[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 18, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5460-S5462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                       THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BILL

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, at the end of my remarks I am going to 
make a unanimous consent request--I see the Senator from Idaho is here; 
I want him to know that--that I be permitted to send an amendment to 
the desk regarding the age people have to be before they can buy a 
weapon or gain access to a weapon. But I will not do that now; I will 
wait until the end of my remarks, and then I will make that unanimous 
consent request. I wanted to make sure my colleagues knew I was going 
to do that.
  I think it is really important, as we move forward on this juvenile 
justice bill, to debate all the issues surrounding juvenile justice as 
fully and as completely as we can. After all, there isn't a politician 
I know who does not say our future is our children. That is what our 
future is about. And as healthy as our children are, that is as healthy 
as our country will be. As stable as our children are, that is how 
stable our country will be. As productive as our children are, that is 
how productive our country will be.
  As we all attempt in various capacities in our lives--as parents, and 
as grandparents--to ensure that our children understand that in a 
society that is worthy there should be as little violence as possible, 
if we can just transmit that to our children, this will be a better 
world.
  In the course of the debate, we have talked about many areas in our 
society that need attention. There isn't one of us who could truly 
stand up here and say, well, I do everything I can; there is nothing 
wrong with me. And there is no industry that can stand up and say it. 
We all have to look inside ourselves to make sure our kids understand 
that violence is wrong, it is a black and white situation, and it isn't 
the way to resolve our problems, et cetera. So this debate surrounding 
this bill is very relevant to the lives of our people.
  In my home State--and I have said this often on the floor, but it is 
worth repeating to some of my friends--the No. 1 cause of death among 
children happens to be gunshots. In other words, for children, from as 
soon as they are born to age 18, that is the No. 1 cause of death--that 
they are going to be killed by a gun.
  Somebody could say, well, that is just the price you pay to live in 
America. That is ridiculous. That is ridiculous. In our Constitution we 
have the right to pursue happiness; we have the right to life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness--life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. So when we see gunshots causing so much death and mutilation 
in our society, we have to take a look at, Where have we gone wrong? 
What is wrong? Can we do something?
  We have taken a couple steps in this bill to try to fix this problem 
of guns, but we have a long way to go. I want to show a chart here 
which indicates why this is such an important issue in America.
  In the 11 years of the Vietnam war, we lost 58,168 of our precious 
people, and this country--this country--was torn apart. Every one of 
those deaths was mourned by family and by the greater American family.
  In the last 11 years, we have lost 396,572 people to guns.
  Yes, it might be time to spend a few more days on this bill when you 
find yourself in this kind of situation. You cannot turn away from 
facts. You may want to turn away from facts, but you cannot turn away 
from facts.
  As I look around and see these numbers and I see what is happening in 
the news--in the last few days we had about four or five other 
schoolkids who, it was found, thank goodness, were going to perpetrate 
a massacre with guns at their schools --something rings out in my mind, 
and that is, angry kids and guns do not mix. Angry people and guns do 
not mix.
  It seems to me that since we know you have to be 18 years of age to 
buy wine, to buy beer, to buy cigarettes, you ought to have to be 18 
years old before you can buy a gun.
  Some people might say, well, haven't we fixed that? Well, for 
handguns, 21; that is, if you go to a dealer. I believe Senator 
Ashcroft said you have to be 18 to buy a semiautomatic at a gun

[[Page S5461]]

show. You have to be 18 if you go to a dealer to buy a long gun. But if 
you go to a gun show or you make a private purchase, you can be 14 to 
buy a rifle or a shotgun under Federal law. You could be 12. So I think 
it is time for us to look at what we are doing in this country.
  Eighteen to buy cigarettes, 18 to buy beer or whiskey or wine, 18 to 
buy a semiautomatic handgun, 21 at a dealer. But you could buy these 
long guns. And we have juveniles going to unlicensed vendors at a gun 
show or at a flea market and buying a long gun in what we call private 
sales.
  Now, I want to talk about what happened in the Colorado massacre, 
because one of the things people are saying is, well, many laws were 
broken there so we don't need any more laws. The truth is, the young 
woman who transferred those guns to the juveniles, because she said she 
didn't know they were going to use it for adverse purposes, broke no 
law. She broke no law. She was 18. She purchased, as I understand it, 
three weapons and gave them to these kids. She broke no law. She was 
18. She gave three long guns to the shooters, legal under Federal law. 
It should not be. You should not be able to sell a gun to a juvenile, 
and you should not be able to give a gun to a juvenile unless you are 
the parent or the grandparent or the legal guardian.
  I could see that. I have talked to my friend, Patrick Leahy, who told 
me he gave up a hunting rifle to his daughter when she was 15 or 16. 
That was his choice. So we have in our amendment the ability for a 
grandparent or a parent or a legal guardian to give such a gun, but not 
for a friend to run down to the store and get a gun and give it to you 
if you are 17 or you are 16 or you are 15. That shouldn't be 
appropriate.
  So the amendment that I want to put forward here does not say a 
juvenile can't get a long gun from a parent, grandparent, or legal 
guardian. It would not make it illegal for that juvenile to possess a 
rifle or a shotgun or even to own such a gun, if a parent or a legal 
guardian gave it to them, or a grandparent. However, if it isn't a 
parent or a grandparent or a legal guardian, it would be illegal to 
give a juvenile a gun, any kind of gun, any kind of firearm.
  My children would call this a no-brainer. It is pretty clear that we 
set age limits for all kinds of things, but not to own a firearm, 
unless it is a handgun and now a semiautomatic weapon. So there is a 
giant loophole.

  As I understand it, all of these guns would be able to be bought by a 
juvenile under current law. What I want to do, Mr. President, is bring 
guns in line with cigarettes in terms of purchase.
  I now ask unanimous consent that I may offer that amendment to S. 254 
at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we are in 
morning business. We are not on the bill. This afternoon it appears we 
would be back on the bill. At that time it would be appropriate to 
introduce that amendment. Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as the Senator knows, I asked unanimous 
consent to send this amendment to the desk now. I do not want people to 
be confused. In the Senate, you can send an amendment to the desk any 
time you want, if you ask unanimous consent and no one objects. The 
Senator from Idaho is objecting. He is not allowing me to send this 
amendment to the desk to get a vote on this amendment, to put this 
amendment at the desk, to put it in line, when all I am saying is you 
should be 18 before you can buy a firearm.
  I just want to be clear, I am very disappointed that this unanimous 
consent request has been objected to. I will stay on the floor as long 
as it takes to offer this amendment, which merely says if you have to 
be 18 to buy cigarettes, you ought to be 18 to buy a weapon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, how much time remains prior to adjournment 
for the Tuesday lunches under the unanimous consent?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes remain.
  Mr. CRAIG. And the 6 minutes is in place by unanimous consent, is it 
not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, for discussion of S. 96.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to proceed for 6 minutes as in morning business prior to adjournment 
for lunch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection----
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I don't intend to object 
to my friend. I know that my friend objected to my laying down a new 
amendment. There were two amendments that already have been debated--
the Kohl safety lock amendment and the Hatch-Feinstein gang amendment.
  I am wondering if the Senator would object if I would ask unanimous 
consent that at 2:15 we resume consideration of the Kohl amendment No. 
352, and that there be 5 minutes for debate, and that upon use or 
yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation 
to the amendment, and upon disposition of that, the Senate resume 
consideration of the Hatch-Feinstein amendment No. 353, that there be 5 
minutes for debate and, upon the use or yielding back of time, the 
Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment with no intervening 
action, provided provisions of the previous unanimous consent remain in 
effect. Would the Senator allow me to offer that?
  Mr. CRAIG. I would object, but I hope the Senator from California 
would not characterize that objection in the improper fashion. Both the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member, who are 
managing this bill, are not on the floor. The Senator from California 
knows that the leadership at this moment, both her leader and my 
leader, are trying to craft a unanimous consent agreement to allow the 
Senator from California and others to offer appropriate amendments. I 
am in no way attempting to obstruct. I say that I believe her offering 
is inappropriate and out of context of the way the Senate operates. 
Certainly, she knows, as I do, that we work through our leaders, and we 
also work through the managers of the bill. I do not oppose her arguing 
her point before the Senate in the appropriate fashion, but I certainly 
would object to the context under which she has offered it.

  Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator yield for a brief comment on my part 
here?
  Mr. CRAIG. Very brief, unless you object to my unanimous consent to 
complete the morning?
  Mrs. BOXER. I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to make it clear to my friend, my purpose here, as 
a Senator from California who views this issue as one of the most 
important we will ever take up, is to move the bill along. That is why 
I offered to send my other amendment to the desk, to push forward these 
two amendments that have already been heard, so that we can move things 
along. But I appreciate the Senator has a different view.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator from California.
  Mr. President, it is important that I characterize in the appropriate 
fashion an amendment that passed the Senate that the Senator from 
California voted for, I believe. That was the Ashcroft amendment on 
semiauto assault weapons for young juveniles. She is wrong that it was 
tied to 18. It is tied to the 21 age limit that is already current law, 
as it relates to handguns and other restricted weapons. I helped craft 
that law, along with Senator Kohl, several years ago, and it became 
law, and we are very proud of it.
  She is absolutely right to be concerned about juveniles having guns. 
That is why we were very restrictive. Any juvenile who brings a gun to 
school is breaking the law. If it is a handgun and they are under 21 
years of age, they have broken the law.
  What we are saying is that on private property, on a ranch or a farm 
where they are out hunting varmints, or if they are en route to a 
registered shoot, if they have permission from their guardian, they 
fall outside the law--guardian or parent. So what the Senator from 
California was talking about in her proposed amendment is, in part, not 
unlike what is in current law in many respects.

[[Page S5462]]

  It is true what she has said about long guns after 18 years of age. 
No question about it. But it is not true of the semiauto assault 
weapons, if you include the Ashcroft amendment that passed the Senate 
and is now incorporated into the juvenile justice bill.
  Mr. President, in the juvenile justice bill, as it relates to guns, 
we have crafted a juvenile Brady provision, a very important part of 
the bill. We have dramatically restricted gun shows and demanded, if 
this becomes law, background checks. We have now, with Senator Kohl and 
Senator Hatch, crafted a trigger lock provision that I think is an 
important piece of language and ought to become law.
  As I have just said, we have prohibited juveniles from owning 
semiauto assault weapons with extended loading devices. If we pass this 
bill, that becomes law.
  Senator Feinstein was able to pass an amendment that restricts 
certain importations of extended loading devices or clips. If we pass 
this bill, it becomes law.
  But if this bill becomes simply a gun control measure and not an 
extensive juvenile crime provision, it will not become law. I hope the 
Senator from California and others know that, that we ought to work 
cooperatively together to pass a much broader law and language to 
control violent juveniles and their actions than to play the politics 
of guns, because that is what we have heard for the last day on the 
floor, the last 3 days, is the politics of guns.
  The Senator from California and I have voted for some new gun control 
measures. We believe those are extensive measures that craft a window 
and close the window that she and others were objecting to. But it is 
interesting that once we close a window, they redefine and create a new 
window and say, and now this and now this, and the goalposts constantly 
move.
  Mr. President, if the goalposts are constantly moving, then there 
will be no juvenile crime bill because the other side will have killed 
it. I think it is tragic that, after two years in a bipartisan effort 
by the Senate Judiciary Committee to craft a much broader bill dealing 
with violent juveniles, we would see that prohibited by these actions. 
I hope we can get past that. I hope this afternoon we can craft a 
unanimous consent agreement for both sides to offer some reasonable 
amendments and that we can see final passage of this bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield to me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
be given an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. Under the previous order--
--
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Senator made a huge mistake in the 
analysis of the Ashcroft amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that I may have 30 seconds to set the record 
straight on the Ashcroft amendment.
  Mr. CRAIG. I would allow that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am holding the Ashcroft amendment in my 
hand. It says:

       For purposes of this subsection, the term ``juvenile'' 
     means a person who is less than 18 years of age.

  So the age was not raised to 21. There are some on this side who 
would do that. My amendment talks about all other guns. There is no age 
limit to go to a gun show. They can be 12 and buy a long gun, a shotgun 
or a rifle.

                          ____________________