the 
minority side. I suggest we go ahead and be prepared to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator have a unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that we proceed at this time on 
the three amendments and the three votes, with the 5 minutes equally 
divided for each one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much.


                           Amendment No. 329

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as the vote nears on the amendment that 
I have proposed, along with the chairman and Senator Lieberman and a

[[Page S5143]]

number of others--and I will be asking for a recorded vote--I thank 
them for their work on this issue. The chairman has done tireless work 
in trying to do things to clean up the culture, and also in this 
juvenile justice bill to address issues here which I think are 
critically important. Senator McCain, with his leadership on the 
Commerce Committee, has elevated the issues, as well as Senator 
Lieberman in his work, and Senator Sessions as well.
  I also note the addition of Senator Kent Conrad as an original 
cosponsor of this amendment, and I appreciate all of his support.
  There has been much discussion today about the causes and cures of 
youth violence. As I have noted before, I do not believe my amendment--
this amendment--is a panacea for all that ails us, but it is a modest 
and necessary first step towards encouraging a sense of corporate 
responsibility among some of the most powerful corporations in the 
world--corporations with incredible access to the minds of young 
people--and towards gaining a better understanding of the impact of 
cultural influences on youth violence.
  I firmly believe that youth violence is not merely, or even 
primarily, a public policy problem; it is a cultural and a moral 
problem.
  We live in a society, unfortunately, that glorifies violence. Popular 
culture is awash in violence. It is glorified in gangsta rap songs, 
glamorized in movies with vigilante heroes, and simulated in numerous 
video games. Violence, carnage, destruction and death is presented not 
as a horror but as entertainment for our young people--young people 
whose minds, hearts, moral sense, manners, behavior, convictions, and 
conscience are still being developed.

  Recently, the Pope denounced what he called a ``culture of death,'' a 
culture that rewards the producers of violent entertainment with 
lucrative contracts and critical acclaim, celebrates the casual cruelty 
and consequence-free violence depicted in movies and music, that 
markets the simulation of mass murder in games that were sold to 
children. His remarks should give us much to think about. This is not 
something we can fix with legislation, but it should be raised and 
discussed and seriously considered, not only on the floor of the 
Senate, but in homes, studios, and corporate boardrooms across America.
  Nothing in this amendment curtails freedom of expression in any way. 
It does not restrict the entertainment industry in any way. Rather, it 
gives entertainment companies more freedom, enabling--not requiring but 
enabling--them to enter into a voluntary code of conduct. Such a code 
would spell out what the company standards are, what products they 
would be putting forward, and would set a line that the industry would 
say below this we will not go, and say that to the public.
  This amendment also provides for further studies on the impact and 
marketing of violent entertainment. We need to know more, and we need 
to start now. The first step towards addressing problems is to 
accurately define them.
  Mr. President, I say, in conclusion on this amendment, we are here 
today saying that it is time to address this. It is time for us to step 
forward and be serious about it. It is time for us to renew the culture 
in America. This amendment is a first step.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I will ask for the yeas and nays at the appropriate 
time on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, for 7 years now as a member of the 
Senate Judiciary committee I have watched the situation in this nation 
going from bad to worse to terrible with respect to violence and its 
glorification in the media.
  I am voting for this amendment because I believe it gives the various 
industries what they need to be able to establish voluntary guidelines 
through a voluntary ``code of conduct'' to limit the depictions of 
violence in music, films, video games or television.
  This amendment provides the entertainment industry with an exemption 
from antitrust laws in order to develop and disseminate voluntary codes 
of conduct with respect to violence, similar to the National 
Association of Broadcasters television code prior to 1983, when a court 
helt the code violated antitrust laws.
  Additionally, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission 
will be directed to conduct a joint investigation of the marketing 
practices used by the makers of video games, music and motion pictures 
to determine whether they engage in deceptive marketing practices, 
including directly targeting material to minors, which is unsuitable 
for minors.
  Furthermore, the National Institutes of Health will be directed to 
conduct a study of the effects of violent video games and music on 
child development and youth violence, examining whether and to what 
extent such violence affects the emotional and psychological 
development of juveniles and whether it contributes to juvenile 
delinquency and youth violence.
  The glorification of violence in the media has reached such an extent 
that a manufacturer of interactive computer games to young people 
advertises: ``Kill your friends, guilt free.''
  With such messages of death and degradation delivered through the 
media, and with our nation awash with guns easily accessible to young 
people, is it any surprise that troubled youths are now taking up these 
weapons and going on rampages, killing their classmates and teachers?
  The latest of these tragedies occurred in Littleton, Colorado, where 
Eric Harris spent hours and hours playing violent computer games like 
Doom and Quake, featuring the wholesale slaughter of digital enemies 
before joining his friend Dylan Klebold in killing 12 other students 
and a teacher.
  Isn't it time, at the very least, that the manufacturers of video 
games, television programs, motion pictures and music acknowledge the 
impact on young people of the carnage they promulgate and demonstrate 
through a voluntary code of conduct some willingness to limit the 
violence?
  Isn't it time that the entertainment industry does its best to 
discourage the production and promotion of gratuitous, simulated death 
and destruction that all too often triggers real and terrifying acts of 
violence by our young people?
  Isn't it time that we in Congress direct the Justice Department and 
the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether deceptive marketing 
practices are being employed to target minors?
  Isn't it time that we in Congress direct the National Institutes of 
Health to study the effect of these violent video games and music on 
our young people?
  Isn't it time that we do everything we can to stop tragedies like 
Littleton from happening again?
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I rise to cosponsor this measure, 
which aims to provide us with a better understanding of how violence in 
our culture is marketed to children and encourage industry to take 
self-regulatory steps to reduce this violence. Just as important, it 
will help us determine whether the video game industry is breaking its 
promise and targeting ultraviolent games to minors.
  Mr. President, as we look to find meaning--or to develop policy--in 
the wake of the Littleton tragedy, it is clear that there's no single 
answer as to how we can prevent such a terrible event from happening 
again. Indeed, throughout my time in the Senate, I've worked very hard 
for a comprehensive approach: Prevention programs for at-risk kids, 
laws that try to restrict minors from getting handguns, strong 
punishments for folks who use guns to commit a crime and for truly 
violent juveniles, and reasonable restrictions on providing 
inappropriate information to children. My sense is that by the time we 
complete action on this juvenile justice bill, many of these issues 
will be addressed in productive, bipartisan ways.
  But one part of this comprehensive approach that I'll focus on today 
is the marketing of violence to children, especially in ultraviolent 
video games. Senator Lieberman and I have worked very hard on this 
issue for quite some time, and we've made some progress since we first 
held joint hearings on the video game industry back in 1993. Since 
then, the industry has rated all games, giving parents a far better 
sense of what they are buying for their kids. Recently, though, we have 
seen

[[Page S5144]]

some disturbing signs of ``backsliding,'' especially on enforcement of 
the ratings system.
  Let me give you just a few examples. The Interactive Digital Software 
Association--which represents video game manufacturers--has an 
Advertising Code of Conduct that says, ``Companies should not 
specifically target advertising to [underage] consumers.'' But the 
companies who produce games like ``Duke Nukem'' and ``Resident Evil''--
both rated ``M'' for age seventeen and up--sell action figures from 
their games at Toys-R-Us to much younger children.
  That is not only wrong, it is unacceptable.
  Make no mistake about it: Though these games are for adults, the 
manufacturers are marketing to our kids. That's why we think an FTC/DOJ 
study--one that separates out the bad actors from the good ones and 
gives this disturbing trend the scrutiny it deserves--is not just an 
appropriate response, it is also a timely one. And while the evidence 
is much clearer with respect to video games than other forms of 
entertainment, what harm can there be in a study? It might just prove 
some folks in the industry are doing a good job.
  Mr. President, this amendment also includes an antitrust exemption 
for the entertainment industry so its members can collaborate on a 
``code of conduct'' and how best to implement the various ratings 
systems. It is not entirely clear that the industry actually needs this 
``safe harbor,'' but again, there is no harm to reenacting and 
expanding Senator Simon's measure.
  Of course, Mr. President, these measures are certainly no panacea--no 
law can be. But they each represent a small step that we in Congress 
can take as our national community gains a better understanding of what 
kind of violent images our children face today and what effect it is 
having on them. For if we do not take the time to learn more about the 
root causes of youth violence and, instead, blindly make scapegoats out 
of games or artists or movies we simply don't like, we might as well 
know nothing at all. Thank you.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the thrust of what the 
distinguished Senator from Kansas wishes to do. I am inclined to agree 
with him.
  I am worried that his amendment may be creating not just one, but two 
antitrust exemptions in the bill. I do not want, nor do I expect that 
he would want to create unnecessarily large loopholes in our antitrust 
laws.
  I will support his amendment so we can go on to conference with it, 
because what he is trying to accomplish is something I think the 
majority of us here in this Senate would want to accomplish. I suggest 
that the distinguished Senator, between the time this bill leaves the 
Senate and goes to conference, may want to work with the distinguished 
Senator from Utah and myself to make sure that we do not create an 
antitrust exemption that goes beyond what the distinguished Senator 
wishes to accomplish.
  I am not suggesting such an expertise in antitrust law that I could 
tell him precisely how we might do that, but there are a couple red 
flags here. My recommendation is that we pass the amendment, but then 
that the three of us, and any other Senators who may be interested, may 
want to look at it closely to make sure that it is drafted, one, to 
accomplish exactly what all of us want to accomplish, but, two, not to 
raise an antitrust problem in another area.
  With that, Mr. President, I am perfectly willing to yield back the 
remainder of my time, if there is any time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
329. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 110 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Moynihan
      
  The amendment (No. 329) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: My understanding is 
the Lautenberg amendment is next and there are 5 minutes to be equally 
divided before I make a motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes equally divided prior to 
the motion to table.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I don't believe the time should start until 
the Senate is in order. The Senator from New Jersey is entitled to be 
heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 331

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, my amendment is pretty simple. It does 
nothing more than close a loophole--that exists at gun shows--from the 
Brady law. The loophole allows criminals, children, and other 
prohibited persons to purchase guns at gun shows without a background 
check, without giving them a name, without giving them an address. Just 
take it away. Pay your money and take your gun.
  Some people may be surprised to hear you can walk into a show, put 
your money on the table, walk away with a shotgun, semiautomatic, 
handgun or any other deadly weapon that you want to get your hands on. 
It is an unacceptable condition. We have to insist that all gun 
purchases at gun shows go through the background checks that a gun 
store has to have or that any federally licensed gun dealer will have 
to have.
  Law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from this amendment. They 
can buy a gun to the limits already established. All they have to do is 
consent to an instant background check which takes only minutes. This 
won't inconvenience. It will save lives and reduce injuries.
  This isn't a time for partisan politics. Our country has seen too 
much gun violence. If we reflect a little bit, see what happened in 
Colorado. Understand that at Columbine High School those guns traveled 
their way through gun shows to get into the hands they did. Too many 
parents have seen their children killed. Too many families have been 
torn with grief as they understand what has happened to a child--
unbelievably, in a school.
  Let us work together. I plead with my colleagues, let us pass this 
measure. Who does it hurt? It doesn't hurt anybody and it may save 
someone. Let's make it harder for young people and criminals to gain 
access to guns.

  I think we are reaching a consensus on this issue. There is a broad 
range of bipartisan support for closing the gun show loophole. An 
extraordinary alliance supports closing the gun loophole, including gun 
dealers, law enforcement, Republicans, Democrats, the Bradys.

[[Page S5145]]

  I hope we can come together, pass this amendment, and show the 
American people that Democrats and Republicans alike, the gun industry, 
law enforcement and handgun control, can put partisan politics aside 
and pass this commonsense legislation.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, you are being asked to table the Lautenberg 
amendment and to vote up or down on the Craig amendment.
  There are very real differences in these two amendments. First of 
all, there are 40,000 gun laws spread across America. There are 5,000 
gun shows and 5 million people attending them on a regular basis.
  The question is, Is there a loophole in the law through which illegal 
activity is going on? If the 1986 gun act is right --that many of you 
voted on--that says that private citizens have the right to engage in 
legal transactions, then there is no loophole. In fact, this Justice 
Department says that less than 2 percent of the guns found in criminal 
use were sold at gun shows.
  What do we do about it? There were 20 laws broken in Littleton, CO. 
Many people are dead. Laws were broken and now people are being 
arrested for having violated those laws.
  What I offer is a reasonable way to begin to shape gun shows and 
allow law-abiding citizens the right of access to the FBI instant check 
system so if they are engaged in the sale of a gun they can make sure 
that they are safe in that sale. Therefore, we provide an instant check 
capability at a gun show.
  What the Senator from New Jersey did not say is if you are selling at 
a gun show and you are a licensed dealer, you already come under 
Federal law. No child, no juvenile walks into a gun show and buys a 
gun. It is against the law in this country and it is against the law in 
every State. Nothing should be represented to say anything different. 
That is the law.
  There is a 40-percent sale at a gun show between private citizens, 
private citizens who are protected under the 1986 gun act who do not 
engage in gun sales for business purposes.
  The Senator from New Jersey goes on to say when two people meet and 
there are 50 guns present and they exchange a gun, that is a gun show. 
You have a lot of friends and neighbors that are gun collectors and all 
of a sudden they find themselves libel.
  He also goes on to say promoters must register. Who is a promoter? 
How about the Mariott Hotel across the street from the convention 
center of the gun show that has a sign on the marquee; ``Gun sales. 
People attending the gun show stay here.'' Is that a promotion?
  I don't know how to define that definition.
  These are the realities of the issues we deal with. I have a much 
more aggressive, voluntary approach that rapidly begins to tighten down 
while at the same time protecting the civil liberties of our citizens.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to table the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). 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 amendment No. 331. The yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 111 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Moynihan
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 332

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). There now are 5 minutes equally 
divided on the Craig amendment.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HATCH. Will either side object to yielding back the time so 
everybody can vote?
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will Senators please take their conversations 
off the floor of the Senate.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I have spoken earlier about this. The Craig amendment, 
as drafted, dismisses pending and future lawsuits against some firearms 
dealers. And I say ``some,'' because the way it is drafted it is not 
clear, but it throws out State court cases, Federal court cases, gives 
blanket immunity. I think that goes to such special interests on gun 
legislation that we ought to reject it, even in this setting.
  I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  It is unfortunate we could not take this step forward on the 
Lautenberg amendment. Let me just inform my colleagues that the Craig 
amendment would not be a status quo amendment, but it would be a big 
step back, for three reasons.
  One was mentioned by Senator Leahy, that it would exempt certain 
people--it is unclear who--from liability. No. 2, it expands the pawn 
shop loophole. The law now is if you are a criminal, you have to get a 
background check when you redeem your gun at a pawn shop. Under the 
Craig amendment, that background check would be erased--no check.
  And most significantly of all, the Craig amendment repeals a 
significant portion of the 1968 gun control act. Right now, if you are 
a licensed Federal firearms dealer, you can only sell guns at your 
licensed premises or at a gun show in your State. Under the Craig 
amendment, you could go anywhere in the country and sell your gun. It 
is a significant step backward.
  I had hoped the Senate would take what would be, in my judgment, a 
step forward on Lautenberg. But please let us not take a step backward, 
which we would be doing if we voted for this amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have to deal with the facts and we have 
to deal with what is in print. Is there a liability exemption? Yes. If 
you are a new registrant, and you do a background check, and you play 
by the rules at a gun show, or if you are a new licensed dealer at a 
gun show, those are the incentives to get there. We are not exempting 
anybody. What we are saying, by definition--on page 14 it clearly 
spells out what a qualified civil liability action is.

  What the Senator from New York just said is not true. I have not 
changed any Federal law except to deal with gun shows. I am sorry he 
has misinterpreted it that way. You cannot have it both ways. If you 
are a registered firearms dealer, and a Federal dealer, you have to 
meet those standards and qualifications. You do not ramble around the 
country. You do not do interstate sales. That is against the law. And 
he knows it.

[[Page S5146]]

  But what we are saying, to encourage background checks, to encourage 
participation at a gun show--under the legal status now, remember, 
these guns that are sold by individuals without background checks are 
legal under the law, but we want to tighten it up. So we say, we will 
protect your liability, not your negligence but your liability, if you 
get a license and become registered and do background checks and keep a 
record.
  And if you choose not to do that, but you still want to protect 
yourself, we are putting a new registrant in each gun show qualified by 
the ATF and the FBI, and you walk over to them and say: I want to sell 
gun ``X'' to person ``Y.'' Run a background check on them to find out 
if they are a legal citizen. That is the new law. That is the 
incentive.
  If you believe in the right of free citizens to own a gun, but you 
want to create incentives to create the kind of thing we are talking 
about here, then you vote for this amendment. But you do not change the 
law; you do not create interstate trafficking. That is against the law 
now, and it will always be.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that immediately following this 
vote, Senator Thurmond be recognized for up to 5 minutes for debate and 
Senator Hollings then be recognized as under the previous order for up 
to 30 minutes under his control for debate on his TV violence 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. In light of this agreement, there will be no further votes 
today. The first vote tomorrow will be at 9:40 a.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Craig 
amendment No. 332. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 112 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Moynihan
       
  The amendment (No. 332) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I thank my able colleague for yielding 
me this time.
  I am very pleased that we are considering S. 254, Violent and Repeat 
Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act. This 
legislation is badly needed to help states effectively confront youth 
crime and violence.
  The recent murders in Littleton, Colorado were random and senseless 
acts of violence. There are no Federal laws, including the bill we are 
considering here, that would have prevented this terrible tragedy. 
However, the events there highlight the importance of having an 
effective policy to deter and combat youth crime and violence. Children 
aged 15 to 19 committed over 20 percent of all crime in 1997, including 
20 percent of all violent crime. America must have safe schools where 
students can learn, and this bill is part of this Congress' efforts to 
help families and communities provide this security.
  The states have responsibility over almost all juvenile offenders, 
and this legislation provides hundreds of millions of dollars to assist 
states in their efforts. In part, it contains flexible block grants to 
help states hold violent juveniles accountable for their actions. The 
money can be used for a wide variety of initiatives according to the 
needs of the states, including drug testing, boot camps, and detention 
facilities. It also encourages states to implement graduated sanctions 
for young offenders. This early intervention with appropriate penalties 
at the first signs of trouble is essential to deterring more serious 
crime down the road.
  Further, the bill provides almost an equal amount of money, over $400 
million, that can be used for prevention programs. Indeed, the key 
feature of S. 254 is that it provides a balance between prevention and 
accountability. While prevention is important, it is not alone the 
solution to violent criminal activity.
  During the consideration of this bill, there will probably be more 
discussion about gun laws. This legislation takes a responsible, 
reasoned approach in this regard, prohibiting someone who commits a 
violent felony as a juvenile from possessing firearms. Gun control is 
not the solution to America's crime problem.
  Before we take a reactive approach to putting more Federal gun laws 
on the books, we should consider whether the laws we already have are 
being adequately enforced. My Subcommittee on Criminal Justice 
Oversight in the Judiciary Committee recently held a joint hearing with 
the Youth Violence Subcommittee on gun prosecutions in the Justice 
Department. We discovered that gun prosecutions during the Clinton 
administration have declined considerably from the Bush administration. 
Unfortunately, the Clinton administration is just beginning to take 
notice of programs, modeled after Bush administration successes, which 
aggressively prosecute the gun laws already on the books. In Richmond, 
Virginia, a concerted effort to enforce gun laws has reduced violent 
crime almost 40 percent. The Congress is working to expand successes 
such as this into other cities.
  Mr. President, it is time for the Congress to address violent crime 
committed by young people, and S. 254 represents the most comprehensive 
Federal effort to address this problem in American history. I hope we 
can work together to enact this critical legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
South Carolina is recognized for up to 30 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 328

 (Purpose: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require that the 
    broadcast of violent video programming be limited to hours when 
children are not reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of 
                             the audience)

  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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 South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for 
     himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Byrd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 328.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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, insert the following:

[[Page S5147]]

   TITLE  --CHILDREN'S PROTECTION FROM VIOLENT TELEVISION PROGRAMMING

     SEC.  --01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Children's Protection from 
     Violent Programming Act''.

     SEC.  --02. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Television influences the perception children have of 
     the values and behavior that are common and acceptable in 
     society.
       (2) Broadcast television, cable television, and video 
     programming are--
       (A) pervasive presences in the lives of all American 
     children; and
       (B) readily accessible to all American children.
       (3) Violent video programming influences children, as does 
     indecent programming.
       (4) There is empirical evidence that children exposed to 
     violent video programming at a young age have a higher 
     tendency to engage in violent and aggressive behavior later 
     in life than those children not so exposed.
       (5) Children exposed to violent video programming are prone 
     to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior and 
     therefore to imitate such behavior.
       (6) Children exposed to violent video programming have an 
     increased fear of becoming a victim of violence, resulting in 
     increased self-protective behaviors and increased mistrust of 
     others.
       (7) There is a compelling governmental interest in limiting 
     the negative influences of violent video programming on 
     children.
       (8) There is a compelling governmental interest in 
     channeling programming with violent content to periods of the 
     day when children are not likely to comprise a substantial 
     portion of the television audience.
       (9) Because some programming that is readily accessible to 
     minors remains unrated and therefore cannot be blocked solely 
     on the basis of its violent content, restricting the hours 
     when violent video programming is shown is the least 
     restrictive and most narrowly tailored means to achieve a 
     compelling governmental interest.
       (10) Warning labels about the violent content of video 
     programming will not in themselves prevent children from 
     watching violent video programming.
       (11) Although many programs are now subject to both age-
     based and content-based ratings, some broadcast and non-
     premium cable programs remain unrated with respect to the 
     content of their programming.
       (12) Technology-based solutions may be helpful in 
     protecting some children, but may not be effective in 
     achieving the compelling governmental interest in protecting 
     all children from violent programming when parents are only 
     able to block programming that has in fact been rated for 
     violence.
       (13) Technology-based solutions will not be installed in 
     all newly manufactured televisions until January 1, 2000.
       (14) Even though technology-based solutions will be readily 
     available, many consumers of video programming will not 
     actually own such technology for several years and therefore 
     will be unable to take advantage of content based ratings to 
     prevent their children from watching violent programming.
       (15) In light of the fact that some programming remains 
     unrated for content, and given that many consumers will not 
     have blocking technology in the near future, the channeling 
     of violent programming is the least restrictive means to 
     limit the exposure of children to the harmful influences of 
     violent programming.
       (16) Restricting the hours when violent programming can be 
     shown protects the interests of children whose parents are 
     unavailable, are unable to supervise their children's viewing 
     behavior, do not have the benefit of technology-based 
     solutions, are unable to afford the costs of technology-based 
     solution, or are unable to determine the content of those 
     shows that are only subject to age-based ratings.

     SEC. --03. UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF VIOLENT VIDEO 
                   PROGRAMMING.

       Title VII of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 701 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 715. UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF VIOLENT VIDEO 
                   PROGRAMMING.

       ``(a) Unlawful Distribution.--It shall be unlawful for any 
     person to distribute any violent video programming to the 
     public during hours when children are reasonably likely to 
     comprise a substantial portion of the audience.
       ``(b) Rulemaking proceeding.--The Commission shall conduct 
     a rulemaking proceeding to implement the provisions of this 
     section and shall promulgate final regulations pursuant to 
     that proceeding not later than 9 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Children's Protection from Violent 
     Programming Act. As part of that proceeding, the Commission--
       ``(1) may exempt from the prohibition under subsection (a) 
     programming (including news programs and sporting events) 
     whose distribution does not conflict with the objective of 
     protecting children from the negative influences of violent 
     video programming, as that objective is reflected in the 
     findings in section 551(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 
     1996;
       ``(2) shall exempt premium and pay-per-view cable 
     programming; and
       ``(3) shall define the term `hours when children are 
     reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the 
     audience' and the term violent video programming'.
       ``(c) Envorcement.--
       ``(1) Civil penalty.--The Commission shall impose a civil 
     penalty of not more than $25,000 on any person who violates 
     this section or any regulation promulgated under it for each 
     such violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day on 
     which such a violation occurs is a separate violation.
       ``(2) License revocation.--If a person repeatedly violates 
     this section or any regulation promulgated under this 
     section, the Commission shall, after notice and opportunity 
     for hearing, revoke any license issued to that person under 
     this Act.
       ``(3) License Renewals.--The Commission shall consider, 
     among the elements in its review of an application for 
     renewal of a license under this Act, whether the licensee has 
     complied with this section and the regulations promulgated 
     under this section.
       ``(d) Distribute Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `distribute' means to send, transmit, retransmit, telecast, 
     broadcast, or cablecast, including by wire, microwave, or 
     satellite.''.

     SEC. --04. SEPARABILITY.

       If any provision of this title, or any provision of an 
     amendment made by this title, or the application thereof to 
     particular persons or circumstances, is found to be 
     unconstitutional, the remainder of this title or that 
     amendment, or the application thereof to other persons or 
     circumstances shall not be affected.

     SEC. --05. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The prohibition contained in section 715 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (as added by section--03 of this 
     title) and the regulations promulgated thereunder shall take 
     effect 1 year after the regulations are adopted by the 
     Commission.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand in the debate on this 
particular amendment I can have a V-chip device. I ask unanimous 
consent that I may have that on the floor during the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. As I understand it from the managers of the bill, on 
the 3-hour agreement, we are to be allocated 1\1/2\ hours per side, 
with me introducing the particular amendment tonight and using a half 
hour. I ask the Chair to call my hand at 15 minutes, because I have 
divided that time with the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so informed.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate that very much.
  Mr. President, this is a historic moment for this Senator and the 
Senate in that I hearken back to 1969, 30 years ago, when the senior 
Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Pastore, raised the question of 
violence on television and the deleterious effect it had on children 
and their particular conduct. After much wrangling and debate, it was 
forestalled for what? A Surgeon General's report. Mind you me, this is 
30 years ago. I say ``historic'' because the stonewalling has been 
going on for 30 years.
  Mr. President, I refer to the Sunday program of ``Meet the Press'' 
when my distinguished friend, Mr. Jack Valenti of the Motion Pictures 
Association, was being interviewed by Tim Russert.
  I refer exactly to Mr. Russert's question:

       Do you believe that movies can create a sense of violence 
     in people and force them to imitate or copy what they see on 
     the screen, particularly children?

  In response, Mr. Valenti said:

       The answer is I don't know. This is why I've supported 
     Senator Joe Lieberman's call for the surgeon general to do an 
     in-depth analysis to find out the ``why'' of violence.

  Thereupon, of course, my distinguished friend, Mr. Valenti, went into 
his dog and pony show of the church, the home, and the school.
  Now, there it is, Mr. President. For 30 years, we have been trying to 
get a measure of this kind up, and it was reported out with only one 
dissenting vote from the Commerce Committee in the congressional 
session before last, and again with only one dissenting vote, in a 
bipartisan fashion, in the last Congress. But we couldn't get it up 
because they have been very clever about their opposition, their 
stonewalling, their put-off.

  Right to the point, Mr. President, we have done everything possible 
to show that this particular amendment would pass constitutional muster 
with all the hearings. There have been some 18 sets of hearings in the 
Commerce Committee over the 30-year period, with the support of the 
Parent-Teacher Association, the American Medical Association, the 
American Psychological Association, and different other ones,

[[Page S5148]]

according to this kind of action, with the industry putting in its 
report, with the cable television people sponsoring it, and finding the 
same conclusion in here just last year--and with, of all things, the 
put-off that we had under the leadership of Senator Paul Simon of 
Illinois. He said the industry ought to be able to get together. But 
they couldn't on account of the antitrust laws. He wanted to lapse 
those antitrust laws for a period of time so they could get together 
and form a code of conduct.
  They issued that code of conduct. Of all things, Mr. President, they 
have been ever since in violation of it.
  But I want to refer to the bill itself, and exactly what it does in 
the sense of having a precedent set, and the idea of TV indecency. We 
had indecency on TV. It was bothersome to all of the colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle. We passed a law that the FCC should determine 
indecency and call the stations' hands if they saw that being violated. 
Obviously, that thing was taken up immediately under the First 
Amendment of the Constitution and in the Supreme Court. They found it 
constitutional.
  Incidentally, in the hearings that we had back a few years ago, we 
had none other than Attorney General Reno attest to the fact that this 
particular amendment that I now submit would pass constitutional 
muster. The amendment prohibits the distribution of violent video 
programming during the hours when children are reasonably likely to 
comprise a substantial portion of the audience.
  That is tried and true. We know in the United Kingdom, France, 
Belgium, countries in Europe, and down under in Australia, that they 
have had this safe harbor during a period of time, say, from 9 in the 
morning until 9 in the evening. I think under the indecency one, it is 
from 6 in the morning until 10 in the evening. But it is to be 
determined by the Federal Communications Commission.
  Under that safe harbor, they are not shooting each other in the 
schools in Europe. They are not shooting each other in the schools in 
Australia. It is tried and true. It has been working. And the issue has 
been taken up to the highest court and found constitutional.
  The FCC is required to define ``violent programming'' and determine 
the appropriate timeframe for the safe harbor.
  The bill permits the FCC to exempt news and sports programming from 
the safe harbor, as well as premium and pay-per-view cable programming.
  Incidentally, the emphasis is on gratuitous--excessive, gratuitous 
violence.
  Obviously, with the Civil War series, with ``Saving Private Ryan,'' 
they are going to require a showing of violence for the authenticity of 
the film itself. That is not what we are really concerned with. Those 
are educational, and everyone should know about them, including 
children. But we are talking about gratuitous violence not being 
necessary, and even excessive gratuitous violence.
  We have legislated in the matter of public interest, after hearings 
in all of these committees. We have the most restrictive application 
under the decisions of the Court with respect to the FCC making its 
findings. Violators of the prohibition would be fined up to $25,000 for 
each violation on each day on which a violation occurs. The FCC would 
revoke the licenses of repeat violators of this prohibition. In 
considering license renewals, the FCC would consider a licensee's 
record of compliance with the legislation.
  Why, Mr. President, the big objection?
  We go back. I counsel my friend, Mr. Valenti, to get the three-volume 
set of ``The History of Broadcasting of the United States,'' the Oxford 
Press.
  I will turn to that first chapter talking about, in 1953, where we 
had the film ``Man Against Crime.'' I read from page 23, a quote that 
the writers received for this plot instruction. I think it is very, 
very important that everybody pay attention to this one. I quote:

       It has been found that we retain audience interest best 
     when our story is concerned with murder. Therefore, although 
     other crimes may be introduced, somebody must be murdered, 
     preferably early, with the threat of more violence to come.

  Could there be any better evidence than their writing of their own 
history of broadcasting to say: Look, the issue here is money. As long 
as it is going to be supported and, more so, supported with violence, 
then more money is made. And let's get up to the Congress.
  I sort of became amused about these term limitations. We have up 
here. I am in my 33rd year. We are finally getting the measure that 
Senator Pastore had in mind when he was put off with the Surgeon 
General study, which was formulated finally in 1972.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the summary of that Surgeon General report.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Television and Growing Up: the Impact of Television Violence


 summary of report to the surgeon general, U.S. Public Health service 
   from the U.S. surgeon general's scientific advisory committee on 
                  television and social behavior, 1972

       The work of this committee was initiated by a request from 
     Senator John O. Pastore to Health, Education, and Welfare 
     Secretary Robert H. Finch in which Senator Pastore said:
       ``I am exceedingly troubled by the lack of any definitive 
     information which would help resolve the question of whether 
     there is a causal connection between televised crime and 
     violence and antisocial behavior by individuals, especially 
     children. . . . I am respectfully requesting that you direct 
     the Surgeon General to appoint a committee comprised of 
     distinguished men and women from whatever professions and 
     disciplines deemed appropriate to devise techniques and to 
     conduct a study under this supervision using those techniques 
     which will establish scientifically insofar as possible what 
     harmful effects, if any, these programs have on children.''

                           *   *   *   *   *

     Effects on aggressiveness: Evidence from experiments
       Experiments have the advantage of allowing causal inference 
     because various influences can be controlled so that the 
     effects, if any, of one or more variables can be assessed. To 
     varying degrees, depending on design and procedures, they 
     have the disadvantages of artificiality and constricted time 
     span. The generalizability of results to everyday life is a 
     question often not easily resolvable.
       Experiments concerned with the effects of violence or 
     aggressiveness portrayed on film or television have focused 
     principally on two different kinds of effects: imitation and 
     instigation. Imitation occurs when what is seen is mimicked 
     or copied. Instigation occurs when what is seen is followed 
     by increased aggressiveness.
       Imitation: One way in which a child may learn a new 
     behavior is through observation and imitation. Some 20 
     published experiments document that children are capable of 
     imitating filmed aggression shown on a movie or television 
     screen. Capacity to imitate, however, does not imply 
     performance. Whether or not what is observed actually will be 
     imitated depends on a variety of situational and personal 
     factors.
       No research in this program was concerned with imitation, 
     because the fact that aggressive or violent behavior 
     presented on film or television can be imitated by children 
     is already thoroughly documented.
       Instigation. Some 30 published experiments have been widely 
     interpreted as indicating that the viewing of violence on 
     film or television by children or adults increases the 
     likelihood of aggressive behavior. This interpretation has 
     also been widely challenged, principally on the ground that 
     results cannot be generalized beyond the experimental 
     situation. Critics hold that in the experimental situation 
     socially inhibiting factors, such as the influence of 
     social norms and the risk of disapproval or retaliation, 
     are absent, and that the behavior after viewing, through 
     labeled ``aggressive,'' is so unlike what is generally 
     understood by the term as to raise serious questions about 
     the applicability of these laboratory findings to real-
     life behavior.
       The research conducted in this program attempted to provide 
     more precise and extensive evidence on the capacity of 
     televised violence to instigate aggressive behavior in 
     children. The studies variously involve whole television 
     programs, rather than brief excerpts; the possibility of 
     making constructive or helping, as well as aggressive, 
     responses after viewing; and the measurement of effects in 
     the real-life environment of a nursery school. Taken as a 
     group, they represent an effort to take into account more of 
     the circumstances that pertain in real life, and for that 
     reason they have considerable cogency.
       In sum. The experimental studies bearing on the effects of 
     aggressive television entertainment content on children 
     support certain conclusions. First, violence depicted on 
     television can immediately or shortly thereafter induce 
     mimicking or copying by children. Second, under certain 
     circumstances television violence can instigate an increase 
     in aggressive acts. The accumulated evidence, however, does 
     not warrant the conclusion that televised violence has a 
     uniformly adverse effect nor the conclusion that it has an 
     adverse effect on the majority of children.

[[Page S5149]]

     It cannot even be said that the majority of the children in 
     the various studies we have reviewed showed an increase in 
     aggressive behavior in response to the violent fare to which 
     they were exposed. The evidence does indicate that televised 
     violence may lead to increased aggressive behavior in certain 
     subgroups of children, who might constitute a small portion 
     or a substantial proportion of the total population of young 
     television viewers. We cannot estimate the size of the 
     fraction, however, since the available evidence does not come 
     from cross-section samples of the entire American population 
     of children.
       The experimental studies we have reviewed tell us something 
     about the characteristics of those children who are most 
     likely to display an increase in aggressive behavior after 
     exposure to televised violence. There is evidence that among 
     young children (ages four to six) those most responsive to 
     television violence are those who are highly aggressive to 
     start with--who are prone to engage in spontaneous aggressive 
     actions against their playmates and, in the case of boys, who 
     display pleasure in viewing violence being inflicted upon 
     others. The very young have difficulty comprehending the 
     contextual setting in which violent acts are depicted and do 
     not grasp the meaning of cues or labels concerning the make-
     believe character of violence episodes in fictional programs. 
     For older children, one study has found that labeling 
     violence on a television program as make-believe rather than 
     as real reduces the incidence of induced aggressive behavior. 
     Contextual cues to the motivation of the aggressor and to the 
     consequences of acts of violence might also modify the impact 
     of televised violence, but evidence on this topic is 
     inconsistent.
       Since a considerable number of experimental studies on the 
     effects of televised violence have now been carried out, it 
     seems improbable that the next generation of studies will 
     bring many great surprises, particularly with regard to 
     broad generalizations not supported by the evidence 
     currently at hand. It does not seem worthwhile to continue 
     to carry out studies designed primarily to test the broad 
     generalization that most or all children react to 
     televised violence in a uniform way. The lack of 
     uniformity in the extensive data now at hand is much too 
     impressive to warrant the expectation that better measures 
     of aggression or other methodological refinements will 
     suddenly allow us to see a uniform effect.
     Effects on aggressiveness: Survey evidence
       A number of surveys have inquired into the violence viewing 
     of young people and their tendencies toward aggressive 
     behavior. Measures of exposure to television violence 
     included time spent viewing, preference for violent 
     programming, and amount of viewing of violent programs. 
     Measures of aggressive tendencies variously involved self and 
     others' reports of actual behavior, projected behavior, and 
     attitudes. The behavior involved varied from acts generally 
     regarded as heinous (e.g., arson) to acts which many would 
     applaud (e.g., hitting a man who is attacking a woman).
       All of the studies inquired into the relationship between 
     exposure to television violence and aggressive tendencies. 
     Most of the relationships observed were positive, but most 
     were also of low magnitude, ranging from null relationships 
     to correlation coefficients of about .20. A few of the 
     observed correlation coefficients, however, reached .30 or 
     just above.
       On the basis of these findings, and taking into account 
     their variety and their inconsistencies, we can tentatively 
     conclude that there is a modest relationship between exposure 
     to television violence and aggressive behavior or tendencies, 
     as the latter are defined in the studies at hand. Two 
     questions which follow are: (1) what is indicated by a 
     correlation coefficient of about .30, and (2) since 
     correlation is not in itself a demonstration of causation, 
     what can be deducted from the data regarding causation?
       Correlation coefficients of ``middle range,'' like .30, may 
     result from various sorts of relationships, which in turn may 
     or may not be manifested among the majority of the 
     individuals studied. While the magnitude of such a 
     correlation is not particularly high, it betokens a 
     relationship which merits further inquiry.
       Correlation indicates that two variables--in this case 
     violence viewing and aggressive tendencies--are related to 
     each other. It does not indicate which of the two, if either, 
     is the cause and which the effect. In this instance the 
     correlation could manifest any of three causal sequences:
     --That violence viewing leads to aggression;
     --That aggression leads to violence viewing;
     --That both violence viewing and aggression are products of a 
     third condition or set of conditions.
       The data from these studies are in various ways consonant 
     with both the first and the third of these interpretations, 
     but do not conclusively support either of the two.

                           *   *   *   *   *

     General implications
       The best predictor of later aggressive tendencies in some 
     studies is the existence of earlier aggressive tendencies, 
     whose origins may lie in family and other environmental 
     influences. Patterns of communication within the family and 
     patterns of punishment of young children seem to relate in 
     ways that are as yet poorly understood both to television 
     viewing and to aggressive behavior. The possible role of mass 
     media in very early acquisition of aggressive tendencies 
     remains unknown. Future research should concentrate on the 
     impact of media material on very young children.
       As we have noted, the data, while not wholly consistent or 
     conclusive, do indicate that a modest relationship exists 
     between the viewing of violence and aggressive behavior. The 
     correlational evidence from surveys is amenable to either of 
     two interpretations: that the viewing of violence causes the 
     aggressive behavior, or that both the viewing and the 
     aggression are joint products of some other common source. 
     Several findings of survey studies can be cited to sustain 
     the hypothesis that viewing of violent television has a 
     causal relation to aggressive behavior, though neither 
     individually nor collectively are the findings conclusive. 
     They could also be explained by operation of a ``third 
     variable'' related to preexisting conditions.
       The experimental studies provide some additional evidence 
     bearing on this issue. Those studies contain indications 
     that, under certain limited conditions, television viewing 
     may lead to an increase in aggressive behavior. The evidence 
     is clearest in highly controlled laboratory studies and 
     considerably weaker in studies conducted under more natural 
     conditions. Although some questions have been raised as to 
     whether the behavior observed in the laboratory studies can 
     be called ``aggressive'' in the consensual sense of the term, 
     the studies point to two mechanisms by which children might 
     be led from watching television to aggressive behavior: the 
     mechanism of imitation, which is well established as part of 
     the behavioral repertoire of children in general; and the 
     mechanism of incitement, which may apply only to those 
     children who are predisposed to be susceptible to this 
     influence. There is some evidence that incitement may follow 
     nonviolent as well as violent materials, and that this 
     incitement may lead to either prosocial or aggressive 
     behavior, as determined by the opportunities offered in the 
     experiment. However, the fact that some children behave more 
     aggressive in experiments after seeing violent films is well 
     established.
       The experimental evidence does not suffer from the 
     ambiguities that characterize the correlational data with 
     regard to third variables, since children in the experiments 
     are assigned in ways that attempt to control such variables. 
     The experimental findings are weak in various other ways and 
     not wholly consistent with one study to another. 
     Nevertheless, they provide suggestive evidence in favor of 
     the interpretation that viewing violence on television is 
     conducive to an increase in aggressive behavior, although it 
     must be emphasized that the causal sequence is very likely 
     applicable only to some children who are predisposed in this 
     direction.
       Thus, there is a convergence of the fairly substantial 
     experimental evidence for short-run causation of aggression 
     among some children by viewing violence on the screen and the 
     much less certain evidence from field studies that extensive 
     violence viewing precedes some long-run manifestations of 
     aggressive behavior. This convergence of the two types of 
     evidence constitutes some preliminary indication of a 
     causal relationship, but a good deal of research remains 
     to be done before one can have confidence in these 
     conclusions.
       The field studies, correlating different behavior among 
     adolescents, and the laboratory studies of the responses by 
     younger children to violent films converge also on a number 
     of further points.
       First, there is evidence that any sequence by which viewing 
     television violence cause aggressive behavior is most likely 
     applicable only to some children who are predisposed in that 
     direction. While imitative behavior is shown by most children 
     in experiments on that mechanism of behavior, the mechanism 
     of being incited to aggressive behavior by seeing violent 
     films shows up in the behavior only of some children who were 
     found in several experimental studies to be previously high 
     in aggression. Likewise, the correlations found in the field 
     studies between extensive viewing of violent material and 
     acting in aggressive ways seem generally to depend on the 
     behavior of a small proportion of the respondents who were 
     identified in some studies as previously high in aggression.
       Second, there are suggestions in both sets of studies that 
     the way children respond to violent film material is affected 
     by the context in which it is presented. Such elements as 
     parental explanations, the favorable or unfavorable outcome 
     of the violence, and whether it is seen as fantasy or reality 
     may make a difference. Generalizations about all violent 
     content are likely to be misleading.
       Thus, the two sets of findings converge in three respects: 
     a preliminary and tentative indication of a causal relation 
     between viewing violence on television and aggressive 
     behavior; an indication that any such causal relation 
     operates only on some children (who are predisposed to be 
     aggressive); and an indication that it operates only in some 
     environmental contexts. Such tentative and limited 
     conclusions are not very satisfying. They represent 
     substantially more knowledge than we had two years ago, but 
     they leave many questions unanswered.
       Some of the areas on which future research should 
     concentrate include: (1) Television's effects in the context 
     of the effects of other mass media. (2) The effects of mass 
     media in the context of individual developmental history and 
     the totality of environmental influences, particularly that 
     of the home environment. In regard to the relationship 
     between

[[Page S5150]]

     televised violence and aggression, specific topics in need of 
     further attention include: predispositional characteristics 
     of individuals; age differences; effects of labeling, 
     contextual cues, and other program factors; and longitudinal 
     influences of television. (3) The functional and 
     dysfunctional aspects of aggressive behavior in successfully 
     adapting to life's demands. (4) The modeling and imitation of 
     prosocial behavior. (5) The role of environmental factors, 
     including the mass media, in the teaching and learning of 
     values about violence, and the effects of such learning. (6) 
     The symbolic meanings of violent content in mass media 
     fiction, and the function in our social life of such content.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, a reading of that report will show a 
definite causal connection between TV violence and aggressive behavior 
on the part of children. Time and time again it was shown.
  But let me go to the next put-off that we had with my good friend, 
Senator Paul Simon.
  I knew they had somebody to stop me here in the early 1990s.
  He got his measure passed. So we couldn't get our bill up for a vote. 
We had then a finding of standards for the ``Depiction of Violence in 
Television Programming'' issued by ABC, CBS, and NBC in December 1992.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Appendix B. Standards for the Depiction of Violence in Television 
                                Programs

              (Issued by ABC, CBS, and NBC--December 1992)


                                preface

       The following standards for the Depiction of Violence in 
     Television Programs are issued jointly by ABC, CBS, and NBC 
     Television Networks under the Antitrust Exemption granted by 
     the Television Violence Act of 1990.
       Each network has long been committed to presenting 
     television viewers with a broad spectrum of entertainment and 
     information programming. Each Network maintains its own 
     extensive published broadcast standards governing 
     acceptability of both program (including on-air promotion) 
     and commercial materials.
       These new joint standards are consistent with each of the 
     Network's long-standing preexisting policies on violence. At 
     the same time they set forth in a more detailed and 
     explanatory manner to reflect the experience gained under the 
     preexisting policies. While adopting and subscribing to these 
     joint Standards, each Network will continue the tradition of 
     individual review of material, which will necessitate 
     independent judgments on a program-by-program basis.
       The standards are not intended to inhibit the work of 
     producers, directors, writers, or to impede the creative 
     process. They are intended to proscribe gratuitous or 
     excessive portrayals of violence.
       In principle, each of the ABC, CBS, and NBC Television 
     Networks is committed to presenting programs which portray 
     the human condition, which may include the depiction of 
     violence as a component. The following Standards for the 
     Depiction of Violence in Television Programs will provide the 
     framework within which the acceptability of content will be 
     determined by each Network in the exercise of its own 
     judgment.


       standards for depiction of violence in television programs

       These written standards cannot cover every situation and 
     must, therefore, be worded broadly. Moreover, the Standards 
     must be considered against the creative context, character 
     and tone of each individual program. Each scene should be 
     evaluated on its own merits with due consideration for its 
     creative integrity.
       (1) Conflict and strife are the essence of drama and 
     conflict often results in physical or psychological violence. 
     However, all depictions of violence should be relevant and 
     necessary to the development of character, or to the 
     advancement of theme or plot.
       (2) Gratuitous or excessive depictions of violence (or 
     redundant violence shown solely for its own sake), are not 
     acceptable.
       (3) Programs should not depict violence as glamorous, nor 
     as an acceptable solution to human conflict.
       (4) Depictions of violence may not be used to shock or 
     stimulate the audience.
       (5) Scenes showing excessive gore, pain, or physical 
     suffering are not acceptable.
       (6) The intensity and frequency of the use of force and 
     other factors relating to the manner of its portrayal should 
     be measured under a standard of reasonableness so that the 
     program, on the whole, is appropriate for a home viewing 
     medium.
       (7) Scenes which may be instructive in nature, e.g., which 
     depict in an imitable manner, the use of harmful devices or 
     weapons, describe readily usable techniques for the 
     commission of crimes, or show replicable methods for the 
     evasion of detection or apprehension, should be avoided. 
     Similarly, ingenious, unique, or otherwise unfamiliar methods 
     of inflicting pain or injury are unacceptable if easily 
     capable of imitation.
       (8) Realistic depictions of violence should also portray, 
     in human terms, the consequences of that violence to its 
     victims and its perpetrators. Callousness or indifference to 
     suffering experienced by victims of violence should be 
     avoided.
       (9) Exceptional care must be taken in stories or scenes 
     where children are victims of, or are threatened by acts of 
     violence (physical, psychological or verbal).
       (10) The portrayal of dangerous behavior which would invite 
     imitation by children, including portrayals of the use of 
     weapons or implements readily accessible to this 
     impressionable group, should be avoided.
       (11) Realistic portrayals of violence as well as scenes, 
     images or events which are unduly frightening or distressing 
     to children should not be included in any program 
     specifically designed for that audience.
       (12) The use of real animals shall conform to accepted 
     standards of humane treatment. Fictionalized portrayals of 
     abusive treatment should be strictly limited to the 
     legitimate requirements of plot development.
       (13) Extreme caution must be exercised in any themes, 
     plots, or scenes which mix sex and violence. Rape and other 
     sexual assaults are violent, not erotic, behavior.
       (14) The scheduling of any program, commercial or 
     promotional material, including those containing violent 
     depictions, should take into consideration the nature of the 
     program, its content and the likely composition of the 
     intended audience.
       (15) Certain exceptions to the foregoing may be acceptable, 
     as in the presentation of material whose overall theme is 
     clearly and unambiguously anti-violent.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Chair.
  I will read just one sentence, being limited in time here.

       All depictions of violence should be relevant and necessary 
     to the development of character or to the advancement of 
     theme or plot.

  Mr. President, that is exactly what we have in the law. We have the 
opponents agreeing to this particular amendment. Of course not. They 
will have Members move to table the amendment.
  I am trying to plead for favorable consideration. All we are doing is 
what the industry--ABC, CBS, NBC--issued to themselves in their own 
code of conduct.
  I read:

       Gratuitous or excessive depictions of violence are not 
     acceptable.

  Exactly what we are saying in this amendment.
  Again I read:

       Programs should not depict violence as glamorous.

  That is exactly what we found last year in the National Television 
Violence Study. This study is too voluminous to print in the Record. It 
is what they found in the cable TV-sponsored study with the most 
outstanding authorities imaginable conducting this study. Various 
campuses were represented, as I recall. Included were the Society for 
Adolescent Medicine, the National Cable Television Association, the 
American Psychiatric Association, Producers Guild of America, American 
Sociological Association, the Caucus for Producers and Writers, the 
American Bar Association. They say it is too glamorous.
  I ask unanimous consent to have those names in support printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

           National Television Violence Study Council Members

       Trina Menden Anglin, M.D., Ph.D, Society of Adolescent 
     Medicine.
       Decker Anstrom (Ex Officio), National Cable Television 
     Association.
       Char Beales, Cable and Telecommunications: A Marketing 
     Society.
       Darlene Chavez, National Education Association.
       Belva Davis, American Federation of Television and Radio 
     Artists.
       Carl Feinstein, M.D., American Psychiatric Association.
       Charles B. Fitzsimons, Producers Guild of America.
       Carl Gottlieb, Writers Guild of America, West.
       Felice Levine, Ph.D., American Sociological Association.
       Ann Marcus, Caucus for Producers, Writers and Directors.
       Virginia Markell, National Parent Teacher Association.
       Robert McAfee, M.D., American Medical Association.
       E. Michael McCann, American Bar Association.
       Gene Reynolds, Directors Guild of America.
       Donald F. Roberts, Ph.D., International Communication 
     Association.
       Don Shifrin, M.D., American Academy of Pediatrics.
       Barbara C. Staggers, M.D., M.P.H., National Children's 
     Hospital Association.
       Brian L. Wilcox, Ph.D., American Psychological Association.

  Roughly three-quarters of all violent scenes showed no remorse or 
penalty for violence.

[[Page S5151]]

  These are the things, excessive gratuitous violence, that the 
industry agrees with in their code, but they continue to violate.
  That is why I say this is a historic moment, to get a measure that 
the best of minds have said is what is needed. Otherwise, the industry 
associates--writers, producers and everyone else--follow exactly what 
they found in the history of broadcasting in the 1950s, 40-some years 
ago, that violence pays.
  I retain the remainder of our time, and 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. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for raising a 
number of important issues concerning the quality of TV programming and 
other programming.
  I remember very distinctly a number of years ago I was watching when 
the Pope came to California and in Hollywood met with top executives. 
He met with them, encouraged them, and urged them to do a better job, 
and to start to clean up some of the things being shown on television.
  When the program was over, they came out to the TV cameras. They 
interviewed each one of these executives and asked what happened, and 
what they thought. They said the Pope had made a number of very 
important suggestions that deserved great consideration and they 
thought they could make some progress toward his goals.
  Charlton Heston came out. They asked: Mr. Heston, what do you think? 
Mr. Heston, do you think things will get better? Mr. Heston said: If 
the Lord himself were speaking to them, they wouldn't change. The only 
thing they are looking at is the rating.
  Since then, things have continued to get worse. I have always 
remembered that. I think it is fair to say that violence apparently 
pays. They are looking for ratings and money. It does leave us with a 
difficult question of what we can do to make this a healthier society, 
a society that is better for raising children.

                          ____________________