Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 73 (Wednesday, May 19, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5507-S5583]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

VIOLENT AND REPEAT JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY AND REHABILITATION ACT OF
1999

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will now resume
consideration of S. 254, which the clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:

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

Pending:

Frist amendment No. 355, to amend the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act and the Gun-Free Schools Act of
1994 to authorize schools to apply appropriate discipline
measures in cases where students have firearms.
Wellstone amendment No. 356, to improve the juvenile
delinquency prevention challenge grant program.
Sessions/Inhofe amendment No. 357, relating to the
placement of a disclaimer on materials produced, procured or
disseminated as a result of funds made available under this
Act.
Wellstone amendment No. 358, to provide for additional
mental health and student service providers.
Hatch (for Santorum) amendment No. 360, to encourage States
to incarcerate individuals convicted of murder, rape, or
child molestation.
Ashcroft amendment No. 361, to provide for school safety
and violence prevention and teacher liability protection
measures.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to continue for 1
minute, the time not taken from either side.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, also for the advice of our colleagues, the
distinguished Senator from Utah and I continued work on the managers'
package, which we worked on over the weekend, last night, and we will
be prepared to present that fairly soon.
If I could have the attention of the Senator from Utah for just a
moment, I suspect what we would probably do at that time, when it is
prepared, is to move to set aside other things so we could do that and
go forward with it.
I mention this because several Senators had asked about where it
was--it is a complex thing--to help make sure we get the drafting all
right.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I think we are just about done with the
drafting of it. I know staff on both the minority and the majority side
are finishing that up as we speak, so I agree

[[Page S5508]]

with the Senator. When we get that finally done, we will interrupt
everything and set matters aside so we can pass the managers'
amendment.
I notice the distinguished Senator from New Jersey is prepared to
offer his amendment again. Could I ask the other side, how many further
gun amendments are we going to have? I would at least like to know.
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator asks a legitimate question. That is why I
asked about the managers' package. Some are holding to see where the
managers' package goes, and it will probably depend upon what happens
with the amendment of the distinguished senior Senator from New Jersey.
Let me try to get a more specific answer. That does not answer the
question of the Senator from Utah. As this debate starts--we are
running some traplines now--I will try to get that answer for the
Senator as quickly as I can.
Mr. HATCH. The reason I bring that up is we have had enough time on
gun amendments, it seems to me. There has been a lot of getting
together, and I have helped to lead that. I think it is about time we
get on to the rest of this bill, which is much more important than the
gun aspect of this bill. There is a huge number of things we do in this
bill to try to stop juvenile crime in this country, and especially
violent juvenile crime. This bill will help to alleviate that. So I
want to finish the bill, and I think we ought to do the very best we
can to do that.
Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, I would note that we had a list
of over 90 amendments entered under a consent agreement last Friday. We
have pared that back to about a dozen or less. So we are making
significant progress. I think what we want to do is make sure as
amendments are coming up, the few that are left, Senators are not
blocked by objection, as the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, was
yesterday, or Senator Lautenberg last Friday.
Now we can move on. We have gone from 90 down to about a dozen. The
managers' package is making a lot of that possible. Again, I commend
the Senator from Utah for his work on this, and we should continue.
But while the Senator from New Jersey is debating his amendment, I
will try to get a clearer answer for the Senator from Utah.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me say one other thing. This is an
amendment that has already been debated, and it was defeated. So it is
coming back again substantially in the same form.
Now, I was told yesterday that the minority believes they have
narrowed their amendments down to about eight. As I understood it, they
figured they would have three more gun amendments, including this, and
possibly a fourth.
All we want to know is how many are we going to have and what are
they so we are sure of what is going to come up. But in all honesty, I
do not want to just keep debating the same subject over and over when
we have made real honest and decent efforts to try to resolve these
problems.
Be that as it may, I would like to know, as soon as I can, just
exactly how many more gun amendments we are going to have to put up
with or are we going to do the rest of the bill. Are we going to get
something seriously done about juvenile crime or are we going to make
political points in the Chamber, to the extent Senators think they are
making them?
That is what I am concerned about. I would like to pass this bill
which will make a real difference on accountability, making kids who
commit violent acts responsible for their actions. For the first time,
we actually have prevention moneys, more than accountability moneys. We
are doing something about the cultural problems in this society--not
something, a whole lot about the cultural problems--that really will
work if we can just get this bill passed. Of course, we are going to
get tougher on violent juveniles in the sentencing phase and a number
of other ways from a law enforcement standpoint.
We have spent most of our time in the last 6 days--now 7 days--on gun
amendments. We have made a real effort to try to accommodate people on
the other side--and some on our own side--to resolve these matters. I
think we have largely resolved them. Be that as it may, we will go on
from here.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, again, I ask consent not to have my time
come from anybody else.
We are making progress. As I said, we had 90 possible amendments
entered as a consent agreement last Friday. We pared that back to a
dozen or less. The distinguished Senator from Utah said over the
weekend that it appeared they would need about seven from their side.
They offered four. That leaves about three more.
I point out that sometimes this debate is wise. When the Craig
amendment first came up, the Senator from New Jersey, the Senator from
New York, Mr. Schumer, and I came on the floor and said there were some
very serious problems with it, that part of the drafting was left out,
that it did things different from what the Senator from Idaho, Mr.
Craig, had said it did. We were told by the Senator from Idaho that we
were flatout wrong, that there was no such thing. It was a good
amendment. It was adopted, then, on virtually a party line vote.
The next day, as soon as the press had analyzed it, they found
exactly what the Senator from New York and I had said was accurate,
that what the Senator from Idaho said was not accurate. There was a
great flapdoodle over it--that is from the early unpublished
Jefferson's ``Manual on Parliamentary Procedure,'' I tell Mr. Dove, the
Parliamentarian.
It comes back again now, redrafted. And then, after that, it was
pointed out that there were other errors, and we were told again we
were wrong. A third part of the draft is coming back. Frankly, Mr.
President, sometimes the debate takes a little bit longer if amendments
do not do what the sponsors say they do.
With that, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is
recognized.

Amendment No. 362

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from
Vermont.
I particularly pay a note of respect to our colleague from Utah, the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the manager on the Republican
side, for this juvenile justice bill. I know how anxious he is to
effect a compromise that permits us to move ahead with legislation
which is constructive. I have never known him to obstruct for the sake
of obstruction. I appreciate his interest in moving this bill, as we
all would like to do.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendments and send a compromise gun show amendment to the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. HATCH. Reserving the right to object, I did not hear.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator restate his
unanimous consent request.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Surely. I first paid extensive compliments to the
Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEAHY. There was no objection to that part.
Mr. HATCH. I am happy to hear that.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Did I hear an objection from the Senator from
Vermont?
Mr. HATCH. Could I understand what the unanimous consent request is?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what I want to do is to see if we can
present a compromise position that takes care of some of the problems
which still exist after we passed the Craig-Hatch amendment, which
differs from my original language to an extent that I think makes it
more palatable to our friends on the other side. I would be happy to
discuss those as I go through my presentation on the amendment. It is
obvious that we want to do what we can.

While the Senator from Utah was occupied, I did say that I have never
known him to obstruct for the purpose of obstruction but, rather, to
effect change. I think it is fair to say there is a significant amount
of interest on the Republican side in the changes we have made to try
to limit the definition of gun shows, to try to make certain we have
not increased the bureaucratic or the regulatory requirements such that
substantially more paperwork is involved. We are not attempting to keep

[[Page S5509]]

files open on people for whom there is no discredited information,
changes of that nature.
Mr. President, I hope the Senator from Utah and other Members of the
Senate will look at what we have and give us a chance to have a review
of it.
Mr. HATCH. Could I ask----
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair notes that under the
previous order, the Senator has the right to send his amendment to the
desk, and the Chair does not interpret the unanimous consent request to
be anything other than that. Does that clarify the situation?
Mr. HATCH. His amendment will go in order after the amendments that
were----
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct. The Chair does not
interpret the unanimous consent request to change the order of the
presentation of the amendments. It does interpret the request simply to
be to present the Senator's amendment at this time.
Mr. HATCH. The reason I was concerned is that we set these in order
by unanimous consent. I had to go to great lengths to get that done.
That is fine with me, if that is the understanding.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself
and Mr. Kerrey, proposes an amendment numbered 362.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The text of the amendment (No. 362) is printed in today's Record
under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank, again, the Senators from Utah and Vermont.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield? Could we have a
copy of the amendment. It is certainly nice to know what is going on.
That is what I am concerned about. If we are going to have amendments,
I at least want to know what they are, because I have gone to great
lengths to try to bring both sides together. I don't want to be blind-
sided by amendments at the last minute here. I would like to at least
know what is in this amendment. I think I have a pretty good idea, but
I would like to know.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Utah,
there is no intent to offer anything that hasn't been discussed or
anything that is a radical change that further limits the activities of
legitimate transactions at a gun show.
This amendment which I send up now has been joined in its origination
by Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska. He has signed on as a cosponsor.
His input has been truly valuable in crafting a workable proposal. He
comes from a largely rural State where guns are a significant part of
the State's culture. I really appreciate his strong support of my
amendment.
This amendment is offered in a bipartisan fashion to finally close
the gun show loophole. I think it is time for us to come to an
agreement on the gun show debate. It is very much in the minds of the
public. There was a poll just done, an ABC-Washington Post poll, which
said, in response to the question, Would you support or oppose a law
requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows? the
support level was 89 percent. So it does not leave a lot of room for
doubt.
Last week the Senate did cast two votes on different gun show
proposals. My amendment was defeated by a slim majority of 51 votes.
Obviously, we had Republican support. There were several absences,
primarily from the Democratic side, people were called away, some for
emergencies and illness. And after our amendment was defeated, a couple
of days later, the Hatch-Craig amendment was offered, and it passed by
only one vote, with five Senators not voting; there were a total of 95
votes cast. The result was 48-47. So we are obviously in the same
ballpark when it comes to thinking about what ought to happen. People
are very wary and upset by the fact that guns can be purchased without
any identification of the buyer. I call it ``buyers anonymous.'' The
public is in obvious distress about the way things have been done in
the past.

We are not going to interrupt the process whereby people who are not
felons and are of sound mind can buy a gun. We are not looking to
interrupt the process of the interested purchaser in buying a gun. But
we know that, just as with other transactions--vehicles, for instance--
there is a recognition of who is buying a vehicle. The same thing ought
to be true when we talk about guns.
So that is what brings us to the position we are in. I asked several
Senators who were leaning to my position to make any suggestions as to
how we could improve the amendment that I originally offered. This new
version that we have sent to the desk reflects the suggestions of both
Republicans and Democrats. First, the definition of ``gun show'' is
modified. I have actually taken language from the Hatch-Craig amendment
and included it. I point that out because I want to try to effect a
consensus, and that is why we have included this language from the
Hatch-Craig amendment in this revised version.
Now, my new language clarifies that we are only talking about events
where firearms are exhibited and offered for sale. We are not talking
about transactions between individuals or neighbors.
The second change that we have made would clarify what qualifies as a
firearm sale or transaction. When drafting my original amendment, in
order to prevent people from circumventing the background check by
completing a sale outside the gun show that actually began in the show,
but is completed, for instance, in the parking lot, we wanted to close
that loophole. So while the original amendment defined ``firearms
transaction'' fairly broadly to cover any transaction that started in a
gun show but was completed outside, we wanted to define that a little
more openly so some disagreement that occurred would perhaps have a
chance to note the changes that were made and would encourage them to
join in with us and pass this legislation. Some of my colleagues have
suggested the original language was too broad, so I have narrowed it to
ensure that legitimate gun sellers are not subject to penalties.
Additionally, during the course of the debate, some of my opponents
have suggested that my amendment would lead to a national registry of
gun owners. My amendment had nothing remotely resembling a national
registry. It simply required gun sales to go through an existing
national instant criminal background check system.
The problem is that some who oppose any kind of gun owner
identification as a new purchaser have always opposed the criminal
background check system. They argue that it is the first step toward a
national registry of firearm owners. They raise the specter of a
national registry because they want to scare people away from
reasonable, commonsense gun proposals.
Well, we are going to make certain that doesn't happen, because I
believe there is no basis for that argument. I have made a modification
to try to deal with that issue once and for all.

My amendment would change the Brady law to prevent the Federal
Government from keeping any records on qualified purchasers--in other
words, law-abiding citizens who are allowed to buy a gun--for more than
90 days. After 90 days, they have to scrap it if it has no value. The
person is not discredited in any way, has no criminal record, has no
problem with violence, has not been noted for violent behavior, has not
had any serious mental disorder, and we are satisfied to have those
records expunged after 90 days because there is no value to them, for
one thing, and, secondly, it seems to suggest that what we want to have
is, again, a registry on everybody. That is not the case.
Mr. President, law-abiding citizens don't have anything to worry
about. After 90 days, they can be absolutely sure that there will be no
Government record of their gun transactions whatsoever.
Finally, Senator Kerrey, Senator Schumer, Senator Boxer, Senator
Kennedy, and I worked to streamline the requirements for gun show
promoters. My revised amendment eliminates all unnecessary paperwork
and bureaucratic redtape that was purportedly contained in the original
Lautenberg amendment. The reason I say ``purportedly,'' is because that
is the way some

[[Page S5510]]

of our colleagues on the other side interpret it. Well, I want to make
sure that the record is clear and, thus, we were truly circumspect in
the way we asked for this data to be presented and for this amendment
to be offered.
I thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have helped me work
on these issues. This is a compromise from my original position, but my
mission is to accomplish the goal, and the goal very simply is to
satisfy the American people. It is not just curiosity; it is fear; it
is concern; it is their belief that anybody who buys a gun ought not to
be anonymous in that purchase, especially when we know that so many of
those transactions have occurred at gun shows. So that is the purpose
of this change. We need this amendment to close the gun show loopholes
once and for all.
Now, although the Hatch-Craig amendment may have generated a well-
intentioned effort to address the gun show loophole, it did create
additional problems. If we leave the language in this bill as it
presently is with the Hatch-Craig amendment, our gun laws are actually
going to be weaker. I know that is not the intention of the authors,
nor is it the desire of the American people.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a brief question?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am happy to yield for a question.
Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, thank you very much for giving the
Senate a chance to undo the damage that it did by not voting for the
Lautenberg amendment in the first place and then adopting some
amendments that have problems. I thank Senator Kerrey, in particular,
for joining with the Senator from New Jersey. I think this combination
is a very good one. It is a Senator from the East and a Senator from
Nebraska working together. I think it should pull us all together and
put this amendment over the top.
I wanted to ask my friend if he saw the op-ed piece in the Los
Angeles Times today written by Janet Reno?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I did see it. I was pleased to see it, as a matter of
fact.
Mrs. BOXER. I wanted to say to my friend, quoting very briefly--then
I will put this in the Record, and I will yield back--that Janet Reno,
our law enforcement officer, says, ``The Senate proposal doesn't do
enough to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.'' She said that the
``U.S. Senate has . . . the opportunity to make our streets and
communities safer by closing the loophole that lets felons, fugitives
and other prohibited people buy deadly weapons at gun shows.'' She
laments the action that the Senate took. She points out that even
though some on the other side said this amendment would close the gun
show loophole, they do not, and she basically then says that the bill
of Senator Lautenberg and Senator Kerrey does the job, and it follows
the recommendations of the Attorney General. She says there is still
time for the Senate to revisit this important issue and adopt
legislation that closes the gun show loophole once and for all.
I guess my final question to my friend is this: It is unusual to see
a Senator get up and offer once again an amendment that essentially he
offered before. Does my friend have hope that we will get enough votes
on the other side to have a better outcome and to plug this loophole?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have a strong feeling that we can pass this. It
would take many minds to change to make that happen. My colleagues on
the Republican side--I want to say I have had lots of private
conversations with them--also want to see the loophole closed. While
the Hatch-Craig amendment passed, it was the intent of those who
supported it, and I am sure it closed the loophole. However, it is
technically still open to loopholes through which lots of problems
could emerge.
As a consequence, I am hopeful that we will get strong support on
this amendment. The American public strongly support it--89 percent, I
point out. That is an enormous number.
What I am hoping is that finally the voices of the parents, those who
are concerned who have seen violence in their schools, who have seen
violence in their streets, are heard. If we can, without harm to those
who want to observe a legitimate request, continue to do that, I am
hopeful that we are going to be able to alert some of those who oppose
it to the fact that we have taken great pains to satisfy their needs in
the revised Lautenberg-Kerrey amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. Let's
close the gun show loophole once and for all.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lautenberg for his work
on this. He is committed to it very strongly. We just have different
views on a number of issues about guns. I wish it weren't so. But we do
have some differences.
With regard to the gun shows, I think a lot of progress has been made
since the Lautenberg bill has made some movement toward a more centrist
position, but I believe--and I know Senator Hatch shares the belief
deeply--that it still does not go far enough in being a reasonable
restriction on the historic event of gun shows in America. They
continue around the country. These are honest and law-abiding citizens,
overwhelmingly, who attend. People collect antique weapons and so
forth. We simply can't have these long delays before you can close a
transaction, because the show will be gone by then. This does not have
qualified immunity. It gives the ATF the ability to in effect impose a
new tax.
There are some things that we just are not able to accept.
Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I sure would be happy to yield.
Mr. KERREY. The Senator says this would give the ATF the ability to
levy a new tax. But under the modified proposal that we have, all we
are doing is saying that a gun show operator--several thousand of them
a year--will simply have to pay the same relatively small fee that all
licensed gun dealers do. Will the Senator agree that this is no
different from what any licensed gun dealer has to pay, that basically
what we are trying to do with this amendment is to say that if you have
a gun show where it is possible that guns will be sold, you need to be
licensed like everybody else and you need to pay a relatively small
fee?

I ask the Senator that question.
Second, would the Senator agree that we have substantially reduced
the amount of regulations that gun show operators would have to comply
with in this amendment, that we struck, I think, three or four of the
most difficult regulations, leaving only the requirement to register
like all licensed dealers have to do and pay this small fee? They have
to prove the identity of vendors when they check in at a gun show. That
is just to verify the vendor is who they claim to be. And they have to
post a sign indicating NISC background checks will be required.
Will the Senator agree that basically, first, there is a
substantially reduced amount of regulations that we have in the first
amendment, and, second, that all this tax the Senator has referenced,
which is a fee, is the same thing that other licensed gun dealers would
have to pay?
Mr. SESSIONS. I would certainly agree that the amendment as proposed
has listened to some of the concerns that made it unacceptable to begin
with, and it moved in a more moderate position. But I would still
suggest that this amendment is unacceptable for a number of different
reasons. One of them is an additional tax and fee that can be imposed
by the ATF on a transaction that previously was not taxed. It does not
provide the kind of qualified immunity that would induce people to do
the background checks and could, in fact, cause more black market sales
of guns.
The bill as written, the Hatch-Craig amendment, would be mandatorily
stronger than it was originally. And of course there were some
typographical errors in that first Hatch-Craig amendment,
unfortunately, that I know Senator Lautenberg enjoyed railing about for
a long time. But that was admitted and has been corrected.
I believe the managers of the Hatch-Craig amendment answered the
questions that Attorney General Reno raised in her comments that were
made before some of these changes were made.
But let me say this. I have been a prosecutor for 17 years, 15 as a
Federal prosecutor, and I prosecuted gun cases

[[Page S5511]]

aggressively; it was a high priority. Under this Project Triggerlock
proposal, I sent out a newsletter on guns called ``Triggerlock News,''
to the local sheriffs and chiefs of police explaining to them what the
Federal laws were.
Federal laws against guns are very strong. If you carry a gun during
a drug offense or a burglary, it is 5 years without parole consecutive
to any punishment you get on the underlying offense. In Federal court
you have the Speedy Trial Act. People have to be tried promptly. In
Federal court when you have a speedy trial and the individual is
already out on bail or parole, the judge usually will deny them bail.
So you could have a case where oftentimes these violent criminals are
denied bail, then they are tried within 60 days, and removed from the
community for 5 years and more. That was a high priority with me.
This administration under Attorney General Reno has allowed those
prosecutions. I was a U.S. attorney appointed by President Bush. And
President Clinton has now appointed all 93 U.S. attorneys around the
country. His U.S. attorneys have allowed gun prosecutions to decline 40
percent, from 7,000 to 3,800. And, more than that, they have gone
forward with this idea that the way to fight violent crime and keep
people from using guns illegally is to pass more laws. But they are not
enforcing the laws they pass.
For example, there were 6,000 incidents of firearms carried on school
grounds last year, according to the President. And within the last
several years this Congress, at the request of the President, passed a
law to make it a Federal crime to carry a firearm on school grounds.
Yet out of 6,000 incidents, fewer than 10 cases were prosecuted each of
those 2 years. It is a Federal crime in America to deliver a firearm to
a teenager under most circumstances.
That Federal crime, that Federal law, was passed several years ago at
the request of the President. Yet his Department of Justice, Attorney
General Janet Reno, prosecuted less than 10 of those in each of the
last 2 years. The assault weapons ban that was raised had less than 10
prosecutions.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. When I finish I will be glad to yield. This is a very
important question to me. We are trying to improve gun laws, and I am
prepared to strengthen substantially the situation involving gun shows.
I know Chairman Hatch is. I am filling in for him at this moment.
Is this just show? Is this all for debate, for TV and media and
politics? It seems to me that it is since after we pass the law, no one
ever gets prosecuted for it. Only ten cases out of 6,000 in America
last year were prosecuted. What does that say about what we are going
through here?
This bill has a number of changes in gun law. If a young person, a
teenager, is convicted as a juvenile for a crime of violence, he or she
will not be able to possess a firearm later when they become an adult.
Under current law that is not so. If a teenager commits a violent crime
at age 17, he is treated as a youthful offender or juvenile in juvenile
court, and when he becomes an adult he can still possess a firearm. But
an adult, if convicted at age 18 of a felony, cannot possess a gun.
We closed that loophole to make sure that we are focusing on people
who have a proven record of dangerous use of guns, rather than focusing
over and over again on innocent people who use firearms.
Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
Mr. SCHUMER. There is one difference we have. Yes, prosecute those
who violate the law, no question. But very simply, that doesn't say you
shouldn't prevent young people from getting guns before they violate
the law. The two people at Littleton, Klebold and Harris, had not
violated the law before--or were not detected.
It is of little consolation, it seems to me, to their parents and
their families and the whole community that had they not killed
themselves they would have been prosecuted. They should be prosecuted.
I am for laws as tough as my friend from Alabama is, but why shouldn't
we both do things to prevent young people and criminals from getting
guns before they commit crimes, as well as prosecute them after they
commit crimes? The two are not contradictory.
I always hear ``let's do more prosecution'' as a substitute for also
preventing criminals and young people from getting guns in the first
place so we won't have to prosecute them.
I ask my friend from Alabama, why is one in place of the other, as
opposed to doing both alongside one another?
Mr. SESSIONS. We are not against laws that rationally and effectively
prevent people from having weapons they shouldn't possess. We added in
this bill a prohibition on what I think was a loophole on assault
weapons, dealing with teenagers. Other violations of that kind are in
that bill, and that bill can provide more restrictions.
To me, it is a bizarre event that we are talking about a 3,000-
prosecution decline and about passing this arcane law dealing with gun
shows which may have some positive effect in reducing illegal gun
sales.
So we are working with Members on that. We have probably five or more
gun restriction provisions in this legislation. That is not going to
solve the fundamental problem if we are not going to have those laws in
force nor if we don't have a commitment from the Attorney General to do
that.
We heard from her own U.S. attorney in Richmond. They have adopted a
program very similar to Project Triggerlock under President Bush. She
called it Project Triggerlock with Steroids. They were aggressively
prosecuting individuals who utilized guns illegally, and the
President's own U.S. attorney attributed their aggressive prosecution
of current gun laws for a 40-percent reduction in murder and a 21-
percent reduction in violent crime.

I thought that was a stunning statistic. The President indicated he
wanted to see that done nationwide in a radio address. Two days before,
we had a hearing on it. He had a radio address on this very subject, in
effect, dealing with the massive decline in prosecutions that have
occurred under his administration, and said he was directing his U.S.
attorneys in the Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury,
of which ATF is a part, to increase their prosecutions.
Yet when we had Attorney General Reno testify just this month before
the Judiciary Committee, she said we are not making any big commitment
on that. She has a study going on and it has to be done individually
and we are just not going to do what they did in Richmond.
The clear impression was that not only was she not in accord with
what I believe the law of the United States requires, but that she
wasn't even really in accord with the wishes of the President of the
United States.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I notice that the cosponsor of the amendment is on the
floor. I wonder if he might be able to speak since he is the principal
cosponsor. Traditionally, we have let principal sponsors be allowed to
speak. The Senator is always courteous in all these occasions. Would
the Senator be willing to let him proceed?
Mr. SESSIONS. I am sorry that I took so much time. I defer to Senator
Kerry.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. The Senator didn't take too much time at all. It is
within your right to do it. I do have a markup with the Finance
Committee and I appreciate very much the Senator yielding to me so I
can make a couple of points about this amendment.
First of all, I do believe in the second amendment. I believe in the
right to bear arms. I think it has meaning. In the past, I measured
whether or not I will vote for changes in the law that restrict a
citizen's right to own a gun that reduces their right by imposing
waiting periods or increased licensing requirements by a simple test:
Will this reduce the number of people who are having their rights
violated by either being shot at, shot, or killed as a consequence of
people who acquire guns illegally, using those guns to commit a crime?
I voted for Brady. I voted for the so-called assault rifle ban,
though it didn't really ban rifles; it banned some

[[Page S5512]]

features. I feel confident when I vote for something that I think
works.
What we have here, and I think both sides are agreeing, is a
significant loophole in the law. There are thousands of gun shows every
year where not only can law-abiding citizens go, but as a consequence
of not having to be licensed--if you go to a Guns Unlimited in Omaha,
NE, you have to get not just background checks but you have to get
permits from the city of Omaha and the county sheriff. It takes a while
before you buy a gun.
If you set up a gun show in Douglas County, no licensing requirements
are necessary. You can buy any gun if you are a felon or mentally
unstable, no background checks are required at all.
Both sides are saying we recognize that loophole needs to be closed.
I noted last week, indeed, when the amendment was offered as a motion
by Senator Hatch and Senator Craig, the headline of the Omaha World
Herald said ``Republicans Close Gun Show Loophole.''
What I am trying to say with this amendment is two things. One, some
objections raised against the previous amendment talked about excessive
amounts of regulation. I found that to be a credible argument. Senator
Lautenberg was good enough to make significant changes in it, so all
that is left now is for a gun show operator to do the same thing that a
licensed dealer has to do, which is to register with ATF; they pay a
small fee just as any licensed operator has to do; the vendor has to
show proof of identification--that is, the person who is selling--that
verifies the vendor is who they claim to be. And then basically a sign
has to be posted notifying people, who are either vendors or there
buying, that NICS background checks are going to be done.
That is all that is required. It is a fairly simple imposition of
regulations that are the same for anybody who goes to a licensed gun
dealer. In addition, you have to comply with whatever the local law is,
the State law, or Federal law. That is all we are attempting to do.
I urge Senators who are considering whether or not to vote for this
amendment to look at the language of the law as it is currently
proposed in the Juvenile Justice Act, as modified, because the loophole
is still there. Perhaps the distinguished Senator from Utah can address
this, or somebody else who is a proponent of this. It says that special
licenses can be granted to people who are running gun shows. It does
not say that all gun show dealers have to register, as all licensed gun
dealers do. It says some gun show operators can be granted special
licenses and then they will not have to do background checks, they will
not have to determine whether or not a person who is walking in to buy
a handgun is a felon, whether or not they are mentally unbalanced,
whether or not they have previous crimes they have committed. None of
this is going to be required if this gun show operator can get a
special license.
You say maybe there are some special cases where a special license is
required. I urge Members to look at the language. The language says a
special license can be granted to a person who is engaged in the
business of dealing in firearms by, No. 1, buying or selling firearms
solely or primarily at gun shows.
That is going to exempt everybody. Anybody who is out there who says
I do not have a gun shop, I am not a licensed gun dealer, all I am
doing is operating at gun shows, is going to be able to apply for a
special license and be exempted.
You tell me how that is going to reduce the opportunity for a felon--
again, somebody who has committed crimes in the past with guns--to go
to an operator who is engaged in a business primarily operating at gun
shows and not be able to buy a dangerous weapon. The answer is, they
will still be able to buy. So if anybody believes we have closed this
loophole as a consequence of the Juvenile Justice Act as it is
currently amended, I urge you to look at the language. Anyone who is
buying or selling firearms solely or primarily at gun shows can be
given a special license and then will not have to do background checks.
Second, for anybody who is buying or selling firearms as part of a
gunsmith or firearm repair business or conduct of other activity, as in
this subsection, that seems not necessarily unreasonable. You can, I
suppose, craft this thing so special exemptions can be granted. But we
do not grant special exemptions for somebody who is out there as a
licensed gun dealer; they merely have to pay a small fee with the ATF
and agree to do background checks.

If you talk to the licensed gun dealers today--many of whom opposed
those background checks to begin with--they say they now basically are
comfortable with it; it is operating relatively well, and it gives them
increased comfort when they sell a handgun, knowing they are selling it
to somebody who is not a felon; either the local sheriff or local
police department signed off on it and said that person who has made
that purchase is somebody who is a law-abiding citizen, who is not a
felon, who does not have anything in his background that would indicate
the rest of the public is going to be at risk as a consequence of him
owning a handgun.
This amendment corrects precisely what many people objected to in
original language, and that is, it reduces the amount of regulation.
But it clearly says if you operate a gun show and you are selling guns,
you are going to have to do what every licensed dealer has to do. You
pay a fee to the ATF and you make certain you do background checks on
anybody who is buying. That closes the loophole.
But current language as described here in law does not do that.
Current language will still allow somebody who is primarily involved or
solely involved in operating gun shows--it will allow them to say we do
not have to get a license, we do not have to notify ATF, we don't have
to do background checks, we can just set up shop.
You could even have a vendor at a gun show, under the proposal as
this Juvenile Justice Act has been changed, a vendor who is also
illegal--no background checks, no analysis required of the vendor as
well.
There are other problems that can be identified. I am troubled as
well by the pawnshop exemption in the Juvenile Justice Act as
originally proposed, as is proposed today as well, because I think that
also unnecessarily puts the public at risk. That is what we are talking
about here.
All of us understand the Bill of Rights provides us with freedom but
also understand there are limits. I do not have unlimited first
amendment rights. If I libel or slander people, they can bring a case
against me. I do not have an unlimited second amendment right. My
second amendment right ends when I am a threat to somebody else.
This is not about restricting law-abiding citizens; it is about
trying to write the law so people who are intentionally committed to
violate the law have a more difficult time acquiring a weapon that will
enable them to do grave bodily harm to, if not to kill, another member
of our society. So I hope those who would genuinely want to close this
loophole, who are looking for a way to basically level the playing
field for somebody who is out there selling guns through gun shows and
licensed gun dealers in the local community, want to have the same
rules applying to both.
I hope my colleagues will consider what we will be doing if the
Juvenile Justice Act, as modified, is enacted, and what we will be
doing if the amendment offered by my friend from New Jersey, Senator
Lautenberg, and I is accepted. I hope this will be accepted. We have
significant numbers of Americans who are saying we do want to reduce
this loophole, this risk that we see to our lives--not just our lives
but our children's lives as well.
I think it is an altogether reasonable amendment. I was surprised
initially there was much controversy over it. I regret there is
controversy over it. I hope this amendment will be seen by those who
support the right to bear arms as a reasonable way to make certain that
all Americans, gun owners and non-gun-owners alike, not only have a
right to own a gun but have a right to the safety and security that all
of us want to have in our homes and in our neighborhoods.

The Senator from Alabama is gone. I will, in his absence, thank the
Senator from Utah for allowing me to speak so I can get back to the
finance meeting.

[[Page S5513]]

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I am going to yield to the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts. I just want to thank the Senator for getting here and
making the speech. I am glad we could accommodate him. I am going to
accommodate the Senator from Massachusetts now, and then hopefully I
will have something to say about this when he has finished.
I ask though, in the meantime, of the distinguished Senator from New
Jersey, is there a possibility of us agreeing to a time agreement on
this since the main proponents on this have spoken to it?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Utah,
we have several colleagues who want to speak.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator just consider that, and then maybe, while
the Senator from Massachusetts makes his remarks, chat with me and we
will see if we can come to agreement?
Mr. SCHUMER. If the Senator will yield, I have been waiting
patiently. I certainly want to speak on this. I probably will speak for
no more than 5 or 6 minutes.
Mr. HATCH. I think everybody is trying to get this bill over with at
this point. At least I hope so.
Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator will yield, I only need 2 minutes to make
my remarks.
Mr. HATCH. I am happy to defer remarks of mine until the
distinguished Senators from Massachusetts and New York and California
speak.
Mr. LEAHY. We know the three who are going to speak. During the time
they are speaking, I will run the traps on our side and try to get as
concise and accurate a time agreement as we can.
Mr. HATCH. I would like to have time agreements on the other
amendments, if we can. Will the Senator from Massachusetts give us some
indication of how long he may speak? I will have to be gone from the
floor to the Finance Committee for a vote and I would like to know, if
I may, how long the Senator will speak.
Mr. KENNEDY. Probably less than 15 minutes.
I would like to just be able to proceed.
Mr. HATCH. I understand the Senator from Massachusetts, 10 or 15
minutes for sure, and then the Senator from New York at least 5
minutes, and then the Senator from California.
Mr. KERREY. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. HATCH. I just want to have some idea. I would also like to have
the floor protected, and I know my colleague from Vermont will, while I
go to vote on this Finance Committee bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. There will be no consents entered while the Senator is
gone.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, during the debate and discussion here on
the floor of the Senate in regard to the prosecution of Federal crimes,
and also during the period of the Judiciary Committee, I think we ought
to really set the record straight. The record was set straight in the
Judiciary Committee by the Attorney General, but it has been
misrepresented here on the floor of the Senate by those who ask why are
we considering this amendment when we are not really prosecuting all
the gun laws on the books with regard to this and somehow suggesting
that those of us who are concerned about the easy access of weaponry to
children and criminal elements in our society really should pay more
attention to the prosecutions and doing something to make it more
difficult for children and for those who should not own the weapons to
own them.

The fact is, overall firearms prosecutions are up. Although the
number of Federal prosecutions for low-level offenders--persons serving
sentences of 3 years or less--is down, the number of higher-level
offenders--those serving sentences of 5 or more years--is up by nearly
30 percent in recent years.
At the same time, the total number of Federal and State prosecutions
is up sharply. About 25 percent more criminals are sent to prison for
State and Federal weapons offenses than in 1992, 20,000 to 25,000.
As the Attorney General pointed out, those that ought to be handled
at the local level are being handled by State prosecutors, and those
that are more serious are being handled by Federal prosecutors. That
record has been made in the Judiciary Committee. Maybe those who oppose
this kind of common sense gun legislation get some kind of thrill out
of misrepresenting the facts. The facts have been laid out by the
Attorney General before the Judiciary Committee and they are as I have
stated them, and as represented by the Justice Department.
By misrepresenting and saying total prosecutions by the Federal
Government are down, they are telling half the story. They are not
saying what is happening in State and local prosecutions. When you look
at State prosecutions, local prosecutions, and Federal prosecutions,
they are up, and up significantly. I think we ought to put that aside.
We are making worthwhile progress in the Senate on these gun control
issues. I join in paying tribute to my colleagues--Senator Lautenberg,
Senator Kerrey, Senator Schumer, Senator Boxer, Senator Durbin, and
others on both sides of the aisle--who have been advancing sensible and
responsible and what I call common sense recommendations. That is what
they are. They are common sense recommendations which, when put into
effect, are going to reduce the opportunity for easy access to weapons
which are too often used either accidentally or intentionally, perhaps
even in the increased incidents of suicide, or purposely by children or
young people in this country.
One of the most important measures, which is before us, is closing
the gun show loophole and closing it not just part way but all the way.
As was pointed out, last week the Senate failed twice to close that
flagrant loophole, and the inadequate amendments adopted were riddled
with so many loopholes of their own that the country was outraged by
the Senate's hypocrisy.
Now, on the third try, we have a chance to do the job right and close
the gun show loophole lock, stock, and barrel.
The gun show loophole is a hole below the waterline of our gun
control laws. It makes a mockery of responsible gun control. Yet, the
initial attempt by our Republican friends to close it was a travesty,
as has been pointed out.
It left the gun show loophole wide open. It created a pawnshop
loophole. It reduced background checks from 3 business days to 24
hours, including Sundays. It allowed the interstate sale of firearms,
potentially undermining State laws across the country. It prevented gun
tracing. And it created a sweeping immunity for gun sellers.
That action was the Senate at its irresponsible worst. It is time for
us to stop buckling to the gun industry and do what is right.
There is a real chance that the tragedy in Littleton would never have
happened without the easy access to guns that the gun show loophole
supplies.
One incredible statistic summarizes the magnitude of the problem we
face. In 1996, the most recent year for which information is available,
handguns were used to murder 9,390 people in the United States.

I might mention why it is difficult to get gun figures. We are using
1996 figures because the power of the NRA prohibits the Centers for
Disease Control from collecting that information. The only way they can
get the information is to look at the death certificates, and that is
enormously costly and takes an incredible amount of time. We are
prohibited--the country is prohibited--from actually having the most
recent and accurate information about gun deaths. If it is not a
problem, why does the National Rifle Association oppose us in having
that kind of information? And they have opposed it. They prohibit us
from getting that information, so we use the 1996 figures--9,390 people
in the United States.
In countries with tough gun control laws, the firearm homicide rate
is over 97 percent lower--97 percent. The number of handgun murders in
1996 were 2 in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in
Canada, and 213 in Germany. The case for strong gun control is
overwhelming. It saves lives. It

[[Page S5514]]

saves children. It saves whole communities.
Another shocking statistic makes the same point. Each day across
America, 13 more children die from gunshot wounds. That is the
equivalent of one Littleton each day, every day somewhere in America.
How can the Senate continue to play ostrich--head in the sand,
ignoring this overwhelming need? How many more Littletons do we need?
How many more wake-up calls will it take? When will we finally do what
it takes to keep children safe and stop sleepwalking through crisis
after crisis after crisis after crisis of gun violence?
If the Senate cannot even close the gun show loophole, we may well be
condemning communities across the country to a future Littleton tragedy
of their own.
It is wrong for the Senate to say that easy access to guns had
nothing to do with what happened at Columbine High School. It is wrong
for the Senate to whistle past the graveyard of Littleton. It is wrong
for the Senate to pretend to make minor adjustments in the gun laws
when gaping loopholes, like the gun show loophole, needs to be closed.
It is wrong for the Senate to give the National Rifle Association a
veto over the reforms that cry out to be taken in the wake of that
tragedy.
Littleton shocked the conscience of the country, and it finally seems
to have shocked the conscience of the Senate. It is clear that the
Senate should return to the gun show loophole and try again to close it
before more innocent lives are lost. And, like closing the gun show
loophole, there are other urgent steps that need to be taken.
Gun laws work. The facts speak for themselves. It is long past time
for the Senate to act to say enough is enough.
We know many examples of how tough gun laws, in combination with
other preventive measures, are having a direct impact in reducing
crime. In Massachusetts, we have some of the strongest gun laws in the
country. There are tough restrictions on carrying concealed weapons.
Local law enforcement has discretion in issuing the permits required by
law, and an individual must show a clear need.

The minimum age for sale of handguns across the board is 21.
There are increased penalties for felons who possess firearms.
Adults are liable if a child gets an improperly stored gun and uses
it to kill or injure himself or someone else.
Firearms must be stored with child safety locks.
We have a gun-free schools law.
We have enhanced standards for licensing of gun dealers.
A permit is required for private sales.
Saturday night specials are banned.
Lost or stolen firearms must be reported.
These are common sense requirements that save lives and impose no
problem whatsoever for legitimate hunters and sports persons.
Look at what has happened in terms of firearm homicides in Boston.
These figures are reflected across our Commonwealth. We have seen in
1993, 65; 62 in 1994; 64 in 1995; and then 39, 24, 26, 4. So far this
year, there has not been a single youth homicide in 128 schools. Tough
law enforcement, tough gun control, tough preventive action. That is
what we stand for. And the results are out there.
When we compare States with strong gun laws to those that have weak
gun laws, the differences are significant.
In 1996, for Massachusetts, the number of gun deaths for persons 19
years old or younger was 2 per 100,000.
In States that have the weakest gun laws, the numbers were
significantly higher: 5.9 gun deaths per 100,000 in Indiana; 9.2 gun
deaths per 100,000 in Mississippi; 5.1 gun deaths per 100,000 in Utah;
6.9 gun deaths per 100,000 in Idaho--2 gun deaths per 100,000 in
Massachusetts.
It is clear that strong gun laws help reduce gun violence, yet when
Democrats have proposed steps to take guns out of the hands of young
people--proposals that would save lives--the Senate has too often said
no.
The overwhelming majority of the American public wants to pass
reasonable gun control measures.
The American people clearly want these common sense laws on the
books, and they will just as clearly hold Congress accountable if we
fail to act or only pretend to act. The lesson of the Senate's past
failed attempts to close the gun show loophole is clear: The American
people will hold us accountable if we refuse to act. Nothing
concentrates the minds of Members of Congress like the knowledge that
they are about to be hung out to dry at the next election. So let's
concentrate on closing the gun show loophole and the other blatant
loopholes in the Nation's gun laws.
Just finally, I put in the Record that the ATF has examined the
number of crime guns traced during 1996 and 1997 to federally licensed
firearm dealers and to federally licensed pawnbrokers. While 13 percent
of the federally licensed dealers had one or more crime guns traced to
them, 35 percent of the federally licensed pawnbrokers had one or more
crime guns traced to them.
It seems that everything cries out for this particular amendment.
Let's take action and do what is right for the children in America, the
families in America, and to reduce violence in America.
I thank the Chair.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
I think, in fundamental principles, we are in accord on the efficacy.
The virtual elimination of guns in America, we cannot be together on. I
think the second amendment provides for that. But tough law
enforcement, as the Senator said, tough gun control--I would say, tough
gun prosecutions--and prevention do work.
The Boston project is a good model for America. One of my staff
members has been there to try to analyze how it is they have achieved
their successes. One of the reasons is they really enforce the law.
They go out and deal with these young gang members. If they have them
on probation, they monitor them. They talk to them. They say: You are
supposed to be at home at 7 o'clock at night. The probation officers do
not work from 9 to 5 in Boston. They will work from 1 until 10 o'clock
at night, and they will go out with police officers and actually verify
whether or not those young people are complying with the probation and
parole requirements placed on them. What is happening in America is our
court systems are so overwhelmed with juvenile crime that they have not
been able to even carry out their mandates.
If you give them probation, you need to make sure they honor and
comply with the terms of the probation. One possibility is to do drug
testing, so that they are not getting back on drugs which may be
driving them to crime. Another possibility is by going to school on
time; or if they have a job, showing up on time for it; if they have a
curfew placed on them, being home in their bed and not running the
streets at night.
These are the kinds of things in which Boston has invested. We asked:
Well, what happens when a young person in Boston does not do what they
say--for example, they have been caught in a burglary, have been
released on probation, and have been running around with a gang. The
judge says: Don't hang around with that gang anymore; be in at 7
o'clock; and be at school on time.
What happens if they do not go to school, and continue being a
truant? What happens if they do not come home at night when they are
supposed to or otherwise do not comply with the judge's order? In most
cities, unfortunately, nothing happens.
If you care about children, you will make sure something happens,
because we want to intervene early in their lives in order to direct
them on a new and healthy path. If we love these children, and really
care about them, we will not have this revolving-door justice that goes
on in America.
There was a night watchman killed by three young people in Alabama
just 3 years ago when I was the attorney general of Alabama. I called
the chief of police and asked the chief: Chief, what is the criminal
record on these three youngsters? They were out loose. One of them had
5 prior arrests, another one had 5 prior arrests, and one had 15 prior
arrests. That is the pattern in America.
Fox Butterfield, who has written on this subject numerous times for
the New York Times, did a study of the Chicago juvenile court system.
He

[[Page S5515]]

found they spend 5 minutes per case. These children are not being
confronted effectively by the court system when they are beginning to
get in trouble. We need to make that first brush with the law their
last. And it does include tough law enforcement. You have to be able to
discipline children who refuse to take advantage of the opportunities
that have been given them.
So we do have money in here that would allow for alternative schools
to be built, for drug treatment programs, for mental health and
counseling to occur, and for drug testing to find out whether young
people are on drugs. All of those funding programs, and many more, are
here to help strengthen juvenile justice.
I say to those who care about juvenile justice in America today, go
down and talk to your judges, your district attorneys, and your chiefs
of police. Ask them what is needed in their local juvenile court system
in order to make them better able to intervene and change the lives of
young people who are getting in trouble. You will find that those
judges will have a list of things they wish they could have. This bill
would fund virtually every one of them.

It would give matching funds to expand detention facilities. It would
give more money for drug treatment and other activities of this kind.
It would allow each community to make application for funds to fill the
missing blanks in their system so that they can have a comprehensive,
coordinated effort against crime.
I think we can make progress in that regard. I hope we can go on and
move this bill to final passage.
I see the Senator from New York would like to comment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SCHUMER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Presiding Officer for yielding and the
Senator from Alabama for his courtesy, as well as all the other
Senators.
I think, my colleagues, this afternoon will be a moment of reckoning
on the floor of this Senate. The vote that will occur on closing the
gun show loophole--really closing the gun show loophole--will be
historic, because it will really mark the difference as to whether we
are serious about moderate, carefully-thought-out measures on gun
control or whether we are going to continue the same game we have
played for the last 4 years.
What game is that? The game is a simple one. When the public gets
aroused, all too often because of a tragedy, then some of us try to
deal with the causes of that tragedy in a variety of different ways,
including reasonable restrictions preventing children, preventing
felons, from getting guns.
What in the past has occurred is, those who oppose us have said: Oh,
we agree with you. And they put in a substitute amendment which does
not close the loophole. They put in a substitute which makes it appear
as if the problem is being solved but does not solve it. Then,
inexorably, another tragedy occurs.

Today is the day we can stop that. We can stop it on a modest, simple
measure to close the gun show loophole, to really close it.
Now, let me go over, for my colleagues--and then I want to talk a
little bit about what the Senator from Alabama has said--the status of
the present legislation that has passed on the floor of the Senate and
what we are attempting to do with the Lautenberg amendment this
afternoon. Right now, after passage of the Hatch-Craig amendment, we
give with one hand and take away with another. There are, right now,
three types of people under the status of this legislation who can go
to gun shows and sell guns: One is federally licensed dealers. These
people, since 1968, whether they sell at gun shows or anywhere else,
have to keep records and, since 1993, with the passage of the Brady
law, have to do background checks. They always have and they will
continue to, unless we repeal that for some unforeseen circumstance.
The second group of people is those who are not licensed dealers.
Under present law, they could show up at gun shows and sell guns
without background checks, without recording processes. The Craig-Hatch
amendment correctly, as does the Lautenberg amendment, prevents that
from happening. A background check would have to be done, as it should.
There shouldn't be any loopholes.
The country came together, in 1993, passed the Brady law, and it has
worked. It has worked dramatically so. It has worked so that over
250,000 felons who walked into licensed dealers were refused guns.
Let me show you how it has worked in the last week. Since last
Wednesday, May 12, 1999, when the Senate missed the opportunity to
close the gun show loophole once and for all, the FBI, using the Brady
law's national instant check system, stopped 1,550 felons, fugitives,
stalkers and others who should not have guns from buying licensed guns.
In one week, 1,500 people were stopped. But in that same week, sure as
we are here, some of those very same people went to gun shows and
bought guns without a check. What kind of mindless system is there when
the dealer has to do the check but you can easily go to a gun show and
get around it.
Over this past weekend, there were a minimum of 31 gun shows. In
every one of those gun shows, children, felons, the mentally
incompetent, and stalkers could go buy guns without ever being
detected. Why?
Because of the public outcry about what occurred in Littleton, the
Senator from Utah and the Senator from Idaho said: Fine, if you are not
a licensed dealer, you also have to engage in a background check. That
was their second attempt. The first attempt, of course, made it
voluntary, which made no sense. But then, after the outcry and after
the Senator from Vermont and myself got up on the floor late that
evening and said, hey, this does not do what it is supposed to do, the
next day Senators from the other side, the Senator from Oregon and the
Senator from Arizona, got together and said: Wait a minute, we thought
we were really closing the gun show loophole. It wasn't. And so this
Craig-Hatch amendment evolved.
But the same darn thing occurred. So while closing the loophole for
nonlicensed dealers, they opened it up for a whole new category of
people called special licensees. What was the reason to have a special
licensee? Nobody has figured that out. But a special licensee can go to
a gun show, under the status of the Hatch-Craig amendment, and not do a
background check.

It is a shell game. On the one hand, we say we are not going to let
unlicensed dealers do this, and then we say, but if you become a
special licensee, you can.
The American people are just appalled at what this Senate is doing. A
simple measure like closing the gun show loophole, which can be done
easily and quickly and noncontroversially, can't pass. We have to do an
elaborate kabuki dance to make it seem as if we are doing something but
not do anything at all.
So this is a moment of reckoning for the Senate. Are we going to step
up to the plate and just close the gun show loophole once and for all
by passing the amendment this afternoon, or are we going to continue to
play games? I say to my colleagues, playing games won't do anymore.
There has been a sea change in the American people in the last few
weeks, because they are fed up.
After Brady, something happened. Before the Brady law passed, the gun
lobby would tell citizens throughout America, if Brady passes, the
hunting rifle your Uncle Willy gave you when you were 14 will be
confiscated and some people in big black boots will knock on your door
and take your guns. It was a message of fear.
Well, wherever I go in my great and diverse State, I ask people who
are gun owners, has the Brady law interfered with your right to bear
arms? And every one says no. So the fear tactics that the NRA has used,
the scare tactics, the big lie is losing velocity. That is why they
have lost members, half a million, in the last few years. That is why
they are unable to garner support.
Now, because of the tragedy at Littleton, there seems to be a whole
change in public opinion. They say, enough already. It is not just
among Democrats like myself who have been arguing for these changes for
over a decade. You have two candidates for the Republican nomination
for Senate who have had the courage to say the NRA is not always right.
In 1996, no candidate, much as they wanted to,

[[Page S5516]]

could dare say that. That is as good an indication of the change in
public opinion as any.
I respect Elizabeth Dole; I respect John McCain. They do not agree
with me about everything on guns. I do not expect them to. But on
logical, rational methods of closing loopholes of a law that has
received overwhelming public support and, more importantly, has been
successful, 1,500 felons last week stopped from getting guns by Brady,
how many of them went to gun shows to get around the law to buy those
same guns we don't know.
Not only did the Hatch-Craig amendment fail to deal with the gun show
loophole; it added three more loopholes.
Pawnshops: There has been a law that has worked. It said, you are a
person; you go bring your gun to a pawnshop; before you retrieve it,
let there be a background check--no harm to anybody. That has been in
place since, I believe, 1997; it may have been 1996. It has worked.
Hundreds of felons, I think it is 254, have been caught going to
pawnshops, and all of a sudden we are going to open it up. Again, give
with one hand take away with the other.
What are we saying? Do we want to have a loud speaker go up and down
the streets of our country saying: Hey, felons, hey, kids, here are
ways to get around the Brady law; you don't need a background check.
That is what we are doing here in the Senate.
Then we have opened another loophole. This one is totally befuddling.
The instant check system has worked.
It was proposed by people who didn't agree with me when we wrote the
Brady law. But we said let's see if this works.
Well, it has, in about three-quarters of the cases. So people can get
their check instantly and then go out of the gun shop with their gun.
No problem, as far as I am concerned. Some people think a cooling off
period is important, and it may be, but the main purpose we had in
passing Brady was the background check. If you can do it quicker, fine.
Still in about 25 percent of the cases the records are not in good
shape, where there is a glitch in the computer, where the instant check
doesn't work.
Right now, the FBI has 72 hours to check. Why in God's name did we
reduce that to 24 in the Hatch-Craig amendment? Why?
Let me tell you the particular relevance to gun shows, where it
applies. If you have a gun show on Saturday, you have 72 hours to
check. The FBI can go through their records on a Monday. If you have a
gun show on Saturday and you only have 24 hours to check, there is no
check at all. Under the Hatch-Craig proposal, you would have to give
that gun to someone even if they had committed 10 or 12 felonies. Why?
It did not hurt anybody; it only applied to 25 percent. Yet, we persist
in creating new loopholes.
One final thing. Our system has always been one that has recognized
States rights. We said gun dealers can only sell within their State.
Under Hatch-Craig, that principle goes. You can go across the country
to sell a gun at a gun show. Why?
So not only did we fail to completely close the gun show loophole in
Hatch-Craig, but we opened three new ones--in my judgment, three big
ones. Why? Well, I know why. We all know why. It is because of the
power of the gun lobby, because of the power of the NRA. There is no
other reason. I have been asking for a rational reason why, and you
hear ``too much bureaucracy,'' or something like that.
Well, in this juvenile justice bill, we are creating a lot more
bureaucracy to put more kids in prison who commit serious crimes. I
agree with that. I am a pretty tough-on-crime guy. But we don't get up
on this side and say: too much bureaucracy. We don't hear colleagues on
the other side say: too much bureaucracy. That is a false argument if
there ever was one.
People want bureaucracy when they want Government to do something. If
you want to put kids or felons away, it is more bureaucracy, more
prosecutors. I am for it, but it is more bureaucracy. More laws? I am
for it, but it is more bureaucracy. But when it comes to a law that
would stop the kids from getting guns, that would stop the felons from
getting guns, oh, no, no, then it is too much bureaucracy and we can't
have it. I have never understood the distinction.
So the bottom line is a simple one. In the legislation we passed by
one mere vote last week, we did not close the gun show loophole. We
closed one little loophole and opened up another one to take its place.
It is as wide open as it was before the legislation, and anyone, as my
colleague from Nebraska has pointed out, could become a special
licensee; and then we created three more loopholes.
Mr. President, we would have been better off without Hatch-Craig than
we would have been with it. It was easier to stop children and felons
from getting guns before Hatch-Craig than it is now, if it were to
become law. So who are we kidding?
Then one final argument to my colleagues, to my friends on the other
side--the Senator from Alabama is not here, but he will be even more
ably represented by the Senator from Utah. That chart has been up here
for a long time. I think we have heard more talk about that chart than
about a lot of the legislation we are talking about. But that is fine.
That is a legitimate argument, in my judgment. But I ask my friends--
they say there is not enough prosecution of firearms violations. I
agree with them. I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania, in the
budget last month, we put in a proposal to add $50 million to do what
has been done in Richmond, Philadelphia, and in Rochester, NY, to do
better prosecutions of those who violate Federal firearms laws.
As you know, most of the firearms laws are State. It has never been a
Federal responsibility. Folks on the other side want to make it one,
and that is fine with me. I am not one who says the Federal Government
should not be involved in crime fighting. In fact, over my 10 years, I
have pushed the Federal Government to be involved in crime fighting.
But, again, why does prosecuting those who violate our firearms laws
contradict closing the gun show loophole? It doesn't. Both should be
done. They should go hand in hand.
As I mentioned before, in the debate we had with the Senator from
Idaho a while back, there are grieving families in Littleton. There may
be prosecutions of some who gave guns to Mr. Klebold and Mr. Harris,
who created the tragedy. I am sure those prosecutions don't make the
parents of the 13 dead children feel any better. I saw one of them
begging us on television at the rally in Denver last week. They would
beg us to do both--to prosecute those who violate firearms laws, but at
the same time prevent children like young Harris and Klebold from
getting guns to begin with.
A prosecution occurs after the crime. It sometimes deters crime
because people don't want to be prosecuted. I have been tough on
crime--for mandatory minimum sentences, and for incarceration--my whole
career. But, in God's name, don't use that which is a worthy cause as
an excuse, as a substitute for simple, moderate things such as closing
the gun show loophole, closing the pawnshop loophole and allowing the
FBI system to check when the instant check system doesn't work.
In conclusion, I know my friends from Nebraska and Utah wish to
speak. This afternoon will be a moment of reckoning on this floor. It
will determine, very simply, whether we are going to persist, as we
have in the last few years, about coming up with solutions that don't
do the job--that are almost designed not to do the job--or whether we
can actually do some real good in a simple measure, sponsored by the
Senators from New Jersey and Nebraska, and close the gun show loophole.
The yeas and nays this afternoon will determine which side each Senator
is on. The eyes of America will be upon this floor this afternoon. Let
us pray we do the right thing.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been working very closely with the
Democratic leadership to try to get this matter to a conclusion. As I
understand it, including this gun amendment, there are two others, and
possibly a third besides this amendment. We are going to try to finish
this bill.
Now, my personal impression is that they have gone too far. They are
pushing this way too far. As the manager of this bill, I have tried to
bring both sides together, and we have made a real effort to do so. I
am starting to question whether or not we are getting a good-faith
effort on the other side.

[[Page S5517]]

Now, this is the second time we have debated the Lautenberg
amendment--the second time. To be honest with you, there is so much
more in this bill than just the gun matters. I have helped to
effectuate compromise on the gun matters, which I believe has been to
the satisfaction of most all Democrats and most all Republicans--not
all on either side. Here is where we are. We have fought back
amendments on one side. I was told by colleagues on the other side of
the aisle they had cut their list of amendments to eight and that
three, maybe four, including this amendment, would be on gun control.
Today, they tell us that maybe they can agree to limit amendments. I
have chatted with one of the top leaders on the Democrat side. He said
they have agreed that we are going to get this done. But some have said
maybe they can agree to limit amendments, but only after a vote on the
Lautenberg amendment.
You see, they want to vote on Lautenberg, not just twice, but three,
four, five--who knows how many times. Who is holding up this bill? I
have to tell you, it isn't us. We will vote on Lautenberg, but I want
to be sure that we have a unanimous consent agreement to vote on final
passage.
I would like to vote on Lautenberg. But that is going to have to be
the good-faith deal, because that is what I have represented to the
other side. I think it is time to put this matter to rest. I think we
can push these gun things only so far, especially when you have seen
the good-faith effort I have made, and others on our side, to try to
resolve these problems. The gun issue is an evolutionary issue; there
is no question about it. We are trying to find ways of satisfying the
vast majority of Senators. So far, we have been able to do that except
with regard to the Lautenberg amendment. There is a very good reason
why we will not vote for the Lautenberg amendment, or why we are going
to vote for a tabling motion.
Much has been said about gun shows and how best to limit criminal
access to guns at these shows. Not much has been said about the black
market push that is going to happen if we get too bureaucratic about
it, where people won't go to gun shows, where they will just sell them
on the black market. That is the last thing on Earth I want, but that
is what is going to happen.
I have to tell you, it is time to cut the rug. It is rug-cutting
time. We are giving them the Lautenberg vote not because we think it is
a worthy thing to do but because they are insisting on it. But there is
a time when good faith says we move the bill. If Lautenberg is passed,
so be it. If it does not pass, then so be it.
I have been saying for a long time that there have been numerous
delays in debate on this matter. I have had some indications that there
are going to be some more delays. We will have to see.
I am going to encourage my friends on the other side to limit the
time. Let's get time agreement. Let's move ahead. Let's save the time
of everybody in the Senate, and let's get a bill that will do something
about juvenile justice in this country and about solving some of these
serious problems we have.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HATCH. Yes; I am happy to yield to my friend from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I have been here this morning, and, of course, the manager
of the bill has been here all morning.
I want to say to everyone within the sound of my voice that nothing
has changed on this side of the aisle since yesterday. We have agreed
to cut down our amendments from about 90 to a handful of amendments. We
have indicated that as far as gun amendments, we had a finite number of
those we were going to offer. I don't know what has gone on in the
debate here this morning. I have been trying to follow it as closely as
possible. But my friend from Utah should realize that nothing has
changed since yesterday. We want to have a bill. We have worked hard to
cut down the number of amendments. My friend, the manager of the bill,
has worked all weekend with the staff to pare down these amendments. In
short, we want a bill to go forward. We want to finally resolve
something that the American people can be proud of. We have agreed not
only on the number of amendments but we have been very fair on the time
allocation.
On this amendment today, there has been a good debate. We haven't
taken an inordinate amount of time.
In short, I say to my friend, who was kind enough to yield to me,
that nothing has changed since yesterday. We feel very strongly about
our positions. We are happy to defend them, articulate, and advocate
them this morning.
Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, I will take back the floor. The
majority leader has asked me to get a time agreement when we finally
vote. I think we are there. If you are down to eight, or actually seven
after this one, I can get ours cut down once we know where we are, and
then we can have final passage, and hopefully before the end of the
day. I think we can do it.
Mr. REID. I would say to my friend from Utah, we have been waiting
for the managers' amendment to be accepted, agreed upon, and at that
time we will be in a position to lay out what our amendments are. We
will have time agreements on them.
As far as final passage, we know that there can be games played with
that unless we set a time certain for final passage. We want a bill
passed. We want it to pass in a very short period of time. Nothing has
changed since yesterday on this side of the aisle. We want to move
forward in an expeditious manner.
Mr. HATCH. I appreciate my colleague's remarks. I believe him and
have great respect for him, as he knows.
Let me just say this: The managers' amendment is basically agreed to
between the two managers. It is a matter of making the final drafting
changes, as I understand it. We intend to have that done and filed and
approved, hopefully, and probably this afternoon, it seems to me. We
will try to do that. But let's move this ahead.
Let me just finish my remarks on this, because I forgot that the
distinguished Senator from California needs a chance to make her
remarks. She said she would be 2 or 3 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Yes. Let me just say that I want to defer to Senator
Kerrey because he has such time problems. I have cleared my deck this
morning so I can be here all day. I decided it would be fair to allow
the Senator from Nebraska to proceed.
Mr. HATCH. I would like to make remarks in rebuttal, if I may,
because Senator Kerrey has already spoken. But if he needs to speak, I
will be happy to--if the Senator from California is going to speak for
2 or 3 minutes, I will be happy to yield.
Mrs. BOXER. I will yield, and wait until the Senator from Utah
finishes his remarks, and see where we are at that point.
Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator very much.
I have been saying for a long time that how the Congress will deal
with firearms violence is an evolving process. We began this debate
with fairly ardent positions on both sides.
After several days of debate last week, Republicans took a step to
require background checks at gun shows without substantial cost and
regulatory burdens, and we passed the so-called bill on that, the
Hatch-Craig bill. There was some gloating on the other side of the
aisle, if I didn't misconstrue it. There were some Senators quoted
talking about eating crow. These comments were not constructive at all.
They made my job much more difficult on our side. We are here to do
what is best for our children and to uphold the Constitution of the
United States, including the second amendment. We are not here to score
debating points, it seems to me. That type of comment, it seems to me,
is very unconstructive and not conducive to getting a bill that will
help our children and our country as a whole.
I would note, however, that the evolution of this matter continues.
This time, the supporters of the Lautenberg amendment are making
changes to their proposal to bring it closer to our plan that we passed
in the Hatch-Craig amendment. My sense and hope is that our efforts
will continue to evolve and we will be able to find common ground. That
to me would be a great, great accomplishment. But I haven't seen that
yet. We are evolving towards that.
I appreciate that my colleagues have recognized that the concerns we
raised were legitimate and they have taken some steps in this current
amendment to address the concerns. But I certainly

[[Page S5518]]

don't think they have gone far enough. I think they have gone too far
in making it look like the only matter to consider on this whole bill
happens to be guns.
Let's review how we got here. Under current law, non-licensed
individuals can sell firearms at a gun show without obtaining a
background check. This was the loophole that the President, the
Lautenberg amendment sponsors, and others said they were concerned
about. Yet, the bill as amended last week now requires background
checks for these transactions at gun shows.
Under current law, persons who only want to sell firearms at a gun
show are not licensed at all and perform no background checks. Our bill
as amended requires sellers to obtain a federal license to sell
firearms at a gun show. Because these special licensees, or temporary
dealers, are now included in the Gun Control Act, they are subject to
the background check requirements.
Further, our bill as amended provides civil liability protection to
those sellers who complied with the background check requirements.
Our proposal also prevents the Federal Government from taxing
background check transactions. The liability protection and tax relief
were powerful incentives for persons to have background checks.
That is why we put them in the Hatch-Craig amendment.
Last week, when we first debated the Lautenberg amendment, we pointed
out several problems.
First, the Lautenberg amendment's definition of a gun show was, at
best, unfocused.
If two neighbors got together with 25 guns each and sold a gun, they
would have been surprised to find that they had created a gun show and
were criminals under the Lautenberg amendment because they did not
conduct a background check or get a permit from the ATF.
We understand that the revised Lautenberg amendment now modifies the
definition of ``gun show'' to conform with what is already in the bill,
what we put in the Hatch-Craig amendment. It isn't totally that way
because they still have their 50-person standard, and so forth, but
basically they have come our way on it.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle complain that the bill's
current definition of ``gun show'' would allow ``hundreds of guns'' to
be sold at flea markets that do not fall under the 10 or more exhibitor
or 20 percent exhibitor rule. Of course, if a very few sellers were
selling hundreds of firearms, they would in all likelihood be engaged
in the business--and that is an important phrase--in the business of
selling firearms without a license. Under current law, such persons are
subject to fines, prison sentences or both.
Secondly, the Lautenberg amendment allowed the imposition of taxes
and fees on background checks that constitute a substantial cost for
complying with the law. Now what does that do? That is going to force
people to not go to gun shows where they can legitimately sell them
with background checks now that we require it in this bill, and to go
off and sell them on the black market.
What we are trying to do and what it seems to me will be the
inevitable result of some of the approaches under the Lautenberg
amendment, will be that we will create a huge black market in guns,
which is exactly the opposite of what we want to accomplish. I am sure
that the distinguished Senator from New Jersey does not want to
accomplish that, nor anybody else on this floor, but think it through.
It doesn't take many brains to realize that is what will happen.
We understand the revised Lautenberg amendment does not ``impose''
taxes on sellers and purchasers. However, the tax to which we objected
is paid by the person or entity that conducts the background check, not
to a nonlicensed buyer or seller. Of course, the licensee, special
licensee or special registrants now in this bill will pass this fee on
to the buyer or seller who will have to pay it. Of course, they will
pass it on. They will not just do this out of the goodness of their
heart. As they do that, people will go into the black market to sell
their guns, the exact opposite of what the distinguished Senator from
New Jersey and I and others, who are really trying to do something
constructive in this area, want to occur.
In short, notwithstanding its appearance, the revised Lautenberg
amendment allows for an ATF taxing authority loophole. The revised
amendment seemingly concludes that we were right, but does not correct
the problem. So on this provision we have a major concern.
Third, the Lautenberg amendment required gun show organizers to
obtain advanced permission from the ATF before holding a gun show. It
doesn't take many brains to realize that is something nobody wants to
agree with who believes that gun shows are a time-honored right in this
society under the second amendment.
We understand that the revised Lautenberg amendment currently before
the Senate that will be at the end of this amendment chain to be voted
upon eliminates the advance permission requirement. However, gun show
organizers are still required to keep extensive records, so there is a
substantial burden that would be required, overregulatory burden.

Fourth, the Lautenberg amendment imposed extensive recordkeeping
requirements for sales between nonlicensed individuals, thus driving up
the cost of the background check and intruding into the privacy of law-
abiding citizens.
That is just typical of what we have to face around here in the zeal
to score points on guns. We understand that the revised Lautenberg
amendment may require less records to be kept and may require the
Federal Government to destroy records held by the instant check
operator, yet dealers must still keep all records on the buyer.
Further, the implication that requiring records to be destroyed after
90 days conveys a new benefit is not accurate. 18 U.S.C. section
922(t)(2)(C) already requires the instant check operator to destroy
records of checks that were approved, and the FBI currently destroys
the records after 90 days. There is no new benefit in this system
compared to current law. So the Lautenberg amendment does not improve
current law at all, it just obscures it.
Some have complained that the Republican plan promotes unaccountable
interstate gun peddling by gun dealers. Under current law, a dealer
from one State can go to a gun show in another State and solicit sales.
He must return home to his licensed premises, however, to ship the
firearm. And the shipment must be to a licensed dealer. That is current
law.
Our amendment allows one federally licensed firearms dealer to
deliver the firearm to another federally licensed firearms dealer who
is located out of State. He still cannot deliver a firearm to a
nonlicensed individual, but only to a licensed dealer. Thus, the
purchasing dealer will have to log the firearm into his inventory, will
be subject to inspection by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
to find that firearm, and will have to conduct a background check to
sell a firearm to a nonlicensed dealer. This is about the most
regulated sale of a firearm for which the Federal law provides.
Next, some have stated that the current bill's provision for granting
civil liability protection to people who comply with the background
check requirement is not prudent. They say that the revised Lautenberg
amendment provides no immunity for people who transfer guns to felons
and others who intend to use the guns to commit violent crimes or
felonies.
The bill, as amended, recognizes that persons who act properly with
firearms--this is the amendment by Hatch-Craig--including firearms
transactions, should not be subject to suit. Indeed, only yesterday,
the Senate recognized the value of providing limited immunities to
persons who act properly with firearms, by bestowing qualified immunity
on persons who properly use child safety laws. This is a key incentive
in the Kohl-Hatch-Chafee child safety lock amendment. The same reasons
for affording civil liability protection apply here. Keep in mind we
have evolved towards having something that brings both sides together.
The current Lautenberg amendment split both sides apart and will
result, in my opinion, in more black market sales in this country, to
the detriment of the country.
Further, some complain that our bill dismisses certain suits. These
are only those suits at which nonlicensed individuals have voluntarily
sold a firearm

[[Page S5519]]

through a licensed dealer who conducted a background check. If persons
are now voluntarily having background checks performed at gun shows,
they should not be penalized for doing so. That is something we want to
encourage. We want to give incentives for that.

I also note that the bill provides no immunities for criminal sales
of firearms. If a seller knowingly transfers a firearm to a buyer who
will use that firearm to commit a crime of violence or a drug
trafficking crime, he is subject to severe criminal penalties. Further,
if the seller is convicted of that offense, the bill expressly provides
that he is not entitled to civil immunities. Thus, he could be sued for
compensatory and punitive damages.
Some have complained that the bill, as amended, does not impose stiff
enough penalties on special licensees and special registrants for the
failure to obtain a background check. However, current law suspends the
license and imposes a fine on dealers who do not conduct a background
check. Our bill maintains the current penalties for background check
failures and imposes tough mandatory minimums for the knowing transfer
of a firearm to a juvenile who will use that firearm in a crime of
violence. That is a major change. And we put it in our bill. In fact, a
lot of these things that were requested by the President we have in the
bill. We had them in there before he requested them. I suspect he might
have had somebody look at the bill.
Further, through our aggressive firearms prosecution program, the
CUFF Program, and the prosecution reporting requirement, we ensure that
some of these violations actually will be prosecuted by the Attorney
General--something that hasn't been undertaken in earnest over the last
6 years.
Remember, of the thousands of possible cases, the Attorney General
only prosecuted one Brady case, one Brady background check violation,
from 1996 through 1998. Of the thousands they claim, 225,000 turned
back felons, one prosecution.
The Lautenberg amendment not only fails to include the tough
mandatory minimums found in the Republican plan, it acquiesces in the
Attorney General's almost complete failure to prosecute Brady
violations. This makes no sense. If we in Congress pass criminal
statutes, it is the duty of the Attorney General to enforce those laws.
Our bill recognizes that we have a problem at the Department of Justice
and our bill does something about it. Some have also stated that our
bill has the potential for invading the privacy of gun owners by
nonspecial registrants and special licensees to conduct background
checks. This argument goes that by requiring the Instant Check operator
to destroy records of an approved background check immediately, special
licensees and special registrants will be able to conduct background
checks on anyone, even non-gun buyers, and there will be no audit trail
to catch them.

Of course, special licensees and special registrants will have to
undergo a background check, a field examination, and an interview just
to obtain their license or registration. And they must keep records of
the persons for whom they used the Instant Check system. Thus, the ATF
can take these records, contact the persons listed, and determine if
they attempted to purchase a gun using the services of the special
licensee or the special registrant. If they did not, the special
licensee or the special registrant will be held accountable, just as
dealers are now.
Further, gun owners would much rather entrust their privacy interests
to special licensees and special registrants than to the Federal
Government. The argument that more record keeping on lawful gun
ownership by the Federal Government would protect privacy better than
less record keeping by the Federal Government carries little weight.
Mr. President, all of these concerns are less than compelling. The
plain fact of the matter is that the revised Lautenberg amendment,
though improved to look more like the Republican proposal, is still not
as good as the current bill as amended.
The revised Lautenberg amendment still fails to provide qualified
immunity to persons who obey the law and act appropriately with
firearms, even after the Senate voted only yesterday to provide
qualified immunity when parents properly use child safety devices or
child trigger locks.
The revised Lautenberg amendment still fails to provide tax relief to
licensees and others who perform background checks. And the revised
Lautenberg amendment still fails to relieve gun show operators or
organizers of substantial new recordkeeping requirements.

Some are complaining that the 24-hour requirement for instant check
is not good enough. They would require 3 days. But gun shows only last
3 days. If we do not have a 24-hour instant check requirement, the gun
show is going to be over. The ATF has the technology and the funding to
get the job done in 24 hours, and it should. We should not force people
into a black market where there are no licenses, no records, and no
background checks. We do not need to do that.
Further, we even offered to make the background check requirement for
special licensees express. But my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle rejected this, or objected to my modification of my own
amendment, one of the few times in my 23 years where a Senator was
refused the right to modify his own amendment to please the other
side--even though it was not necessary, in my view, and I think in the
view of any reasonable person who looks at it.
I want to make sure that persons who sell a substantial number of
guns come inside the gun show and get a Federal license. These special
licensees must submit to a background check and an ATF interview, they
must comply with the Gun Control Act, and they must conduct background
checks--something that has evolved into something that both sides ought
to be willing to agree to.
Mr. President, there is one firearm-related provision on which I hope
we can reach bipartisan agreement. And that is the treatment of pawn
shops, gunsmiths and repair shops that have traditionally been exempt
from the requirement to conduct background checks when they simply
return a firearm to its owner. Prior to the 1993 Brady law, States
required pawn shops to report the pawn of a firearm to State or local
law enforcement agencies. Thus, there was already a state law check on
the firearm. The Brady law, however, when it passed inadvertently
required a Federal background check on returned firearms in addition to
the state check. The pawn shops raised concerns because State law
already required them to undergo a background check and because waiting
on a background check to be returned before returning a firearm to its
rightful owner affected their business.
Because these were real concerns, many in Congress supported an
exemption to the Brady law which exempted pawn shops, gunsmiths, and
repair shops from the Federal background check. It passed the Congress
as part of the 1994 crime bill. Many of the people attacking the Hatch-
Craig amendment's so-called pawn shop loophole voted to do the same
thing in 1994 when the crime bill passed. Frankly, if what we included
in the Hatch-Craig amendment is a loophole, it was a loophole when
Senator Lautenberg voted for the crime bill in 1994 and when President
Clinton signed it into law.
Indeed, after the Brady law passed, Senator Schumer even wrote a
letter to the Treasury Department asking them to draft regulations to
exempt pawn shops from the Federal background check requirement. To be
fair, however, I should note that then-Congressman Schumer did vote
against the amendment to the 1994 crime bill that provided the
statutory exemption for pawn shops, but he still took a position in his
1994 letter to the Treasury Department which is consistent with our
amendment.
If the pawn shop exemption from a Federal background check is a
loophole now, it was a loophole in 1994 when Senator Schumer asked the
Treasury Department to draft it.
The Craig amendment that we passed last Wednesday simply restored the
exemption for pawn shops that had been part of the Brady law for 4
years. Thus, this was not a major change in law, but a change back to
how the Brady law read from 1994 to November 1998 when the exemption
lapsed as the Instant Check system became effective.
However, I know that the good Senator from New York has legitimate

[[Page S5520]]

concerns and wants to address those concerns. Neither of us want a
person to commit a crime and then get a firearm. However, I believe
neither of us want to overburden legitimate business transactions.
As I have stated repeatedly--it is my goal to find common ground on
these issues. Wherever possible, I want to do what's best for our
children and the public in a manner which is consistent with our oath
as Senator to uphold the Constitution. Frankly, I viewed this provision
as a technical matter--one which should not be politicized.
I just have a minute more to go, maybe a minute and a half, because I
know there is limited time here.
Let me just sum it up.
Thus, the revised Lautenberg amendment is a small step in the right
direction. And I sincerely appreciate that step. However, in my view,
it fails to go far enough, and it may create more problems than
currently exist.
The current bill as amended strikes the appropriate balance between
the privacy interests of law abiding citizens and the public interest
in preventing criminals from obtaining guns. The powerful incentives
included in our plan will ensure that persons comply with the mandatory
background check requirement on all sales at gun shows. The Republican
plan also gives law abiding gun owners the peace of mind that they have
not inadvertently transferred a firearm to a felon, and requires the
Attorney General to begin prosecuting the criminals who violate the
existing gun control laws, something that has not been done, now, for a
number of years, maybe the whole time of this administration--since the
Brady bill.

Accordingly, when the time arrives, I will move to table the revised
Lautenberg amendment in order to allow the bill as currently amended to
stand, because I think it will do a better job of accomplishing what
everybody here seems to want, everything the current Lautenberg
amendment will do.
I am sorry this took so long. I apologize to my colleagues, but it
was important to make these points.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?
Mr. KERREY. Yes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I never knew how much control I had over
the schedule of debate, other than to find any time I step off the
floor for a few minutes I can almost be guaranteed my friend from Utah
will have a criticism of the way we are handling things over here.
So, while we are both on the floor, I tell him we have pared back to
a dozen or fewer from the 90 possible amendments entered in the consent
agreement last Friday. We have made significant progress. But also,
because a number of Senators have pulled down amendments over here,
amendments on our side, we have done it notwithstanding what we had to
put up with when the Senator from New York and I were virtually
ridiculed when we pointed out the flaws in the original Craig-Hatch gun
legislation, something that took 2 days of voting and revoting as they
drafted and redrafted and redrafted it, as the flaws became evident.
They do not want to have up-or-down votes; they want to table
everything. We have not done that on one the other side came up with
yesterday that would have walked all over our State legislatures. That
was voted down.
The fact of the matter is, we are going to have a series of votes
this afternoon. If Senators will work at it, we can finish this bill
today. But I say, as I said before, it is the Senators who should set
the schedule, it is the Senators who should set the debate, and not the
gun lobbies.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the Senator from Utah said we are trying
to make this amendment look like the Republican amendment. I may want
to look like the Senator from Utah in many other ways, but we did not
try to make this amendment resemble in two very key ways the amendment
that was adopted last week.
I appreciate very much the concern about the regulation. In fact, as
I said, the Senator from New Jersey made a number of changes to reduce
the regulatory requirements. All we have left are the same regulatory
requirements that all licensed gun dealers have to go through.
We will see about 3.5 million handguns sold this year through
licensed dealers and 2 million in nonlicensed environments. What we are
trying to do, for those of us who believe that background checks--there
are some who do not. There are some who voted against the Brady bill
and did not like the background checks. That is fine, but I think they
have worked. They have reduced in America the number of felons who have
handguns. They have reduced the number of people who are dangerous with
guns from having handguns. It is generally accepted that the evidence
shows Brady has worked and it has made America safer as a consequence.
What we have, though, is a regulatory differential. All of us can
understand that. If one group of people are regulated one way and
another group of people are regulated another way, it can produce some
significant distortions in people's behavior.
Right now, it is easier to go to the 2,000 to 3,000 gun shows every
year and buy a handgun or another gun than it is from a licensed
dealer. Why? Because you do not have to go through a background check.
You do not have to do the same things that you do through a licensed
dealer. I do not know if the concern about the black market was raised
when Brady was passed. Perhaps it was. We did not create a black market
with Brady. We still have people who are either felons or who should
not have handguns, who are mentally unstable, or have something in
their background that makes them, in the judgment of law enforcement,
dangerous to own a gun.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KERREY. I have 9 minutes left.
Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield on that point, it is not Brady
we are talking about. It is gun shows we are trying to resolve, and if
we do not resolve it right, you are going to create a black market.
Mr. KERREY. But the Senator said his fear with the regulation is that
we are going to have black markets. All we do--and I urge colleagues,
especially the public to listen--is we say to a gun show operator, like
every other licensed dealer, a gun show promoter has to register with
ATF and pay a small fee.
We are not passing on the cost of the background check. Brady does
not allow that. I voted against that. It does not allow us to pass on
the cost of the background check. All it says to the gun show operator
is you have to do the same thing a licensed gun dealer has to do. You
have to register with ATF and pay a small fee.
Secondly, the gun show vendor has to show proof of identification
when they check in at the gun show to verify they are who they claim to
be. And the third requirement, hardly a prohibitive burden, in my
judgment, is they have to notify people at the show that there are
going to be background checks. You can do that with a sign.
Neither one of these three things is what I call a burdensome
regulation, for gosh sakes. They are what licensed dealers have to do,
exactly what licensed dealers have to do.
Again, last week when the Craig-Hatch amendment was adopted, the
headline in the Omaha World Herald was: ``Republicans Close Gun Show
Loophole.'' Under this amendment, this is what you can do to get an
exception. It is true gun shows will have to do background checks,
except for people who have special licenses. Look who gets a special
license: Somebody who is buying or selling firearms solely or primarily
at gun shows. That is the first exception. Basically, I am saying, yes,
if you are a gun show, you have to do a background check, you have to
do everything a licensed dealer has to do unless you are a gun show. If
you are a gun show, you do not have to do it. That is one of the
exceptions provided in this law.
Again, if you want to go home and say, yes, I voted to close the gun
show loophole, right in this thing it says I can get a special license
to operate a gun show without having to do background checks if I am
buying or selling firearms solely or primarily through gun shows. It
does not get the job done.
We impose regulations on licensed gun dealers. I have consulted
licensed gun dealers in Nebraska. I said earlier, I am a supporter of
the second amendment. I believe the right to bear arms

[[Page S5521]]

means something. I believe the right to bear arms does not give me an
unlimited right to bear arms, just as the first amendment does not give
me an unlimited right to speak.
There are limitations on my right to bear arms. These are reasonable
limitations to keep all the rest of us safe. The leading cause of death
of teenagers in the United States of America is homicides and suicides.
We are the only industrial Nation that has that.
We are not talking about picking up guns. We are trying to put
something together that, like Brady, will reduce the opportunity of
felons and people who have other things in their background which might
make them an unreliable owner to have access to guns.
This is not an unreasonable regulation. This is exactly what licensed
gun dealers have to do. The Craig-Hatch amendment simply does not get
the job done because it allows somebody to say: I am going to get a
special exemption because I am a gun show operator.
Secondly, I do not know the history regarding the loophole having to
do with pawnshops, but for gosh sakes, we do not want to allow somebody
to basically go in to a pawnshop and say: Here is my 357 Magnum, and I
would like to get a certificate.
Maybe they stole it. A high percentage of people are concerned about
pawnshops doing business, but we want that person to have to go through
a background check when they pick up that gun. It has to be that a
fairly significant percentage of those guns have been stolen and
acquired in some way we suspect may put other law-abiding citizens at
risk. It is not unreasonable when they come back to redeem their
handgun that they have to go through a background check. That is not an
unreasonable limitation of their second amendment right to bear arms.
That is a reasonable limitation.
We understand that in a civil society, we have to give up a little
bit of freedom from time to time in order to have a civil society. We
do that. I do not have an unlimited right in freedoms. I have
responsibilities as well, Mr. President.
This amendment corrects a deficiency in the Hatch-Craig amendment
that is terribly important. It will make Americans safer. It will
reduce the chances at gun shows that people who are dangerous who
should not have guns will be able to buy them. It will reduce that
chance.
Is it going to solve all the problems that are associated with
juvenile crime and violence in America? Absolutely not. But it is
absolutely reasonable to say that if you are a gun show, we are going
to regulate you when it comes to background checks the same way we do a
licensed dealer, the same way that we regulate anybody who wants to set
up a licensed operation: a license from ATF and they have to do
background checks.
Sometimes they have local ordinances that are even more severe. In
Omaha, you have to go to both the police department and to the
sheriff's office in order to eventually do a transaction when you are
purchasing a handgun. It may have seemed unreasonable in the beginning,
but it is working. It is making our country safer.
I hope colleagues who are genuinely trying to close this loophole
will consider that this amendment gets the job done; this amendment
will make America safer. It is not an unreasonable change in our law.
For those of us who believe the right to bear arms has meaning, it is a
reasonable change. In fact, I think it is going to make it more likely
that we will keep the laws that will allow law-abiding Americans to own
guns and use those guns to hunt, to target practice, and all the other
legal applications for which, obviously, guns are used. I hope this
amendment is considered seriously by colleagues who want to close this
loophole and they will support the Lautenberg-Kerrey amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is now 12:19. I understand the
distinguished Senator from California wants 3 minutes. I ask unanimous
consent that she be granted 3 minutes to make her statement, and then I
also want to have 1 minute to finish my side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from California is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Utah for
extending me this courtesy.
I have been sitting on the Senate floor since about 10 this morning
listening to what has been a very fine debate. What I would like to do
in these 3 minutes is put this whole debate into the context of
reality.
We can talk theoretically, but I think reality has finally begun to
hit the American people. I think that is why we have seen, finally,
proper attention given to sensible gun laws.
We can see here in the 11 years of the Vietnam war, tragically we
lost 58,168 of our finest people. That is 58,168 families devastated--
devastated--by such a loss. Who knows what the potential of those
people would have been? Certainly we know that war brought this country
to its knees, and whether you supported it or did not, everyone--
everyone--grieves that loss.
In 11 years in America in the war at home, 396,572 gun deaths, I say
to my friends on both sides of the aisle, 11 years, almost 400,000 of
our people killed; 396,572 families devastated. Many of those are
children. Every day in this country we have the equivalent of a
Columbine loss. Thirteen children a day are killed in my home State of
California. The No. 1 cause of death to children in my home State--
Gunshots.
So what are we trying to do in this debate with the juvenile justice
bill on both sides? I think we want to make this country safer for
children. The debate comes on how you do it.
The distinguished Senator from Utah said: You're pushing gun
amendments on us. And just how far do you want to go?
My answer, as just one Senator, is: As long as it takes to change
this. We have to change the reality that our children face.
When you ask parents today, do they feel secure when they send their
kids off to school, no, they don't.
One of the things we could do is close the gun show loophole. Senator
Lautenberg offered us that opportunity. It was voted down narrowly. He
and Senator Kerrey have teamed up. They have made a few changes which I
think strengthen the amendment. We want to try again to close the gun
show loophole.
I ask unanimous consent that this op-ed in the Los Angeles Times by
Janet Reno be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Los Angeles Times]

Let's Close the Gun Show Loophole

(By Janet Reno)

The U.S. Senate has a historic opportunity to make our
streets and communities safer by closing the loophole that
lets felons, fugitives and other prohibited people buy deadly
weapons at gun shows without Brady background checks. Last
week, the Senate passed an amendment that not only fails to
close the loophole but creates new ones, letting criminals
redeem their guns from pawnbrokers without background checks,
weakening the Brady checks that currently are made at gun
shows and, for the first time in more than 30 years, allowing
federal firearms dealers to cross state lines to sell guns.
I have watched this debate unfold with sadness, but I
remain committed to working with the Senate on this issue. In
1993, we worked in a bipartisan fashion to pass the Brady
law, which has prevented more than 250,000 felons and others
who should not have guns from getting them. I am hopeful that
we can regain this spirit of bipartisanship and, together,
take the common-sense step of expanding the Brady law's
protections to gun shows.
So far, the Senate has passed two gun show amendments, but
neither one actually closes the gun show loophole. Although
the second proposal is in some ways better than the original,
regrettably--and contrary to some reports--the modified
amendment leaves the most dangerous loopholes of the original
amendment untouched and adds at least one more, by weakening
the Brady checks currently done at gun shows.
While the new proposal would require some buyers to get
background checks at gun shows, it would not ensure that all
such sales go through a check. Moreover, it cuts back the
time that law enforcement has to complete a Brady background
check from three business days to 24 hours, even though the
court records that are sometimes needed to finish the check
are unavailable on weekends when most gun shows take place.
This increases the chances that criminals will be able to buy
weapons at weekend gun shows, because if the background check
cannot be completed within 24 hours, the criminal can get the
gun. Although more than 70% of Brady background checks can be
completed within minutes, some require law enforcement
officers to track down additional records.

[[Page S5522]]

With all of the flaws and loopholes created by this
amendment, even in its modified version, is there a better
alternative? Fortunately, there is. Last November, President
Clinton directed Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and me to
make recommendations on closing the gun show loophole. We
published a report in January that lays out a streamlined
approach using federally licensed firearms dealers to do all
the background checks at gun shows, even for unlicensed
sellers. We also proposed a way to get limited information
about the makes and models of guns sold so that we would have
the ability to trace the guns if they were later used in a
crime. In contrast, the amendment passed Friday will decrease
our tracing ability, because checks will be done by people
who have no obligation to cooperate with tracing requests.
Our proposal allows gun shows as we know them to continue
but ensures that no one who is barred from having a gun can
buy one at a gun show. The carefully drafted bill by Sen.
Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) follows many of our
recommendations.
There is still time for the Senate to revisit this
important issue and adopt legislation that plugs the gun show
loophole once and for all. We want to work with Congress to
develop sound, workable and effective proposals to close
loopholes in our gun laws. The current amendment, even as
modified, moves us in the wrong direction.

Mrs. BOXER. I simply say that Janet Reno has talked here about why it
is important to try to finally close this loophole. She points out that
the Senators on the other side who offered their loophole closing
simply did not close the loophole. Senator Kerrey pointed out that new
designation of dealers who were exempted.
The pawnshop loophole, let me talk about that, my friends. This
weakens the law from its current status.
I ask for 30 additional seconds, and then I will close.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. The pawnshop loophole, which was opened up by my friends
on the other side, if you are going to a pawnshop, you are five times
more likely to be a criminal. What they do is to say no background
checks anymore. What else do they do to weaken the current law? They
say that you can only have 24 hours to finish the background check at a
gun show.
My friends, in 20 percent of those cases they need more time; they
have to call the FBI. The FBI is telling us that isn't a good step; it
is going the create more death and destruction.
So, in closing, let me urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to finally close this loophole in the right way and support the
Lautenberg-Kerrey legislation.
I yield the floor. I thank my colleague from Utah for his generous
spirit in giving me this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 1 minute.
Mr. HATCH. I may need a little bit more than that because of Senator
Kerrey's remarks and the remarks of the Senator from California. So I
will ask unanimous consent when I do that.
Senator Kerrey says a lot of pawnshop guns could be stolen. But let
me remind the Senator that State law already requires a check with
State or local law enforcement agencies. If the gun is stolen, the
State law catches this. So the Lautenberg amendment does not do
anything particularly good on that.
Without the special license provision, gunsmiths and others will not
go into a regulated gun show. It is just that simple. These people
generally do not have to be licensed now. Under the bill as currently
amended, we require them to keep records and to comply with all of the
provisions of the Gun Control Act. If we regulate gun shows without a
special licensee, we will force these people into the black market. So
let's require them to be licensed. That is one of the points I was
making there. All the other points I made I do not think have been
rebutted at all.
Mr. President, we now reach that point where we have the debate on
four amendments, 10 minutes equally divided. We will begin with the
Wellstone amendment No. 358; then we will go to the Sessions amendment
No. 357; then to the Ashcroft amendment No. 361; and then the Santorum
amendment No. 360, with the votes to occur beginning at 1 p.m., as I
understand it.
Should we go with Sessions first? I will be happy to do that. Let me
rearrange the order. We will start with Sessions amendment No. 357,
then Wellstone amendment No. 358, then Ashcroft amendment No. 361, and
then Santorum amendment No. 360. OK.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.

Amendment No. 357

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, is there a time agreement on this
debate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes equally divided.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, from time to time, those of us in
Congress hear complaints about governmental literature, brochures,
pamphlets, and booklets paid for by the taxpayers who believe there is
contained within them messages, content, material, tendencies, and
philosophies that they believe are unjustified.
It is not possible, frankly, for us to manage that, as probably most
people think we do. Particularly, this juvenile crime bill will produce
about $1 billion in new spending for juvenile crime, and over half of
that will be for prevention. Much of it will then be used, as part of
the prevention effort, to produce certain literature that will be used
in schools and other organizations.
So the question is: What do we do about it? Someone suggested that,
well, you need to pass a law that prohibits them from spending money
which says things that may offend me. I am not sure how we could write
a law that would say that. I am not sure we even ought to attempt to do
that.
But there is a problem, a disquiet, an unease in America about some
of the material getting printed at taxpayers' expense. Both liberals
and conservatives sometimes are not happy with material. So I thought
this would be a suggestion that we might try with regard to the funds
expended under this juvenile offender accountability grant program that
we have.
There would be a disclaimer, language placed on all literature funded
by this bill. It would simply say this: ``These materials are printed
at Government expense.''
In addition, it would have these words: ``If you object to the
accuracy of the material, the completeness of the material, the
representations in the material, including objections to the material's
characterizations of persons' religious beliefs, you are encouraged to
direct your comments to the Office of the Attorney General of the
United States.''
It directs the Attorney General to designate an office. There is an
address that will be put on the literature to receive the material and
to periodically, every 6 months, send a summary to the Congress of what
the comments received were, because we are funding these materials.
When we send a grant to a certain community to do a drug treatment
program, a mental health program, or an antiviolence program, the
Members of this body may not know what was in that material. Oftentimes
people get it and they do not like it. They think it is inaccurate or
unfair. I think they ought to have a chance to express that.
I do not know how anybody could believe this would be an
objectionable thing. If the Government is going to fund the literature,
people ought to be told that they can object and where they can send
their objection. If there are numerous objections, we can take a look
at them. If it is inaccurate or discriminates against a particular
group, then we ought to be prepared to ask questions in our oversight
capacity in Congress. As chairman of the Youth Violence Subcommittee,
we have oversight over the Office of Juvenile Justice programs. We look
at Office of Juvenile Justice programs. So if we are getting a lot of
complaints about the material, we can raise that with them and make
sure they are exercising legitimate supervision over those materials.

It is a simple amendment. I do not think it would cost anything. The
Attorney General could certainly be able to receive these materials,
assemble them, and summarize them for the Congress. They could be
maintained so that if anybody wanted to, they could go read the
complaints. I think it would result in high-quality literature. In
fact, I think that if a person knows when they are producing literature
that it is required to put on it information concerning complaints and
writing the Attorney General of the United States, they are probably
going to take more care to see that the material is produced accurately
and fairly.
Those are the comments I have on that at this time.
On the other matter regarding gun shows, I think that what is
frustrating

[[Page S5523]]

the people that I am hearing from, and that I think most of us are
hearing from, is that people who go to gun shows are good people. A gun
show is a traditional thing.
Has my time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. They are getting tired of being blamed. These are good
people. The murder rate in Washington, DC, is one of the highest in
America. Who suggests that the guns criminals have here come from gun
shows? That is not where guns used in crime are coming from. What I am
hearing is, let us prosecute the criminals with the guns. That is why
General Reno's comments are, to me, frustrating, almost irritating,
because during her watch we have seen a collapse of the prosecution of
criminals with guns, a 40-percent decline. At the same time, we want to
shift burdens on people who are not committing crimes. That is what is
causing the tension here.
Senator Hatch has worked very hard with the Members of the Democratic
Party to try to reach an agreement in which we can maintain accurate
controls over guns that are sold in gun shows and so forth but, at the
same time, not burden excessively innocent people.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I do not know of any opposition to the
amendment or anybody to speak on it. I wonder if the minority will
yield back its time?
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we reserve the time in
opposition to this amendment and we move on to the next amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum with the
time charged to the proponents on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum with the
time charged equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 358, As Modified

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my
amendment, as modified, be sent to the desk. I believe this has been
cleared with the other side. It is technical. There were some original
cosponsors, Senator Mikulski and Senator Harkin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what is the
change that was sent? I am sorry.
Mr. WELLSTONE. The amount of money originally was improperly
designated. I also added two original cosponsors.
Mr. HATCH. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment (No. 358), as modified, is printed in
today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just start out by saying that
one of the real weaknesses in this legislation as it is now written is
that there is no specificity about the allowable use of funding for
school-based counseling or mental health services to all students
through qualified counselors or psychologists or social workers.
My colleague, Senator Sessions, has referred to other activities that
can be used to prevent juvenile delinquency, but this phrase is vague.
It gives no encouragement to schools to use the funding that they need
to have the counselors.
The only place where we really might see an opportunity for
counseling services would be in boot camps and community-based projects
and services, but kids already have to be delinquents in order to
receive this kind of counseling.
Mr. President, what I say here today is that I do not know about
other colleagues, but as I travel Minnesota, what I hear more than
anything else, above and beyond the need to get tougher on guns, is,
Senator, we need more counselors. We need to have an infrastructure of
support for our children in our schools. This amendment is the 100,000
school counselors amendment.
This amendment would call for funding from the Federal Government, on
a one-third, one-third, one-third matching basis. It would be $340
million a year over the next 5 years. Now, my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle may stand up and say: This is $340 million a year.
To that, I say to my colleagues on the other side: When are we going
to get serious? We continue to talk about children. We continue to talk
about our concern for children. Now we are talking more and more about
our concern for at-risk children. Now we are talking more and more
about how to get to kids before they get into trouble. And what we hear
all across our land from our educators, from women and men who are
working with children every day, is that we don't have the funding for
counselors.
Mr. President, right now we have an average of about 1 counselor per
500 students across the land. One counselor for 500 students. That
counselor can't even begin to reach out and help some of the kids who
are in trouble.
This is a huge weakness in this legislation. If we want to get to
kids before they get into trouble, if we want to respond to the voice
in the country about what we need to do better--and I hear this from
everyone in Minnesota--then we need to support this 100,000 school
counselors amendment. There is nothing we can do that would be more
important.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Who yields time? Who yields time in opposition to the amendment? Who
yields time in opposition to the Wellstone amendment No. 358?
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield such time as he needs to the
distinguished Senator from Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator from Missouri is here, and when he is
ready, I will yield to him.
Mr. President, I am not hearing every day that what we need as a No.
1 priority of schools in America is more counselors. There are a lot of
needs in schools. Maybe we need to expand Head Start, maybe we need
other programs, maybe we need computers, or mentoring programs, some of
which work well. We have not had hearings on it. This is an issue that
ought to be raised in the Senator's Education Committee, and it ought
not to be part of a crime bill at this time.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me once again start by complimenting
the Senator from Minnesota's commitment to the problems associated with
mental health conditions.
I share his commitment, but I have a number of grave concerns about
his amendment to provide $1 billion a year in new funding to hire over
100,000 school-based mental health personnel.
As I noted in my statement yesterday, there is no evidence whatsoever
to support the assertion that the recent tragedies in Colorado and
Oregon would have been prevented by having more school counselors.
Let me reiterate what I observed yesterday: it has been reported that
both Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had gotten fairly extensive
individual counseling, had undergone anger-management training and had
gotten affirmative evaluations from counselors.
One of Dylan Klebold's teachers had expressed concern about some of
the things he was writing in English class to a counselor.
It has also been reported that the 15-year-old Oregon killer, Kip
Kinkel was currently in counseling, along with his parents, when he
killed them and went on to kill two of his classmates and injure a
number of others.
Please don't misunderstand me, Mr. President, I do not want in any
way to undercut the very fine and vital work done by counselors in my
state of Utah

[[Page S5524]]

and around the country. I respect them. Their work is important and
valuable and I support their efforts 100 percent.
I merely make the point that more counselors would not have prevented
these recent tragedies.
Additionally, Mr. President, as a parent and grandparent, I have an
almost knee-jerk reaction whenever I hear that the federal government
is--once again--attempting to micromanage public education.
I believe that we can best support our local schools by adequately
funding current federal education programs and allowing state and local
education agencies the flexibility to make important education
decisions unencumbered by federal regulation.
I sincerely beleive that $1 billion of new federal taxpayer dollars
will not do as much to encourage a renewed commitment to strengthen
mental health outreach as local school boards, parent groups and local
civic mental health and law enforcement organizations working together.
This amendment is a Washington knows best, big money, unfunded answer
to complicated questions that can best be addressed through local
efforts.
Mr. President, I get am getting a little tired of seeing some of our
colleagues throwing money at issues without regard to costs. I am
geting a little tired of hearing that the answer to everything around
here is simply to throw more money at it. There is no question that
counselors can be effective, but a lot of other things are too, and we
have a lot of effective programs in this bill. Frankly, it is time to
get this bill passed and quit delaying it.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds
to respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. This is a modified amendment. It is for $340 million a
year, not $1 billion, as the Senator said. All Senators should know
that.
Second of all, I get a little tired of Senators talking about how
much we care about kids and education, and we can't have our schools
and school districts put in some money, which we will match, so we can
have more support services for these kids. We gave $8 billion more for
the Pentagon than the President wanted. We got money for breaks for oil
companies and money for breaks for all sorts of other special
interests. But all of a sudden we don't have the money to provide
resources for these school districts.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we continue to throw money at these
problems and not solve them. First, the Senator's bill called for $1
billion and now it calls for $340,000,000. Which one is it? And how do
we know that this latest amount is what is needed? We can't keep
pulling extraordinary amounts of money out of thin air and justify
spending the amounts because problems may exist. We continue to take
time on this floor to delay a bill that can help solve these problems.
The fact is that we take care of a lot of these problems in the bill
without throwing an inordinate amount of money toward them.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I resent the accusation that this is
taking up time and delaying this bill.
Senator, if you were worried about at-risk kids and helping kids
before they get into trouble and wind up incarcerated and committing
violent crimes, then you would want to support the kind of support
services we can provide in schools.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I don't want to take too much time, but I
will take 30 more seconds.
Look, you are not the only Senator on this floor who cares about
kids. I have a record of 23 years of leading a fight for most of the
children's programs that have passed here. And every one of them takes
into carefull consideration how much money should or should not be
spent--child care, the child health insurance bill; you name it, I have
been there. Right now, I am raising over $2 million for the Pediatric
AIDS Foundation. I don't need to be lectured by the Senator from
Minnesota, whose answer to everything is to throw more money at every
problem.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to respond to that comment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HATCH. I object, unless it is for 30 seconds.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I can do it in 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Senator, I would never criticize your record. You are
a friend. But I intend to respond to the remarks you made on the floor
of the Senate that this kind of an amendment is taking up people's time
and delaying passage of this bill. This is very relevant to what we
need to do to help kids before they get into trouble. I am surprised
that my colleague, with all of his good work, doesn't understand that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

Amendment No. 361

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, we will proceed to
amendment No. 361, sponsored by Senator Ashcroft, with 10 minutes
equally divided.
The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I want to thank a number of Senators
before I begin making my remarks because this amendment is the
culmination of the work of a number of individuals, including Senators
Hutchison, DeWine, Allard, Abraham of Michigan, Gregg of New Hampshire,
Helms of North Carolina, and Senator Coverdell of Georgia. All of these
individuals participated to assemble the components of this amendment,
which is an amendment designed to promote safety in our schools and to
prevent violence in our schools. So I thank all of those Senators. If
any of them comes to the floor, I will happily yield to them for them
to give particular emphasis to the items they brought to the table
here.
This amendment contains a number of provisions that give schools and
communities additional ways to prevent youth violence. It would free
local school districts to put Federal money to use where the Federal
money will do the most good to prevent future violence.
Under this amendment, schools will be able to choose where best to
spend Federal resources under titles 4 and 6 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. These are allowable uses which would include
violence prevention training, school safety equipment such as metal
detectors, or for school resource officers.
The amendment clarifies that nothing in Federal law stands in the way
of a local decision to introduce a dress code or school uniform policy.
Without taking the time at this moment, a number of schools would like
to be able to do this. In the places where they have been able to do
it, they have found that it reduces violence and increases student
productivity. It has been good.
This would allow schools, if they are going to use their Federal
resources, to use them, and one of the permissible ways would be to
invest in establishing such a policy.
The amendment contains a provision that provides certain liability
protections for school personnel when they undertake reasonable actions
to maintain order and discipline in safe educational circumstances or
to promote an environment of safety for education. This is a very
important provision. This one, sponsored by Senator Coverdell of
Georgia, offers teachers limited civil liability against frivolous and
arbitrary lawsuits.
We don't really need for teachers, who need to be involved in
disciplining students, to be thinking about the fact that they are
going to be sued if they exercise the right kind of discipline.
The limits are reasonable. They are against frivolous and arbitrary
lawsuits--the kind of limit that we placed to help encourage
volunteerism last year when we had the Volunteer Protection Act. That
is the kind of thing we want to do to make sure that teachers can have
better control and are free to take necessary steps to provide
discipline in the classroom.

Senator Helms' language makes certain that a school discipline record
follows a student when a student transfers to another public or private
school. The language allows schools to run background checks on any
school employee who works with children. I think this is reasonable. We
should

[[Page S5525]]

know who the individuals are who are employed in our schools. Providing
this kind of capacity and opportunity is a step in the right direction,
a step forward. It is necessary for schools, especially given the
mobility of students and families, to be able to know about the
discipline record of a student who comes to the school. Learning too
late can be a deadly matter, as I learned a few years ago in a tragic
case in St. Louis, where a student transferred from one school to the
next and the discipline record didn't follow. And before they learned
of this student's propensity to stalk young women, he murdered another
student, stalking a woman, a young woman, into the restroom of a high
school.
Senator DeWine has a provision that allows the coordination of
adolescent mental health and substance abuse services. That is part of
this amendment.
The amendment includes language from Senator Abraham that allows
schools to use Safe and Drug Free Schools funds for drug testing.
Students who are the subject of serious discipline problems may well be
better off if we have the capacity of asking them to undergo drug
tests. We fund it and provide the availability or the freedom to use
funds in that respect.
I really want to thank my colleagues who worked with me on this task
force: Senators DeWine, Hutchinson, Gregg, Allard, Coverdell, Helms,
and Hatch.
I look forward to the passage of these proposals that are included in
this education task force package: The amendments on school safety and
violence prevention, and safety and security in our schools.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
By the way, the Chair informs the Senator from Missouri that his time
has expired.
Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator from Missouri thanks the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am going to speak on the Sessions
amendment No. 357, and I understand there is time in opposition. Am I
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes remaining on that time.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, notwithstanding my friendship with the
Senator from Alabama, I will oppose his amendment.
The amendment mandates that all Federal, State, or local governments
and nongovernmental entities that receive any funds under this bill
have to place a written disclaimer on all materials produced or
distributed to the public.
The amendment also mandates the Attorney General report every six
months to Congress on all public comments received based on these
disclaimers, although it doesn't say how many hundreds of people may
have to be hired to do this.
The amendment is unfortunate. We are trying to pass a serious and
comprehensive bill to address juvenile crime. I don't understand why
the other side would be insisting on placing a one-paragraph disclaimer
on all publications from any entity that receives funds under this
bill. It would apply to any nonprofit organization that uses Federal
support under this bill.

For example, suppose the Boys and Girls Clubs used it to set up an
afterschool process. Do they have to put a disclaimer on it? Suppose
they have a leaflet passed out saying: Come at 5:30 to play softball,
but we want you to have this disclaimer, and if you have any comments
about it, write to the Attorney General so the Attorney General can
report to the Congress.
I can see it: I was called out at third base. I don't think I was
out. What is the Attorney General going to do about this?
That is what this disclaimer asks for.
What about the Red Cross? Well, they gave me a lousy cookie when I
came in to donate blood. I want to know what the Attorney General is
going to do about it.
The amendment is also dangerous because it can siphon off funds that
can be used to prevent juvenile crime and punish juvenile offenders. It
places an unfunded mandate on Federal, State, and local governments. It
takes resources away from real crime-fighting programs. Nobody knows
how much it is going to cost State, Federal, and local governments and
nonprofit organizations to comply with this disclaimer requirement.
How much does it cost the Department of Justice? I would like to know
how much it is going to cost for the 6-month reporting requirements.
Obviously, the Department of Justice should have people devoted to
crime fighting and who will be there to tally reports. And it will not
be fanciful to think of somebody who got called out at third base in a
softball game put together by the Boys and Girls Clubs who thinks the
Attorney General should look into it.
The Department of Justice already prints its name and address on all
publications. Why a further unfunded mandate?
Unless we have questions and answers about how much it is going to
cost and how much it is going to take away from real crime fighting, I
would oppose it.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? This is in opposition to the
Ashcroft amendment.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I believe we have 5 minutes. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. President, this amendment is harmless, though I question how
effective and useful it is.
It provides for some coordinated mental health services at the level.
But there is already some limited mental health coverage in the
underlying bill. And I find it interesting that the Senator from
Missouri rejected our proposal to give SAMHSA the resources to really
do the job.
The amendment provides for background checks on school employees.
That's already allowable under current law.
It allows schools to require uniforms. There is nothing to prohibit
that now.
It creates a Commission on Character. That is fine.
But if we really wanted to make a difference, we would fulfill the
commitment made last year to reduce class sizes by hiring 100,000 new
teachers. Teachers should not have to do crowd control.
If we really wanted to make a difference, we would help communities
build new classrooms and schools and modernize their facilities. This
means smaller classes and smaller schools, so teachers and school
officials get to know the children they teach. You have heard of ``road
rage.'' Well some schools have ``hall rage,'' where hallways are so
crowded they actually increase violence in schools.
If we really wanted to make a difference, we would expand after
school programs to attend to children in the afternoons--keeping them
off the streets and out of trouble. Each day, 5 million children are
left home alone after school, and that is unacceptable.
If you asked parents what is most important to reducing youth
violence--uniforms or smaller classes--I am certain that smaller
classes would win hands down.
If you asked parents what is most important--a character commission
or after school programs--the after school programs would win hands
down.
If you asked parents what is most important--to reiterate that you
can conduct background checks on teachers or building more classrooms
and better classrooms--the better classrooms would win hands down.
So I see nothing harmful in this amendment, but I hope we can get to
the real issues that concern parents and communities--smaller classes,
better schools, more after school programs.
I withhold the remainder of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is time being reserved?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on this amendment has expired.

Amendment No. 360

We will now move to amendment No. 360.
Who yields time?
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to support my amendment. The
amendment is offered to address a problem in this country which we have
talked a lot about here, which is the short amount of time that people
serve

[[Page S5526]]

in prison and, in fact, are sentenced to prison for the most violent of
crimes in our society.
The chart says the average prison time served for rape in this
country is only 5\1/2\ years, and that, by the way, is a slight
increase over the past dozen or so years. Average prison time served
for child molestation is 4 years; 4 years for child molestation. The
average time served for homicide is just 8 years.
These statistics are for time served. Time sentenced, in many cases,
is just a little bit more than that, but not significantly more than
that.
It is a very serious problem, particularly in the area of raping and
sexually molesting a child, where the recidivism rate is very high,
where we are putting back on the street to terrorize our citizenry,
people who should be incarcerated for a much longer period of time.
A group of Members, Matt Salmon in the House of Representatives, and
I in the Senate, have introduced a bill called Aimee's law, named after
Aimee Willard, a victim of a horrible rape and murder in the city of
Philadelphia by a man, Arthur Bomar, who was released from prison in
Nevada--released after murdering someone in Nevada, released after not
serving his full sentence. By the way, he was violent in Nevada and had
assaulted a woman while in prison, but Nevada let him out early.
Unfortunately, Arthur Bomar found Aimee Willard and Aimee was brutally
murdered and raped.
Aimee's mom, Gail Willard, has put together a group of people who
said it is time to get people who are convicted of these horrible
crimes to serve out their sentences and to send a message to States--
many States in this country have very light sentences for many of these
crimes--to send a message to States that we want tougher sentencing
laws on the books for these violent crimes and violent criminals.
Matt Salmon introduced in the House, and I introduced an amendment in
the Senate, which does something very simple: If someone is released
from prison as a result of these kinds of violent acts, they are
released from prison and go to another State and they commit one of
these crimes, that the State that released that prisoner has to pay the
costs of apprehension, prosecution, and incarceration to the State that
has to deal with this person that they let out of jail.
It takes the Federal funding stream--we have Federal funds that go to
all the States--and basically takes some of those Federal funds and
shifts them from one State to another. It is a matter of disignating
some Federal funds, rather than to Pennsylvania, because Pennsylvania
let someone out early and that convicted felon went to Ohio and
committed a crime--Pennsylvania would lose Federal funds--to Ohio to
pay for the apprehension, prosecution and incarceration of that
criminal.
This is a bill supported by 39 victims' rights organizations,
including: KlaasKids Foundation and Polly Klaas' father, Marc Klaas;
Fred Goldman; Gail Willard; the Fraternal Order of Police; Law
Enforcement Alliance of America; International Children's Rights
Resource Center; Justice for All; National Association of Crime
Victims' Rights; the Women's Coalition.
The above mentioned people and organizations and a variety of other
national organizations consider this one of their highest priority
bills, to send a message that if a State has very lenient sentencings
and they let someone out, that State will get hit with a bill; that
State will lose some of their Federal block grant funds.
We want tougher sentences and we want truth in sentences. We have
provisions in this amendment that say if you don't live up to truth in
sentencing and you are not a truth-in-sentencing State, you can be
liable if someone gets out of jail in one of those States and goes to
another State and commits a similar crime. You can lose Federal funds.
We are trying to send a very clear message that these crimes should
be dealt with seriously. A child molester who receives 4 years in
prison, when you consider the recidivism rate, is an abomination.
We have 134,000 convicted sex offenders right now living in our
communities because of these kind of laws and because of the
enforcement and prosecution and leniency by our courts or by our parole
systems. We have to do something about this to protect our children, to
protect our society from the rapists and child molesters and murderers
in our society.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator has 5 minutes in
opposition.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not oppose this amendment. I think it
is, as drafted, extremely complicated and can create a great deal of
problems with some States to the extent it overrides their ability to
make determinations of who they go after and how. I understand what the
Senator from Pennsylvania wants. I encourage that we accept the
amendment.
Of course, he is entitled to a vote if he wishes, and between now and
conference we might work more on the language to see if there are areas
of unnecessary complication that could be removed.
I do not oppose the amendment. I yield back the time on this side.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Santorum amendment aims at trying to
reduce the number of tragedies that result when persons convicted of
serious offenses obtain early release and then repeat the offense.
But the mechanism it selects to advance that goal is so unworkable
that it will undermine its laudable purpose. The same crime is defined
differently by different States. Average terms of imprisonment imposed
by States are different from average actual lengths of imprisonment.
Indeed, that is part of the problem. Those are just two of the
unworkable parts of Sec. (c)(1)(C)(ii).
One big problem in Sec. (c)(1)(B) is that the cost of incarceration
of an individual can't be known unless one can predict his or her life
expectancy.
An unworkable procedure will not help this cause. It will set it
back, I am afraid, and I cannot vote for it.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am saddened by the tragic
circumstances that have motivated my distinguished colleague from
Pennsylvania to offer his amendment. It is understandable that
concerned citizens hope to avoid crime committed by people who are
released from prison. And I might favor states increasing the length of
sentences of violent offenders. But that choice should be that of the
states, and not one essentially forced on states by the Federal
Government for fear of losing their criminal assistance funds. That
view by itself leads me to oppose this amendment, although the
particular way in which this amendment will operate causes me
particular concern.
States are not mere appendages of the federal government to be called
upon to do the Federal Government's bidding every time we think we've
got a good idea. State sentencing for state crime is a state matter.
The amendment provides that in any case in which a person is
convicted of murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual offense as defined by
state law, and that person previously has been convicted of that
offense in another state, the state of the prior conviction will have
deducted from the federal criminal justice funds it receives, and
transferred to the state where the subsequent offense occurred, the
cost of the apprehension, prosecution, and incarceration of the
offender, unless the original state has: (1) adopted the federal truth
in sentencing guidelines; (2) imposed a sentence on persons for these
offenses that is at least 10 percent above the average term of
imprisonment for that offense that is imposed in all states; and (3)
made the particular offender serve at least 85 percent of his sentence.
Mr. President, my opposition to this provision is based primarily on
federalism. States should be free to adopt the sentences that they
choose. They should also be able to adopt the parole policies of their
choice. States that impose short sentences or lenient parole policies
will bear most of the cost themselves if released criminals commit
future offenses.
Under this amendment, states must adopt the federal sentencing
guidelines if they wish to be certain to avoid losing federal funds.
The states will have their sentencing policies for these offenses not
drafted by their state legislators in their state capitals, nor even by
Congress. State judges will lose the ability to exercise whatever
discretion in sentencing their states permit. Instead, the unelected
bureaucrats of the

[[Page S5527]]

United States Sentencing Commission will set the sentences for state
criminals who commit these offenses. I have no criticism of these
individuals pursuing the task that Congress has given them,
particularly since their work is subject to congressional review. But
they were not and should not be given the power to set state sentences,
unanswerable to the states who will be forced to silently acquiesce to
their efforts.
In addition, a state seeking to retain its federal funding by
complying with the three conditions of this amendment would incur much
greater expense than any loss of funds it would sustain if it were not
to comply with the conditions. States who seek to sentence at more than
110 percent of the average will be required to spend huge sums on new
prisons to hold these offenders. In addition to construction costs,
there will be additional costs of personnel and other operating
expenses. Such long sentences will also mean that the states will incur
huge medical expenses for older prisoners, for fear of losing federal
funds if they were released and committed new offenses. If a state
wanted to incur these costs without this amendment, it could do so, but
this bill will for all practical purposes force states to do so without
funding any of the resulting costs. In addition, states sentencing for
such a long duration may not be sentencing wisely. Some offenders
deserve parole. Not all offenders are incorrigible. Some offenders can
be helped by religion or counseling to lead law abiding lives,
returning to their families, safely living among the community,
avoiding the need for states to incur costly prison expenses, and
actually becoming productive, taxpaying citizens. This amendment
essentially deprives a state of that choice, and may result in the
unjustified continuation of imprisonment of certain persons, harming
that person, his family, the community, and taxpayers generally.
The 110 percent of the national average sentence requirement is
troubling for other reasons as well. By definition, half the states
will be below average, and even a larger number will not sentence for
110 percent or more of the national average. That will mean that most
states will not be able to avoid the risk of losing their federal
funds, no matter how hard they try to comply with the amendment's
conditions. And since the average is not static, a state that is above
110 percent in one year may not be at that level the following year. As
a result, the amendment would result in states continuously increasing
their sentences in what will probably be a vain effort to be one of the
above average states. And how will the average be calculated? Is a 99
year sentence longer or shorter than a life sentence? Is a death
sentence imposed after 5 years longer or shorter than a life sentence
without parole? I suppose states will have an incentive under this bill
to adopt not only a death penalty, but to sentence the defendant to
1000 years besides. It is not Washington's business whether or not a
state has a death penalty for state crimes. That decision should be
made by the people of a state and no one else, consistent with
constitutional requirements.
Apart from opposing this amendment on federalism grounds, I also note
the existence of significant drafting problems that will result in what
I am sure the sponsors would consider to be unintended consequences.
For instance, the amendment defines ``murder'' and ``rape'' by
reference to state law. But some states will never be in a situation in
which a person convicted of murder has been released from serving a
murder sentence or rape sentence in their state. For instance, Vermont
has no crime of rape, but only sexual assault. No one can be convicted
of rape who was convicted of rape previously in Vermont. Wisconsin has
no rape or murder statutes, but simply intentional homicide and sexual
assault. One can well imagine that if this amendment passes, states
will manipulate the label placed on various conduct so that it can make
sure to convict persons for ``murder'' or ``rape'' however defined
under another state's law--and in such a way as now not remotely
considered to constitute these crimes--while convicting persons in
their own state for ``intentional homicide'' or ``sexual assault.''
That kind of manipulation will produce virtual anarchy. While the House
companion bill avoids this particular problem because it defines these
offenses without regard to state law, I note that the House bill is
equally objectionable in its own way, since the crimes that it covers
are broader than the Senate bill, extending to crimes that few would
consider exceptionally serious, and thus causing greater expense to the
states than the Senate bill if loss of funds is to be avoided.
Moreover, under the House bill, unlike this amendment, a state is never
free from the risk of losing funding, since it will be liable for a
released offender's offense for the rest of his life, regardless of the
length of his sentence or actual imprisonment before release.
We have eliminated parole at the federal level. But there are many
fewer federal than state parolees. If a state would rather spend money
on education or effective prevention programs than on very long
sentences, it should be able to do so without federal interference.
Some prisoners may deserve parole. Others may not. And so long as there
is parole, as in every other human endeavor, mistakes will occasionally
be made, sometimes with serious consequences. The people who make those
decisions and the state lawmakers--not federal lawmakers--should
continue to set parole policy, and they should continue to be held
accountable by the people of their states for those decisions. The
track record of Congress in knowing just how crime should be punished
should give pause to anyone who thinks states and the American people
would necessarily benefit more from a congressionally mandated approach
to this issue than from experimentation among the states.
Mr. President, I sympathize with those who are the victims of crimes
caused by parolees. I understand the sincere motives of my colleagues
who support this legislation. But I strongly believe that it is
misguided and runs counter to our system of federalism. It will cost
states billions of dollars without any guarantee of retaining full
federal funding. It may prevent sensible parole policies in particular
cases. I have also pointed out a number of practical problems with the
amendment's drafting. For all of these reasons, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order to
ask for the yeas and nays on all four of the remaining amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Vote on Amendment No. 357

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Sessions
amendment.
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 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 PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 127 Leg.]

YEAS--56

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lieberman
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--43

[[Page S5528]]

Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Moynihan

The amendment (No. 357) was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have three more votes now in the stacked
sequence. I ask unanimous consent that in this series the next three
votes be limited to 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?

Amendment No. 358, As Modified

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could I ask a question. We now have 1
minute each; is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could we have order, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I also ask whether this is my amendment on
school counselors?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Wellstone amendment No. 358.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President and colleagues, I have offered this amendment with
Senator Mikulski and Senator Harkin. This amendment would provide $340
million a year for 100,000 school counselors, social workers and child
psychologists to back them up.
Everywhere you go, you hear from people at the school district level:
We will contribute money, but can you get some money to us so we can
have more counselors in our school so that we can give more support to
these kids before they get into trouble?
You will not hear your education community and your teachers and men
and women who work with children talk about anything more than the need
to have more counselors. One counsel for 500 students or 1,000 students
cannot identify these kids in trouble, cannot help these kids. If we
really care about providing these services, then we are going to be
willing to make the investment.
I hope this amendment will have a very strong vote.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Is this amendment No. 358?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. HATCH. This amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, originally to provide $1 billion more but modified now to provide
$340 million, after modification, a year in new funding to hire 141,000
school-based mental health personnel: 100,000 school counselors, 21,000
school psychologists, and 20,000 school social workers. These funds
have to be matched by the States and localities.
Now look, this is another attempt to micromanage our educational
system in this country from Washington. It is an expensive add-on that
should not be on this particular bill.
I made the case earlier that we are in favor of counselors, but there
is a limit to everything, and the counselors may or may not be the
answer here, especially in the Klebold matter--in the Columbine matter,
and a number of other matters where the boys were under counseling.
The fact of the matter is, this is another ``Let's throw money at
it'' at the cost of society.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired. All time has expired.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table Amendment No. 358, as modified. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
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 61, nays 38, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 128 Leg.]

YEAS--61

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kerrey
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--38

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Cleland
Daschle
Dodd
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Moynihan

The motion to table was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if we are going to finish this bill, we are
going to have to move things along more quickly. We are seeing end-of-
this-bill possibilities, but we are not going to ever finish the bill
if these votes are going to go on forever. Ten-minute votes should not
take an half hour.
I respectfully suggest that we move on more quickly so we can get to
the substance of this bill.

Amendment No. 360

Mr. LEAHY. I say to the Senator from Utah, we would be willing to
speed up things and accept the amendment of the Senator from
Pennsylvania, if the Senator from Pennsylvania wishes. If they are
interested in speeding up the time, we can do that. Obviously, the
Senator from Pennsylvania is entitled to a rollcall vote, but we can
save ourselves 15 or 20 minutes if we just accept it.
Mr. HATCH. Why don't we just have the rollcall vote and everybody
will come immediately.
Mr. SANTORUM. I yield back my minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
360 of the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) 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 ``aye.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 17, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 129 Leg.]

YEAS--81

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roth

[[Page S5529]]

Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--17

Akaka
Bond
Bryan
Chafee
Cochran
Feingold
Hagel
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Lautenberg
Levin
Lugar
Rockefeller
Sessions
Thompson
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--2

Moynihan
Roberts

The amendment (No. 360) was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 361

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand that both sides are in
agreement on the next amendment, so I ask unanimous consent that we
vitiate the yeas and nays.
Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, I will not object. I don't
want to force my will upon the Senate, but I want the record to show
that I support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 361) 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 lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from
New York be yielded 7 minutes for debate only, and the floor be
immediately given back to me upon completion of his statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy and Mr. Lautenberg pertaining
to the introduction of S. 1077 are located in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the next amendment happens to be the
Ashcroft-Frist amendment. I suspect we should let both of them describe
their amendment.

Amendment No. 355

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the next amendment will be
355.
Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. What amendment are we on now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 355.
Mr. FRIST. Parliamentary inquiry. Is this the Frist-Ashcroft
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. This is the Frist-Ashcroft amendment.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are returning to an amendment that was
offered at the end of last week, which is a very simple amendment as
written. It addresses a fundamental issue that is at the heart of the
juvenile justice issue and discussion in the last week. It has to do
with bombs and guns in schools. It is as simple as that.
It addresses the issue of how to make our schools as safe as we
possibly can. We start with, I believe, the juvenile justice bill which
has made real progress but absolutely to my mind must include an
amendment that addresses this issue of guns in schools and bombs in
schools in an area where we, because of previous legislation that we
passed, have created a loophole that means that a student coming into a
school who has a firearm may be treated very differently from a student
who comes in the next day to that school with a firearm. The goal of
our amendment is that any child who comes into a school with a gun or a
bomb will be treated equally, will be treated fairly, will not be
discriminated against one way or another.
Our amendment ends a mixed message that the Federal Government today,
because of legislation we passed, sends to American students on the
issue of firearms in schools. ``Firearms,'' for the purpose of this
amendment, are bombs and guns in schools.
We look at Littleton, CO, with 15 dead and 23 wounded. We look at
Pearl, MS, with 2 dead and 7 wounded; Paducah, KY, 3 dead, 5 wounded;
Jonesboro, AR, 5 dead, 10 wounded; Springfield, OR, 2 dead, 22 wounded.
These are all shootings, horrific shootings. They claimed the lives
of 27 students and teachers. Thus, we come back to this simple
amendment which closes a loophole that we created that has to do with
guns and bombs and firearms in schools.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is a law which I have
strongly supported, and I have worked very, very hard in the past two
Congresses to improve, to modernize, to strengthen. Under that act, a
student with a disability who is in possession of a gun or a firearm at
school is treated differently than a student who is not disabled or who
is not in special education.
Again, it goes back to that fundamental issue of one child in a
special education class who brings a gun or a bomb to school is treated
preferentially compared to another child who does not have a disability
or is not in special education who brings a gun or a bomb to school.
All of us represent States and have our own constituency. Therefore,
I look at my home State of Tennessee. The Individual with Disabilities
Education Act conflicts with our zero tolerance law which says that
students may be expelled for 1 year if they bring a bomb or a gun or a
firearm to school. That is zero tolerance. It is the law of the land in
Tennessee. Yet, we have passed in this body Federal legislation which
says there is a certain group of students, about 14 percent of students
in the State of Tennessee, to whom that does not apply. We have a whole
different set of standards. What our amendment does is it says, no, if
you bring a bomb or a gun to school, you are going to be treated like
every other student.
Under IDEA, local school authorities have several hoops to remove a
dangerous special education student who brings a gun into the
classroom. School personnel may suspend the child for up to 10 days.
School personnel may place the child in an interim alternative
educational setting for 45 days. School personnel may ask a hearing
officer to place a child in an interim alternative educational setting
for up to 45 days if it is proven that that child is a threat to others
in his current placement. School personnel may conduct a manifestation
determination review to determine whether or not there is a link
between that child's disability and walking into the room with a gun or
a bomb.
If the behavior is not a manifestation of that disability, the child
may be expelled but is still given educational services. If the hearing
officer determines that the behavior of bringing that gun into the
classroom was a manifestation of the disability, the student can go
right back into that school, right back into that current placement,
and that is the problem. Let me repeat. If the hearing officer
determines that the behavior of bringing a gun into the classroom was a
manifestation of the disability, the student can go back into the
classroom.

People say that does not happen. It does happen. In my own State of
Tennessee, in Nashville, just over a 1-year period, there were eight
students who brought guns into school who were caught and of those
eight, six were in special education. Three of those six, it was found
that bringing a gun into the school was a manifestation of their
disability and, therefore, they ended up back in the classroom.
Students who were not in special education were expelled under the law
under which 86 percent of the other students fall.
Clearly, the way we have set up this federally mandated disciplinary
procedure with this loophole sends students a mixed message about guns
in our schools. It basically says if you are in special education, you
are going to be treated in a special way if you bring a gun into
school, but if you are not in special education, you are going to be
treated like everybody else and you are going to be expelled. What a
mixed message when we are talking about guns. When we are talking about
the shootings, the 27 deaths in our classrooms and schools that we have
witnessed, we must respond.
As earlier stated, if a student with a disability is expelled, that
student

[[Page S5530]]

must be provided alternative educational services while a nondisabled
student, somebody who is not in special education who is expelled for
the same offense, will not necessarily receive alternative educational
services, which just shows how we are treating a student who comes into
the classroom with a gun differently if they happen to be disabled
compared to other students.
The amendment that I, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Helms, Senator
Coverdell, and Senator Allard, as the initial sponsors, have put
forward, allows principals and other qualified school personnel the
flexibility to do something that seems so basic. And that is, to treat
all students the same if they bring a gun into the classroom, period.
No more complicated than that. It does not matter race, it does not
matter financial status, it does not matter educational status,
everybody gets treated the same.

It allows school authorities to discipline all students in the same
way if they bring a gun, we are not talking about threats, and we are
not talking about even other weapons. We have this amendment focused on
guns and bombs coming into the schoolroom.
This amendment does not force local school authorities to have a
uniform disciplinary policy. We recognize that every situation needs to
be judged as just that, an individual, unique situation. It simply
gives them the flexibility to enforce discipline in that local school
as they see fit, with the overall objective to assure, to ensure, to
guarantee the safety of those students whom every day we send into
those classrooms.
The amendment is firearms specific. There have been others who have
asked us to at least look at expanding it to other weapons, but we have
this amendment really quite narrow; we are talking about guns and
firearms.
I mentioned the Nashville statistics. These statistics are really
hard to obtain. You always hesitate, when that is the case, to
generalize. So I want to make it very clear, I do not want to
generalize, but I do want to illustrate how, in one community where I
live, this loophole has the potential for causing real harm, I believe.
In the 1997-1998 school year in Nashville, TN there were eight
firearms infractions. Of those eight, six were students with a
disability. They were in special education.
I might add that overall in the State of Tennessee it is between 13
and 14 percent, or about one out of eight students, who are in special
education classes.
Of these six special education students, three were expelled outright
because they found, in the manifestation process, that the disability
and their bringing a gun into the classroom were unrelated. Three of
those students were not expelled, because the possession of the firearm
was found to be a manifestation of that child's disability. It was
three students who went right back into the classroom, again,
potentially putting the lives of others in danger.
We might hear, well, nobody has been killed yet in the last year or
the last 2 years. Really, I think that is a whole separate issue. The
whole idea is that we are treating people differently who have brought
a gun or a firearm into the room.
These statistics show that three people out of the eight had come
back into the classroom because a manifestation of their disability was
bringing a gun into the classroom. It is kind of hard to imagine, but
that is what the ruling was.
With that, let me close and simply say that when it comes to
possession of a firearm or a gun, the Federal Government really should
not, I believe, be tying the hands of our local education authorities,
of our local schools, our principals, our teachers, those who are in
charge of discipline.
Again, I say this. When we are focusing on guns and firearms in the
classroom, I just find it hard to believe, and really there is
absolutely no excuse for any student to intentionally bring a gun or a
bomb to school.
Students with disabilities really should not be able to hide behind,
not their disability, I want to be very clear. What is happening is we
set this structure up, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
with this single provision that allows certain students to potentially
hide behind the legislation, not their disability, but behind the
legislation and, thus, avoid punishment that a nondisabled student
would undergo.
The amendment is simple. It is straightforward. It means that all
students will be treated equally if they bring a firearm in the room. I
urge its support and hope it will be brought to a vote shortly.

Mr. HARKIN. Would the Senator yield for a colloquy or engage in any
kind of questions and answers?
Mr. FRIST. Sure.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee knows I have
the highest respect for him. In fact, I have always found him to be a
very thoughtful Senator, especially when it comes to the issues of
disability policy.
When the Senator first came to the Senate, he became chairman of the
then-existing Disability Policy Subcommittee in the Labor and Education
Committee, and I was his ranking member. I thought he did a great job.
As a matter of fact, under his chairmanship, we were able to get
through the revisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, which we had been attempting to do for several years. In fact, it
took 3 long years to get all the groups to finally agree on the
revisions and the amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. I say that as a way of background.
The Senator from Tennessee was very heavily involved in that process.
We were able to get the bill passed in May, I think it was, of 1997. It
was strongly supported in the Senate and in the House, and passed, and
was signed into law by the President.
My friend from Tennessee gave an example of the students in his home
community. He gave an example of eight students, six of whom were
disabled, at least under an IEP, as I understand it; and that three, as
I understand it, were expelled right away because it was not a
manifestation; but then he made the statement that three went right
back into the classroom.
The Senator, in a private conversation, told me about this once
before. If I am not mistaken, was this not during the school year of
1995-1996 or 1996-1997?
Mr. FRIST. It was 1997-1998.
Mr. HARKIN. It was 1997-1998. So the regulations under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act amendments did not go into
effect until March of 1999. That is 2 months ago.
I say to the Senator from Tennessee that school he is talking about
was still operating under the old system. The old system said you could
place a child with a disability in an interim educational setting for
up to 45 days if the child brought a gun to school. That is the old
bill.
The new bill says, the one for which the regulations just came out a
couple months ago--the Senator is right, a decision is made, and if it
is not a manifestation of a disability, they can be expelled
immediately. If, however, it is a manifestation of a disability, the
child can be placed, under the old bill, for up to 45 days in an
interim educational setting, and then if the school officials believe
the child is still a danger, if the child is likely to injure himself
or others, they can go to an impartial hearing, order that the child be
placed for an additional 45 days in the interim educational
setting, then at the end of that 45 days, they can do another 45 days,
as long as it is decided that child is a danger either to himself or to
others.

I ask the Senator from Tennessee, the example you gave is under the
old bill. The new bill says that at the end of 45 days, the school can
go to an impartial hearing officer and keep that child out for another
45 days. I ask the Senator if that is not a correct interpretation?
Mr. FRIST. The 1999 statistics have been that there have been nine
firearm violations, nine firearm infractions this year as of yesterday.
Of these nine infractions, four involved special education students. In
two of these cases, the students were expelled but given alternative
services. One was not expelled because the possession, walking into the
school with a firearm, was found to be a manifestation of the
disability. He is back in school today.
Mr. HARKIN. I don't know that I heard the Senator. If he could speak
a little slower, I would appreciate it. I understand that you said
recently. I do not know if you have given me----

[[Page S5531]]

Mr. FRIST. The statistics from yesterday for 1999.
Mr. HARKIN. The figures you gave were for calendar year 1999.
Mr. FRIST. The figures I gave 15 minutes ago in my presentation were
from 1997-1998. I just gave you the ones for 1999.
Mr. HARKIN. What you said is that for 1999, this school year; I do
not know if the Senator means the school year of 1999 or January until
now.
Mr. FRIST. The statistics as of yesterday, up until about 24 hours
ago, there were nine infractions over the previous 10 months in
Nashville, TN. Four of those were special education students, four of
the nine.
Mr. HARKIN. Four of the nine were special ed. Two were expelled
because it was determined not to be a manifestation. What happened to
the other two?
Mr. FRIST. One right now is back in the classroom. And because of the
finding, during that 45-day period you spoke of, that it was a
manifestation of the disability, they could not treat the student like
anybody else.
The other student case is now pending, winding its way through the
bureaucratic determination process.
Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator, you say that this one child was put
in an interim setting for 45 days. Now this child is back in the
classroom. Can the Senator tell me, did the principal or did the school
officials ask for a hearing to keep the child in the alternative
setting for an additional 45 days, which they are allowed to do under
the new law? Did they do that?
Mr. FRIST. I will have to check and get back with you. I think the
Senator's point is important. That is why I spelled it out earlier. For
a student with a disability, you have the 10 days which you can be
removed from the process. If you brought a gun into the schoolroom, you
can be removed for 10 days. Then you have a 45-day period during which
this determination is made. If you brought the gun because you had a
disability, you can, as I have demonstrated with this most recent
student from a month ago, plus the three from last year, you can go
back into the classroom during that 45-day period. I think that is the
issue that we want to close, which is basically saying, it doesn't
matter whether you have a disability or not, if you walk into a
classroom with a gun, you should be treated like everybody else.
Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator from Tennessee--and surely we can
get this right; it may take a little bit of discussion, but I think we
can get it right--the situation he just described is true to the point
where the child can be put in an alternative setting for up to 45 days.
Under the new law, which, I again point out, just went into effect this
year, the school can keep that child out not only for 45 days but for
another 45 days and another 45 days. All the school has to do is go to
the impartial hearing officer and say: This kid brought a gun to
school. It is a manifestation of his disability, but under these
circumstances, this kid is a danger to these other students and should
be kept in an alternative setting for another 45 days.

Is it not true that the school can do that? So that if the facts are,
as the Senator said, the kid is back in the classroom; obviously the
school officials felt the kid was not a danger to anyone and they let
him back in the school.
So I ask the Senator, is that not local control? The local school
officials had to decide that child was not a danger and let him back
in. There is no other way it could happen. I ask the Senator if that is
not so?
Mr. FRIST. That what is not so?
Mr. HARKIN. Let me try again. The kid brought the gun----
Mr. FRIST. This is our wording: School personnel may discipline a
child with a disability who carries or possesses a gun or firearm to or
at a school, on school premises or at a school function under the
jurisdiction of the State or local education agency in the same manner
in which such personnel may discipline a child without a disability,
period. That is all we are saying. I don't see how you cannot agree
that you should treat every child who comes into a school with a gun or
bomb the same. How can you separate one group of people out?
Again, I am committed to individuals with disabilities, but how can
you separate them out and say, we are going to treat you differently
and allow you to go back in the classroom, whether it is 10 days, 45
days, 35 days; you can argue that all you want, you can go back into
the classroom, but any child who doesn't have a disability, you are
out? That just doesn't make sense.
Mr. HARKIN. Let us look into that.
Mr. FRIST. You can look into it. But your 10 days or 45 days is
missing the point of the amendment. The amendment is what I just read.
You treat everybody the same.
Mr. HARKIN. Well, let us look at that. I think the Senator said he
supports IDEA. He supports the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. The fact is that we do treat children with disabilities different
than we treat other children. Does every child in a school have an IEP,
I ask the Senator?
Mr. FRIST. No. But my whole argument is, should they bring a bomb
into the schoolroom, would you treat them differently and let them go
back in. That is what I am saying. There are some times that you cannot
segregate a group of people and say, you get a special privilege when
it comes to bombs and guns coming to the school room. That is the point
that I am making.
Mr. HARKIN. Let me respond to the Senator on that. I am trying to
follow this logically and not to get too inflamed here.
If we believe that a child with a disability is treated differently
than a child without a disability--we accept that. A child with a
disability has an individual education program. There are certain laws
that we have passed which if a State wants to accept Federal moneys,
they abide by. No local education agency has to abide by the laws of
IDEA if they don't want to take the money. Now, they would still have
to provide a free and appropriate public education to kids under
Federal court rulings.
Again, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, that as long as we treat
children with disabilities differently, and we do because they are
disabled, we then take it to the step that the Senator said. Should we
treat a disabled child who brings a gun to school differently from a
child who is not disabled? I think that is a good question. At first
blush, it might seem to the casual observer that no, they should be
treated the same.
I say to the Senator from Tennessee, let's take two children. One is
a child with no disability, has an IQ of 120, has good grades, comes
from a pretty decent family, who all of a sudden gets a mean streak and
brings a gun to school. That is one kid.
Let's say we have another kid. He has an IQ of 60. He is mentally
retarded. He has cerebral palsy. His lifetime has been one of being
picked on by other kids and made fun of. Because of IDEA, he is now in
a regular classroom. Some kids come up to him and they say, look,
junior, we know your old man has a gun at home and he has a couple of
pistols. If you don't bring one of those pistols to us tomorrow, we are
going to cut your ears off. The kid has an IQ of 60. He is mentally
retarded. He has cerebral palsy, maybe even suffers a little bit from
schizophrenia, I don't know. The kid is terrified. He goes home. He
sneaks the old man's gun. He takes it to these kids, and he gets caught
by the principal or someone who sees the gun. Should that child be
treated differently than the kid with a 120 IQ, who knew exactly what
he was doing and who had a mean streak and brought that gun to school?

Mr. FRIST. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. The Senator can say yes. I say no.
Mr. FRIST. Let me respond to the question. They absolutely should. If
two children walk in, regardless of their IQ, the one with a 120 IQ has
a gun, and the next one has a gun and has an IQ of 60, when it comes to
removal from the room and being kept out, they should be treated
exactly the same. It should be by local control. It doesn't mean let
them in or keep them out, it means having the decision made by the
principal and not by the well-intended legislation that has this huge
loophole in it.
Treat every child who brings a gun or a bomb to the room the same,
regardless of who they are or how empathetic you can make the story
seem. The big thing is that you treat them the same. It is the
principal and the teacher and

[[Page S5532]]

the people locally who decide, not the Senate.
Mr. HARKIN. Now, I believe the Senator made a very important point
there in his first comment to me. The Senator said that if two kids--
the ones I described--bring a gun to school, they should be treated
exactly the same in terms of removal. I agree with the Senator. In
terms of removal, they should be treated the same. Today, under IDEA,
they are treated the same.
I am going to stick with my example of the two kids who bring a gun
to school. Right now, under IDEA, the principal can call up the police
and say come and get these kids, and they get them and haul them to the
police station. They don't care whether the kid is under an IEP or not.
I agree with the Senator; in terms of removal, they should be the same.
And they are the same today. In terms of getting them out of the
classroom immediately, they are treated the same.
Where the difference occurs is later on during the 45-day period,
where it is examined as to why the kid brought the gun to school, and
whether it was a manifestation of his disability or not.
I ask my friend from Tennessee this straightforward question: Is it
true that under IDEA, as it is today, if a disabled child brings a gun
to school and a nondisabled child brings a gun to school, they are both
treated the same in terms of removal?
Mr. FRIST. That is totally incorrect. I just gave you an example
where there were eight students in Tennessee. One was expelled because
he did not have the disability, and three others were back in the
classroom. Do you call that being treated the same? Absolutely not.
The whole purpose of my amendment is that, if you bring a gun or a
bomb to the classroom, you be treated exactly the same. And if you
don't have a disability, if you aren't in a special education class,
you are out of school, no questions asked. If you have a disability,
there are at least three out of eight chances you are back in the
classroom within 45 days. That is not the case.
Mr. HARKIN. Let me try again. Let's talk about removal. Talk about
day one. Two kids bring a gun to school. One is disabled and one is
not. Is it true that the principal can immediately expel both students
on that day and get them out of school?
Mr. FRIST. No. He can suspend, not expel. That student has to go
through a manifestation process, an initial 10 days and then 45 days
with a determination, and that student can be back in the classroom, as
has been demonstrated in Nashville, TN, and other places. Anybody can
check their own statistics.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FRIST. I will yield to my colleague from Missouri for a question.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Tennessee, when a
student is subject to an IEP and is disciplined for bringing a gun to
school now, is it not an immediate discipline of expulsion for a year
as it is for others; is it for a limited period of time? What is that
first interval of discipline that is provided for under IDEA?
Mr. FRIST. Under IDEA, for students with a disability who bring a gun
to school, there is an initial 10-day period in which they can be taken
out and then a 45-day period during which that manifestation process
takes place.
Mr. ASHCROFT. If I may pursue an additional question. So there is a
disparity right away. The student without an IEP is expelled for a
year.
Mr. FRIST. It is zero tolerance in Tennessee and in most States
today. If you don't have an IEP, or are not disabled, you are expelled
under zero tolerance for a year.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Under an IEP, you have an initial 10-day suspension,
and legal proceedings start to determine whether or not the carrying of
the gun, brandishing of the gun, or bringing the pipe bomb or a firearm
into the classroom was a manifestation of your disability?
Mr. FRIST. That is correct.
(Mr. CRAPO assumed the Chair.)
Mr. ASHCROFT. When you talk about a manifestation of a disability,
what does that mean? That you bring a gun to school because you are
disabled? Is that what you are saying? Or could that mean because you
are severely emotionally disturbed, for instance?
Mr. FRIST. It certainly could. The manifestation process is a
complicated process and one to reach out to people. The term can
certainly mean that.
Mr. ASHCROFT. So it could be that a student who is severely
emotionally disturbed is protected from being expelled for a full year,
based on the fact that he is severely and emotionally disturbed and
that resulted in the bringing of the gun to school?
Mr. FRIST. That is correct.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Then the suspension--if you got past the 10 days, you
could suspend the student for 45 days.
Mr. FRIST. During which that so-called manifestation process takes
place.
Mr. ASHCROFT. That is related to whether or not his disability or
special education status caused or was related to the bringing and
brandishing of the gun?
Mr. FRIST. That is correct.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Now, these determination proceedings, do they involve
substantial expense for the school?
Mr. FRIST. They certainly do, and it is very expensive. The process
itself is a process that I think can be important and useful. So the
overall manifestation process, as we look at IDEA, is something that I
am not necessarily critical of. It is the idea of taking a disability
and saying the disability and bringing a gun mean that you are back in
the school with unequal treatment.
But the answer is yes. I travel around Tennessee and people tell me
this manifestation process can be very expensive because it involves
lawyers.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Thousands of dollars?
Mr. FRIST. Yes, thousands of dollars.
Mr. ASHCROFT. That lasts 45 days, according to the Senator from Iowa,
and you have to have another hearing to have another 45 days.
Mr. FRIST. There can be an extension for another 45 days if a
determination is made. You go for 45 days, and it can go another 45,
although, usually if it is a manifestation, after 45 days the student
is back in school.
Mr. ASHCROFT. The theory of the legislation probably provides a basis
for having this series of bureaucratic trials and hearings every 45
days as people are litigating whether or not you could keep a very,
very dangerous person out of school.
Mr. FRIST. That is the way it is written, to take 45 days. Your
fundamental question is, did the disability cause you to bring the gun
to school?
That is hard to imagine, to be honest. It seems that if it is the
cause, you would not want to put them back in school. The idea of
having 45 days and another 45 days if they are threatening, as the
Senator from Iowa mentioned, conceptually, that is pretty good. Imagine
that it is manic depression, or something frustrating, something that
can be treated, and a kid is violent underneath, and they did bring a
gun to school. You are going to want to give the kid the benefit of the
doubt. You are not going to say keep them out another 45 days and then
another. If the kid comes in and says, ``I am sorry,'' you say, ``Go
back to school.''
That is just treating people differently because they happen to have
that particular illness and you are getting them back in the school.
All I am saying is let's equalize it and keep treating them the same.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Earlier the Senator said that it is hard to imagine a
person would have brought a gun to school based on a disability. But in
fact the determination from Davidson County, Nashville, TN, is that
over the last couple of years they apparently found that a number of
the individuals involved--two in 1 year and three from another year--
the determination was made in this process that bringing the gun was
related to a disability and therefore the student was not to be treated
the same as other students but would have a very tactical set of
bureaucratic rights to remain in school, or reenter school.
It seems to me that goes to the heart of what we are talking about--
whether or not a student who has a problem that causes the student to
be involved in bringing a gun--that is, the manifestation proceedings.
Part of the evidence or manifestation of the problem is that you come
to school with a gun. That provides the authority for reentering
school. The fact that you have a problem which causes you to bring guns
to school becomes your license to get back into school.

[[Page S5533]]

I think that describes the loophole we have talked about. We created
it here in the Senate.
Am I getting to the heart of it?
Mr. FRIST. No. It is that loophole that has been created.
I will tell you what my theory is as I look and talk to people around
Tennessee. Whether people are supporting individual disabilities or
not, it is not about that. It has to do with the great fear I have in
this unequal treatment of people, and allowing that special group of
people with an offense of bringing a gun to school or a bomb to school
to go back into school when you don't let anybody else to go back into
school. I will tell you, to me, that is a potentially devastating
loophole we have created. It hasn't anything to do with the disability.
That is my greatest fear. That is why the amendment is on the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for an observation and again for a
question?
I say to the Senator from Missouri, again, I don't mind people making
a decision one way or another on these things. I hope we base it on
factual circumstances. The fact is that what the Senator, my friend
from Missouri, just described is the idea in the old law, going back 20
years. We had the 45-day period, at the end of which kids can go back
to school. We changed that. The final regulations on that didn't become
final until March of this year when we put the 45 days in, at the end
of which, if the school officials believe that the child is still a
danger, they can go to a hearing officer, and say, hey, because of all
these reasons, that kid should be kept out of school for another 45
days.
I say to my friend from Tennessee that I don't have that much lack of
faith in my school principals and officials. If they look at this kid
and say, wait a minute, this kid is a danger, they are going to throw
up their hands and say, oh, my gosh. They want to protect their
schools, and they are going to go to a hearing officer and say, wait a
minute, keep that kid out.
So I want to make it clear that what my friend is talking about is
the old law. That is all I want to make clear.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I think it is important to accept the fact that you
have faith in the school administrator and the principal, because under
the proposal of the Senator from Tennessee, and under my proposal and
under the Gun-Free Schools Act for schools, which we passed, a
principal has the discretion of being able to allow a student to
reenter. And, if you trust the principals, you trust the school
official, that is an available opportunity as it exists and would exist
if we were to pass this amendment providing for uniformity, because we
allow the treatment under our proposal to be identical to the treatment
for any other student not the subject of an IEP. And principals have
the discretion to allow such other students back into the classroom.

So what we want to do is not punish anybody, we want to allow that
principal to exercise his discretion in a way that is likely to promote
safety in the classroom and in a way that it does not hamstring the
principal.
Just to give you an idea, people do not understand, and I didn't
understand, what a manifestation determination is. This is a flow chart
of how a manifestation determination is made under IDEA. This is a very
serious process. To go through these kinds of processes and to have to
jump through these legal hoops and to cause the school districts--the
cheapest hearing I have been able to talk to a school superintendent
about in my State is between $7,500 and $10,000, just to conduct a
hearing to do in the special settings what the principal is able to do
given his need to protect the safety of the school environment on his
own in another setting.
I think that is what we are looking at. We are not here to try to say
that we want to abuse individuals who are the subject of IEPs. We
passed the statutory framework designed to help disabled children. We
want them to get a good education. But I submit to you that among those
most exposed to the threat to safety and security in the schools when a
student with a disability comes with a weapon are other disabled
students.
This is not a question of pitting students with a disability against
other students in the classroom, this is a question about safety and
security in the classroom and allowing those individuals charged with
the awesome responsibility of providing for the education of our
youngsters the authority to take the steps that are necessary, absent
intermeddling bureaucratic barriers from Washington, to secure the
school environment.
Given the fact that every principal has the authority in other
settings to be able to reenter a student who is appropriately at a
stage to reenter the classroom, this bill would not prevent principals
from having the same approach to students who were the subject of IEPs.
Mr. FRIST. I don't want to keep going back to the underlying
amendment. We again have discussed this, and we have debated it. It
really comes back to treating people the same under this concept of
guns and violence in the school. I think we may come down to a
fundamental disagreement that you believe the current legislation will
cover and take care of what is happening, that if they have a
disability and a manifestation of bringing that gun to school is
related to the disability, it is OK for them to come back to school if
somebody says they are not threatened.
Mr. HARKIN. If the school officials say it is OK.
Mr. FRIST. That is right. I think that is going to be different,
because we are basically going to say let these school principals and
officials make the ultimate decision, and not an officer who happens to
be assigned to manage that particular case, who is going to develop a
relationship with that student and family, and who says, ``Please let
him go back to school.''
Let's treat everybody the same. Let the authorities, the principals,
the teachers, make that decision instead of separating them out, since
we know they come back into the school.
Let me again read the amendment.

School personnel may discipline a child with a disability
who carries, or possesses, a gun, or firearm to or at school,
on school premises, or at a school function under the
jurisdiction of a State or a local educational agency in the
same manner in which such personnel may discipline a child
without a disability.

Again, I have given examples of people going back into the
schoolroom. Let me give two other examples.
This is an article in the Washington Times.

Fairfax County, Virginia, school officials learned that a
group of students were in possession of a loaded .357 magnum
handgun on school property. They moved quickly to expel the
six students. Five students were expelled. One student, a
special education student who had a learning disability, who
had what they called a ``weakness in written language
skills,'' continued to receive an education. School officials
reported that this child bragged to other teachers and
students that he could not be expelled because he was in
special education.

That is the signal we have sent through IDEA, through this loophole
in our legislation, not the overall legislation. The overall
legislation is great.
In the Cobb County school system in Atlanta, not too far from where I
am, two students, who were initially expelled for bringing a handgun
and ammunition clip to school, were also protected by IDEA because they
were special education students. There is just too much of this special
treatment.
Our simple amendment basically says, disabled or not, educational
status or not, whoever you are, you need to be treated the same where
such personnel ``may discipline'' a child the same without a
disability.
Mr. HARKIN. May I ask the Senator another question?
Mr. FRIST. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. Does the amendment also not seek services for these kids
under paragraph (b), ``ceasing to provide education''?
Mr. FRIST. We basically say we will treat those students with a gun
or a firearm the same as nondisabled students.
The whole cessation of services we are not here to debate. Everyone
will be treated the same, whether disabled or not disabled.
Mr. HARKIN. It is part of the amendment?
Mr. FRIST. That is correct, but nondisabled students have cessation
of services. The 85 percent of American students out there not
classified as disabled have cessation of services.
Treat them the same.

[[Page S5534]]

Mr. HARKIN. One of the reasons I think the Senator will find the
Parent Teachers Association, Association of Police Chiefs and other
police around the country opposing this amendment is they think the
worst thing we could possibly do would be to take kids who are
severely--emotionally or otherwise--disabled and throw them out on the
streets.
Mr. FRIST. We are not saying that. We are saying treat them the same.
We are not telling them they have to cease services.
I hope you have more respect for the services that will be needed and
helpful. We are not saying you have to cease services. You can still
provide the services. We are saying treat everybody the same.
Mr. HARKIN. The reality of the situation and the reason we have
IDEA--and we hear it all the time; I hear it from my principals, too, I
say to my friend from Missouri--sometimes it is tough to put up with
the kids with special needs. They need a lot of attention. Sometimes
they are a little raucous. Sometimes the principals throw up their
hands and want to get them out of the classrooms. The teachers want to
get them out of the classrooms. They are hard to deal with. These are
kids with disabilities.
Time after time, for every story either of my friends relates about
principals or others who are at wit's end because of a kid, I can come
up with ten other stories of parents with kids who are disabled and how
those kids were mistreated in school.
The reality of the situation is--and this is only my feeling--if you
take two kids, one disabled maybe with a learning disability, maybe
with other problems, who has been mainstreamed in school, expel him as
you do a regular student and leave it up to the principal to say, OK,
you can let him back in when you want, I think that principal will have
a lot of pressure on him to let one kid back in, maybe, depending on
the circumstances, but that disabled kid, that kid causes a lot of
problems, costs a lot of money, we will keep him out.
I am just telling Senators that has been the situation for the past
30 to 50 years in this country. That is why we have IDEA. That is why
we have individualized education programs for these kids. That is the
reality of the situation.
Mr. FRIST. But the Senator from Iowa understands that we are not
saying keep the students out forever. We are saying if you keep the
nondisabled student out for the rest of the year, you should be able to
keep the disabled student out for the rest of the year.
In fact, if you look at nondisabled students in terms of cessation of
services, because the implication is people are so bad and mean they
will cut off services, if you look at the nonspecial ed students in
Nashville, TN expelled under zero tolerance, 55 percent of those are
provided services.
I guess the Senator argues that of the disabled there will be such
intense discrimination against that group of people, and I understand
Senator Harkin has fought the battles here for 20 years, and I respect
that tremendously. I guess I have more faith in our principals and in
our schools that if you treat everybody the same, that is exactly what
you will do.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. FRIST. I yield to the Senator from Missouri and then the Senator
from Iowa.

Mr. ASHCROFT. What I appear to be hearing is if they are treated the
same as nondisabled students, that is kind of a discrimination.
That is equity and parity in treatment. It doesn't stack up to
discrimination, in my judgment.
I wonder if the Senator from Tennessee is aware of the letter from
the National School Boards Association regarding the Frist-Ashcroft
amendment to S. 254.
Mr. FRIST. I have not seen that.
Mr. ASHCROFT. It is an interesting letter on behalf of the Nation's
95,000 local school board members. This is from the executive director,
Anne L. Bryant, executive director of the National School Boards
Association:

The National School Boards Association urges you to support
the Frist-Ashcroft amendment to S. 254 that would enhance the
safety of all students from gun violence.

We are not talking about the vast number of individuals that are
participants in the IDEA program. The number is vast, with 13 or 14
percent in Tennessee, and 13 or 14 percent of the students in Missouri
and Iowa. These are not people who show up for school with guns very
often. When some of them do, they are threatening the others.
When a person shows up with explosives or a gun at school, the
objective there ought to be school safety. It ought to be to address
that.
The amendment provides school officials with the discretion to
suspend or expel students covered by the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act in the same manner as other students in cases where they
bring firearms to school.
It has been stated there is a lot of opposition. This is a letter
from the 95,000 members of the School Boards Association stating this
is the right thing to do.
Mr. FRIST. I think we have been very careful to try to get this
amendment as tight and focused as we could, talking about guns in the
classroom, bombs in the classroom.
We have gone so far to put wording in the bill to say they
intentionally have to bring that gun into the school or the classroom.
We have done our best to get it as narrow and focused as we possibly
can.
It comes down to safety. We are on the juvenile justice bill. We had
these terrible 27 deaths from guns in classrooms, and this bill goes
right at the heart. Again, not the disability community or individuals
with disabilities. I count myself among their greatest advocates, but I
am concerned that with the loophole we created that something drastic,
devastating, is going to happen because of this loophole where we are
treating students with disabilities in special education, allowing them
to return to the classroom, but not letting anybody else return to the
classroom.
We are treating them differently, where people who brought a gun to
the classroom can return 45 days later.
Mr. ASHCROFT. In specific inquiries to the individuals who provided
the Senator with the information from the Davidson County school
system, is it their view that this loophole exposes the system and the
students in the system to a risk they would not otherwise be exposed
to?
Mr. FRIST. I talked with the officials in the major urban areas where
the concentration of people are throughout Tennessee. There is general
agreement of people who are on the front line in the schools, who are
responsible for the safety of our children who are there every day.
They say, Senator Frist, we know you are the advocate for individuals
with disabilities, but how could you create a huge loophole that puts
our children at risk? That is why I am here.

Mr. HARKIN. Let me ask the Senator----
Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator answer a question?
Mr. FRIST. Did the Senator from Vermont have a question?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I would like to volunteer this point.
Mr. HARKIN. Come on over. We are all friends.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I listened very carefully. I think when you get right
down to it the basic question is, in the final analysis, should the
school have to afford an alternative education situation and pay for
it. It is a matter of dollars and cents. It has nothing to do with the
safety of the children or anything else.
Under the circumstances you are dealing with here, if a child comes
in with a gun, if it is somebody without an IEP or whatever, they can
be thrown out of school and they can be let back into school. That is
entirely the discretion of the school officials. They can say this is
an aberration or whatever.
If a child with a disability comes in, then you go through the 45
days to assess as to whether or not it was as a result of a disability.
If it was not the result of a disability, then the child can be
disciplined as any other child. If, on the other hand, it was the
result of a disability, then they are required to provide an
alternative educational situation. It may or may not cost something.
But that child is not in the classroom. So no child goes back into the
classroom if they are a threat to the classroom.

[[Page S5535]]

What it comes down to, and what the school officials object to, as I
understand it, is they have to set up a special 45-day program for this
child, and pay for it. The reason is not to protect the school or
protect the kids; it is to make sure they do not have to provide the
funds. You can keep those 45 days going forever. Then that costs money.
So this is not a safety question. This is a money question. The school
boards are saying they don't want to pay for those 45 days. That is
what they are saying.
Mr. FRIST. That is not what I heard. Basically, what I hear from the
superintendents and the principals is the safety end of it. The expense
is expensive, it has been pointed out. What I am dealing with is the
safety end of it, the fact that our principals' hands are tied because
of the way the legislation is written, because of the threat of
lawyers, of trial lawyers who threaten to sue the school, the school
system, based on our bill that they basically are saying the students
come back in the classroom, when the student without the disability is
out for the school year.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator from Tennessee yield for a question?
Mr. FRIST. I will.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask him if his experience has been similar to mine. I
have probably gone to 30 or 40 school districts in the last 3 months,
visiting school districts. I have found people are very concerned about
the safety of students. My own view of it has been totally different
from that suggested by the Senator from Vermont, saying that school
safety is not the question here. I talked to one superintendent. This
did not happen to be an IEP student who carried the gun to school but
who threatened to kill other students in school seven times.
Of course, because of the problems in effecting discipline, they kept
the student in school. Finally the student shot another student. Safety
issues are involved here. Make no mistake about it. When someone brings
a gun into the school, safety issues are involved.
Mr. FRIST. There have been 27 people murdered.
Mr. ASHCROFT. This is not just a financial issue when someone brings
a pipe bomb to school. That is a safety issue. Sure it costs money to
put the person in alternative settings, and it costs money to have a
hearing every month and a half, every 45 days. Those are massive costs.
I will not deny those are very serious costs. But let us not suggest--
at least to the school districts that I dealt with--that there are no
safety issues involved when people bring guns and pipe bombs to school.
Does that comport with the Senator's experience in Tennessee?

Mr. FRIST. Yes, it does. The purpose of the amendment is just that.
It goes back to having safe schools. That is what we have been debating
so much over the last several days.
I will yield the floor. Other people want to go forward, but let me
just close and say the purpose of this amendment is real simple. That
is to get rid of a loophole which allows one group of students to be
treated differently. If they both brought a gun to the school, the
loophole being that a group of students are ending up back in school
where one group of students is expelled. All this amendment says is,
let's treat everybody the same and let's have those decisions made
locally.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would just like to sum it up. What we
are talking about are the problems we have had from the beginning of
time, the problems that children with disabilities have and how we
handle them. The reason we created IDEA, the reason it was passed, is
that we were not allowing the children with disabilities to get any
education. It went to the U.S. Supreme Court. A consensus decision by a
number of courts, I should say, was reached, in which they determined
that if you are going to provide a free and appropriate education
generally to the public, you have to have an appropriate education for
children with disabilities. And we funded that. We required that. That
is why we are here today.
What we are now dealing with is we do not want to provide those
services. If a student has a disability and provided a threat to the
school, it is perfectly clear, if it is a result of a disability, you
have to provide that child with an education as the Constitution
requires, because, if it was the result of a disability, he is not
really responsible for it, so you have to provide it. That gets
expensive.
If it was not part of the disability, then the child is just treated
as any other child and there is no need for a different or additional
IEP, away from the classroom setting; the child gets treated and
handled like anyone else.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Is it the Senator's position, then, if a student is the
subject of a IEP, a special education student, and brings a gun to
school and it is determined that student did not bring it as a
manifestation of the disability----
Mr. JEFFORDS. Right.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Is it your position, then, that the school can expel
him with no responsibility to provide services?
Mr. JEFFORDS. That is not correct.
Mr. HARKIN. They have to provide services for him. They have to
provide services.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Wait a second. Apparently, there appears to be a
difference between you and the Senator from Iowa. I was just going to
indicate--is it your view in the event the dismissal comes because the
gun was not a manifestation, that there is no responsibility?
Mr. JEFFORDS. He is just treated like anyone else at that point as
far as discipline, is my understanding.
Mr. HARKIN. If I might interject myself into this a little bit?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I respond to the Senator from Missouri that services
always have to be provided. Educational, medical, mental health, those
kinds of services do have to be provided. But if it was not a
manifestation of a disability, of course, the kid can be expelled from
school.
Mr. ASHCROFT. So the distinction is not that the law provides that
there can be no services, or will be none, your view is directly
contrary to that of the Senator from Vermont, that services must be
provided on a continuing basis, even if it was not a manifestation. But
he can be kept out of the school?
Mr. HARKIN. That is in the law.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I think it is in the law. That is why I was asking the
Senator.
Mr. JEFFORDS. He may not have to return to the school.
Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield?
Mr. ASHCROFT. Not providing them at the school. That is where you do
get into expensive treatments, where you get to $60,000, $70,000,
$80,000 a year to provide the student with individualized home-based
education.
But the point is, the purpose of the amendment of the Senator from
Tennessee, which I am very grateful for the opportunity to participate
in with him, is to provide an equity in services. When you suggest that
there is an equity for those who are subject to an IEP, but the
violation is not a manifestation of the disability, that there is not
any requirement for services, that is simply not true. The law provides
the services must continue.
I think the fundamental point the Senator from Tennessee and I want
to make is this. There are not very many people who are bringing guns
to school. There are very few of them. And even fewer who would bring
guns or pipe bombs to school are students with a disability.
But for those who do, the school officials ought not to have to go
through torturous legal proceedings and laborious determinations of
manifestations and the like for those who bring pipe bombs and guns to
school. We ought to be able to trust the principals to say: You don't
belong here in school. You will come back in the same manner that other
students do.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I might point out, under your theory here, if a child
with a disability comes in, and it is not a manifestation of
disability, they are not entitled, under the IDEA, to have any
education at all. You just get rid of them, like you get rid of the one
who came in who was not disabled.

Mr. ASHCROFT. That is exactly the kind of parity we are talking
about. If

[[Page S5536]]

a person brings a weapon to school, the principal has the right to say:
You do not belong in school and you are not going to disrupt or
threaten the safety of this school environment and you are not entitled
to special services, especially in cases where bringing a weapon to
school had nothing to do with your disability.
I believe it ought to be the case, and this amendment provides we
give school administration officials the kind of discretion they have
in their own States and under the Gun-Free Schools Act we passed a
couple years ago where the principal has the discretion to expel them
for a year, with the discretion to allow them to reenter on his or her
determination or school authorities' determination.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Under these circumstances which we are talking about--
expelled but not a manifestation--then a child is expelled from school
but is still entitled to educational services. That is the difference.
That means an additional expense. The child who does not have a
disability and is thrown out of school has to find another school, has
to get a tutor or do something else. We are all talking dollars and
cents. We are talking about a cost that is added by virtue of the fact
that you must provide special services.
Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri--
Mr. JEFFORDS. I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator from Vermont will yield for a question.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator from Missouri, as long as it takes
to reach some parameters on this, the fact is, the principal's hands
are not tied right now in getting kids out of school immediately. Will
the Senator agree with that or not? No?
Mr. ASHCROFT. For expelling students.
Mr. HARKIN. Getting them out of the school immediately if they bring
a gun to school.
Mr. ASHCROFT. For the first 10 days, they can get them out of school.
Mr. HARKIN. Forty-five days.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Then it takes additional proceedings to get to the 45-
day period.
Mr. HARKIN. No, it doesn't; no, no, it doesn't; no, it doesn't. No.
Mr. ASHCROFT. On the 11th day, you have to start a different regime
that includes providing separate services, education in another setting
if you don't provide it at school.
Mr. HARKIN. But they can keep them out of the school for 45 days.
Mr. ASHCROFT. They can keep them out of a regular classroom.
Mr. HARKIN. Wherever they brought the gun to school, they can keep
them out of that school for 45 days. The law is pretty clear. I don't
know what we are debating here.
Mr. ASHCROFT. In all deference to the Senator, the law is clear and
the law provides substantial disparate or different treatment, and the
treatment which is different causes very serious problems in the real
world. It causes problems because we let students who bring guns into
school back into the school system because of this system.
Mr. HARKIN. Let's take it one step at a time, I say to my friend. I
am trying to get to this one point. Are the principal's hands tied if a
kid brings a gun to school--I don't care if they are disabled or not.
In getting that kid immediately out of school for up to 45 days, I
think the law is clear, they can do that; they don't have to show
anything.

Mr. ASHCROFT. They have responsibilities when they do that that they
don't have with other students.
Mr. HARKIN. Again, I am just saying----
Mr. ASHCROFT. So if you are talking about hands tied, you may not tie
their hands, but you force them to busy their hands doing a whole
variety of other things.
Mr. HARKIN. Again, I say to my friend----
Mr. ASHCROFT. That results in those kids showing up in school far
earlier than they otherwise would. It may not work that way on the
floor of the Senate, but that is the way it works in school.
Mr. HARKIN. I want to take it step by step.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Sure.
Mr. HARKIN. Step by step. The first step is getting the kid out of
school because there is a clear danger. You want to get him out of
there.
I want to make it clear, we all understand that a principal can get
that kid out of school. They can call the police station right now and
say: Come and get this kid; he has a gun. They can take him down to the
police station. The police can do it. They have that right now. Even if
the kid is severely disabled, one can say, please come and pick him up
and take him to the police station now. Their hands are not tied. I
want to take the first step in getting the kid with a gun out of the
school. I just hope that my friend will agree that the principal can do
that.
Mr. ASHCROFT. You are asking me that question?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. ASHCROFT. The principal can do that.
Mr. HARKIN. Thank you.
Mr. ASHCROFT. And this amendment is designed to extend the quality of
treatment that you appear to admire at the first of the process through
the process adequately so that we protect the safety of the school
environment for a much longer period of time.
Mr. HARKIN. OK. Now, my friend and I agree that the principal can get
the kid out immediately. Let's take the second step: timeframe. For a
disabled kid, it can be up to 45 days. They don't have to do anything.
They can keep him out for 45 days. They don't have to show anything.
They can keep him out for 45 days.
Mr. ASHCROFT. They do have to do things.
Mr. HARKIN. Provide services in education.
Mr. ASHCROFT. That is different than with other students.
Mr. HARKIN. That is true.
Mr. ASHCROFT. When we take these steps, let's tell the whole story
about each step.
Mr. HARKIN. For the disabled child, they do have to continue to
provide services.
Mr. ASHCROFT. If they don't let him back in, for that student, they
have to set up some other school for him, and that could even be a
school that is housed with a full-time teacher and all the kinds of
assistance the student might need.
Mr. HARKIN. It would be in an alternative setting to be determined
among the parents, the hearing officer and the school.
Mr. ASHCROFT. And that is totally different than it is for a
nondisabled student.
Mr. HARKIN. I agree with you.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Good, good. Here we are, for the first 10 days, both
can be sent out of school, but after the 10th day----
Mr. HARKIN. I think then while we agree that the principal can get
the kid out right away and can get him out for 45 days, our
disagreement, it seems to me, is not so much on getting the kid out of
the school immediately and getting the immediate danger out; it seems
to me our disagreement is what happens later, what happens with those
kids later on, how are they treated and how, if at all, they are let
back in the school. That seems to be our disagreement.
Mr. ASHCROFT. That is a very significant point here, and if I just
take you to the schools, and the best information we have in this
debate is what the Senator from Tennessee has brought us, that they are
treated deferentially and a significant number of them are back in
schools prematurely because the schools feel like they have to let them
back in at a time when, according to their testimony, they are
uncomfortable about it.
Mr. HARKIN. Again, I think we can work through this. I hope. We may
not always agree. I am trying to get down to the nub of the problem.
Mr. FRIST. Will the Senator.
Mr. HARKIN. And it seems to me that we do agree. I understood----
Mr. FRIST. This Senator does not agree.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont has the
floor.
Mr. FRIST. Will the Senator from Vermont yield?
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield further?

[[Page S5537]]

Mr. JEFFORDS. Let me get organized here. I yield to the Senator from
Iowa. Please refer back to me and then I will recognize the others, and
we will have an orderly process here.
Mr. HARKIN. The point I am trying to make is that in the initial
statement of my friend from Tennessee, the Senator talked about the
Littleton school shooting and kids bringing guns to school and getting
these dangerous kids out of school. I agree.
I just wanted to make the point very clearly that in terms of a child
bringing a gun to school, a principal right now can deal with a kid who
is disabled just as they can with a kid who is not disabled, in terms
of getting that kid out of school, having the police haul them away,
have them book him, have them charge him with a crime or anything else.
I just wanted to make that point very clear, that they can get those
kids out of that school.
Now we are going to get into the next stage about what happens with
those kids. That is the only point I want to make. I thank the Senator.
Mr. FRIST. Will the Senator from Vermont yield for a short period?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield.
Mr. FRIST. For the last 45 minutes, we have had the Senator from Iowa
talking to me or talking to the body trying to explain so everybody can
understand this process that we have set up for individuals with
disabilities, which is a good process overall because they are very
complex issues.
We have a 10-day period where we have one set of rules which I agree
that basically you do the same for an individual with a disability and
nondisability. Then you have a 45-day period, which, as the chart that
we saw earlier shows, in terms of a manifestation process, is confusing
and is a difficult process. It is an evolving process and one that has
changed over time so that we can adequately consider individuals with
their disabilities and what their special needs are.

Our point, and I know the Senator from Iowa keeps shifting away from
it, but I am going to keep coming back to it, because the amendment is
so simple. Our point is to close a loophole that if a disabled student
brings a gun or a bomb in the classroom, they end up back in this
classroom. If you do not have a disability you are not in the
classroom. That is a loophole.
The point I want to make is, we can march through the whole 10-day
period, 45-day period, another 45-day period of threatening and all
that. That is the whole point, that we have barrier after barrier after
barrier for a group of people who brought a gun into the classroom,
with our children around, and they brought a gun there. We have all
these barriers set up for one group of students, but for the other
group of students they are out for that year. We say, treat them both
the same. That is all the amendment does.
Mr. JEFFORDS. That is, unfortunately, not the way the courts have
ruled as to how a State has to handle those situations. Students with
disabilities are entitled to an IEP. They are entitled to special
education and related services. They can be denied going back into the
classroom if they are in any way a threat to that classroom. But they
are entitled to services. That isn't going to change. And this law will
not change.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Does the Senator from Vermont yield?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.
Mr. ASHCROFT. On what basis does the court say they are entitled to
an IEP?
Mr. JEFFORDS. That goes back to the 14th amendment.
Mr. ASHCROFT. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, isn't
it?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Based on constitutional decisions that were levied back
in the late 1960s and 1970s, which determined that you had to give an
equal opportunity to children with disabilities. Part of that equal
opportunity is appropriate education, which takes into consideration
the nature of the disability.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield to me to elaborate a little
further?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Missouri that prior to the two
1972 cases, the PARC case and the Mills case, it was found by the
courts, and by others, that there were millions of kids in our country
who were denied an education simply because of their disability.
In both the PARC case--that is the Pennsylvania Association of
Retarded Children--and the Mills case here in the District, the courts
said, basically, look, if a State provides a free public education to
its children--now, a State does not have to, States do not have to
provide a free public education; there is no constitutional mandate for
that, by the way. But the court said, if a State provides a free public
education, under the 14th amendment to the Constitution it cannot deny
a free public education, just as it cannot deny it to a child who is
black, because of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, it cannot
deny a free public education to a child with a disability; and,
furthermore, the court said, because of the disability, the education
must not only be free but appropriate.
So I say to my friend--and I will just go through this a little bit
longer--the States, then, were faced with a constitutional mandate that
they had to provide a free appropriate public education to kids with
disabilities.
The States were panic stricken. How were they ever going to afford to
do this? They came to Congress. Congress said: OK. We will set up a
law. We called it the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
passed in 1975. Both the Senator from Vermont and I were in the House
at the time. We set up a law, and we said: OK. We want to have some
national standards. We do not want to have 50 different standards. We
want to set up national standards for providing services to kids with
disabilities. We do not want 50 different things out there.

So we set up IDEA. We said our objective was to provide 40 percent of
the funding. By the way, we haven't, and we ought to.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Glad to have your support on that, Senator.
Mr. HARKIN. I always have. We ought to fully fund IDEA. But I just
want to walk through this.
So we set up IDEA, and we said, if you, State of Missouri, would like
to have the money we can provide, then you have to adhere to IDEA. No
State, including the State of Missouri, has to abide by any of the
provisions in IDEA if they do not want to accept any of the money.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. I just wanted to point out, the Senator was questioning
about whether or not this was a constitutional mandate. It is a
constitutional mandate on the States that they have to provide a free
and appropriate public education. IDEA says to the States: We will help
you with money. Here are the rules of the game.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator from Vermont yield?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to the Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I have been traveling in my State and talking with
educators. I have never had any issue that is of more concern to them
than the problems of enforcing discipline caused by the IDEA Act. What
we are doing in our schools today is not required by the Constitution.
And sooner or later the people are going to rise up and put an end to
it.
Let me just share this thought with you. Taking a gun to school by a
youngster is a Federal crime. What if they are put in jail, do they
have to be sent back to the school? That is just the point.
Let me read this letter I received just a few weeks ago from one of
Alabama's most experienced attorneys general:
He has been a leader in the State Attorney General Association.

Dear Jeff:
I am writing you this letter concerning my general outrage
over the laws of the Federal Government and how they are
being administered in relation to school violence.
I had already been having meetings with our Superintendent
of Education concerning new rules and interpretations of
rules based on what I believe to be the Federal Disabilities
Act.
The general thrust of the matter is that violent children
are being kept in school because of the Federal Rules
relative to disabilities.
I can point to at least seven to nine occasions in Baldwin
County--

His county----

in which I believe expulsion was called for, but could not be
accomplished because of the interpretation of the
Disabilities Act.
I realize that mental disorders can be a disability, but
the primary concern should be

[[Page S5538]]

the safety of the children who are not causing any
difficulties.
Our schools simply do not have sufficient resources for one
on one education and I would hope that you and other members
of Alabama's delegation would review this problem which I
believe to be epidemic throughout this Country.

Here is an editorial in the Mobile Press Register about a 14-year-old
student classified as ``EC,'' emotionally conflicted. He had to be
assigned an aide to go to school, to go to class with him. One aide to
this one student because of his problems, an aide assigned to him
during school hours and during bus rides to and from school. The
student was accused of assaulting his aide while the aide tried to stop
him from trying to wreck the schoolbus.

These are the kinds of things that have happened all over America.
This bill does not go far enough, in my opinion. It only says, if you
bring a deadly weapon to school, and in violation of Federal law, you
have to be treated like everybody else, and you do not get special
protections because you are emotionally conflicted.
In fact, emotionally conflicted kids may often be the most dangerous
ones, the ones most likely to come back in, say, 6 months from now and
kill some innocent child in a classroom or shoot their teacher. This is
a good step forward. I would like to, if I could, be listed as a
cosponsor of the legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on so many matters of
education. I just wanted to share those remarks.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I appreciate the remarks.
I, again, point out, if the child is violent and it is not a
manifestation of their disability, they can be treated like anyone else
as far as removal from school. If it is a manifestation, then special
rules apply. Those special rules may well determine that they not be in
the general education classroom. That process may require maybe an aide
to be assigned to them. That is the way the law works.
Many, many students who have disabilities have special aides assigned
to them. We cannot let these kinds of very difficult incidents of
violence throw out the whole law. We have to examine exactly how you
handle students with disabilities, and situations where the disability
results in school violence. In such cases they can be removed from the
classroom; they can be removed from the school.
But they must to be provided an appropriate education under the law.
Mr. SESSIONS. If a child is emotionally conflicted and brought a gun
to school on one occasion, why do we think he might not do that on
another occasion, even some months later? It is a safety question for
the school.
This is a modest step in the sense that it doesn't say you can do
anything if he beats up another student; it just says that if he brings
a deadly weapon to the school, he can be treated like any other student
and be removed. I think that is a good step and support the amendment.
Mr. JEFFORDS. They can be removed either way. It is just a question
where they end up--whether they end up going outside of the school and
joining a gang or whether they get a special educational situation
outside of the classroom, outside of the school. Those are the kinds of
problems we must address whether or not they have a disability.
Mr. SESSIONS. All I would say is the district attorney, David
Whetstone, is a reasonable man. He is very concerned. I am hearing
repeatedly from school superintendents and principals that no matter
what we say about, in theory, how this law works, in practicality, it
is endangering the lives of students, disrupting classrooms, causing
teachers to quit, and costing untold amounts of money. In fact, the
superintendent from Vermont did testify that 20 percent of his county's
budget goes to special education students. Somehow we have gotten out
of sync here. We need to move back to a more modest ground, I say.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I say if the Congress achieves what we are trying to
do, particularly what the Republicans are trying to do, fully fund
IDEA, then many of those concerns would go away. But we are far, far
from providing the State and local governments the money we told them
we would.
Mr. SESSIONS. You have been a champion of that, but even then our
goal is to do 40 percent, not 100 percent.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I was referring to about 100 percent of the 40 percent.
Mr. SESSIONS. We haven't even honored our commitment to do 40
percent. But even then, 60 percent of it would be carried by the local
school system.
Mr. JEFFORDS. You are accurate.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield briefly?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I wanted to respond to my friend from Alabama.
It seems to me the argument is, it costs too much money to take care
of kids with disabilities. I remind my friend from Alabama, that
Supreme Court right across the street, less than 2 months ago, had a
case from Iowa, the Garrett F. case. Here was a kid who was on a
breathing device in school every day, had to have a nurse with him
every day because they had to clean the phlegm out of his throat and
his lungs. He was on a breathing device, severely disabled. His mind
was fine, mind was great--the kid knew what was going on, a good
student.
The school didn't like it because it was costing them a lot of
money--I say to my friend from Alabama--so they took the case to the
Supreme Court. That Supreme Court over there, in a 7-2 decision,
including some of the most conservative Members of that Court, said
that under the Constitution of the United States they had to provide
that opportunity. We can argue about how we provide it, but, please,
don't tell me that somehow, because these kids cost a lot of money, we
have to give them less in their lives than kids who are not disabled.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I am glad to yield to one of you, and then I am
yielding myself off the floor. I yield to the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I want to bring the attention of the
Senate to what I believe to be the law in this situation, that absent
specification in the IDEA law itself, the extension of continuing
services is not required according to, I think, the best on-point legal
decisions in cases where a person would otherwise have forfeited his
right to school because of the disciplinary problem.
The case of Virginia Department of Education v. Riley, from the
Fourth Circuit, found that the plain language of IDEA did not condition
the receipt of IDEA funds on the continued provision of educational
services to expelled children with disabilities and that in order for
Congress to place conditions on the State's receipt of funds, Congress
must do so clearly and unambiguously. Therefore, that is one of the
reasons the law was changed following that.
Mr. HARKIN. What was the date of that case?
Mr. ASHCROFT. That is prior to the change in the law, I say to the
Senator from Iowa. I am explaining, that is one of the reasons the law
was changed. I think you changed the law, and the source of the mandate
that services be provided, according to that case and according to the
response of the Congress, was the change of the law.
So the Constitution does not provide a mandate that people have to be
given continuing services forever in discipline cases, which has been
suggested.
The point is, the Constitution hasn't been so construed, I don't
believe. I think what the law has basically said is that that comes
from what we did in the amendment of the law a year or two ago. Was
that in 1997? Given that, if the source of that responsibility is the
law, it becomes clear to me that we can change the law and alter the
responsibility.
Now, I think this has been both entertaining and somewhat
instructive.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to say to my friend from Missouri--
Mr. JEFFORDS. I want to let the Senator from Missouri finish so I can
depart.
Mr. ASHCROFT. How nice.
Mr. HARKIN. I want to tell him he is right.
Mr. ASHCROFT. If the Senator wants to tell me I am right, first of
all, I need reinforcements here to catch me when I fall over. But I am
delighted.
Mr. HARKIN. I wanted to say that the Senator was right and I misspoke

[[Page S5539]]

myself. That Court across the street said the law was clear, that they
had to do it. It was not the Constitution.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I want to get back to the fundamental point, and there
are about three of them. I will try to make these quickly: One, that
the law does provide for differential treatment. If it didn't provide
for differential treatment, we wouldn't have the law. As a matter of
fact, part of it was in response to this Fourth Circuit opinion, and
the Congress acted. In so providing, we created a big loophole for guns
and firearms in the school.
We basically provided a basis for differential treatment for people
who are the subject of IEPs, these special education students, who
might be--I forget what the Senator from Alabama said--emotionally
distressed, or troubled, or severely emotionally distressed. They might
be able to come to school and have different treatment if they carry a
gun to school than if someone else does.
The simple fact is that the Senator from Tennessee and I believe we
ought to give authority to school principals to deal with such cases as
forthrightly as they do with other cases. This is in light of the fact
that when you get out, not in the Chamber of the Senate, not in the
theory of the bureaucracy, but when you get out into local schools, the
law operates to constrain those school officials to have students come
back to school who have carried guns to school and pipe bombs to
school. They have carried them in, and it is not in the best interest,
according to school officials, to have the students back in, but they
are back in.
We simply want to liberate school principals and school officials to
say to people who bring guns and pipe bombs, firearms, to school, you
can't do that, you are out until we say you can come back, in the same
way we say that under the Gun-Free Schools Act, which is the Federal
Government's mandate, students are entitled to go to school in a place
that is not full of guns and firearms.
I thank the Senator from Vermont for according me this opportunity to
make that simple statement, that we want to provide parity for
students: No matter who you are, when you bring firearms and guns to
school, we want the principal to be able to send you home.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I think that narrows it down to all that I am saying
which is, yes, they do that, but they have to provide an alternative
educational circumstance, which is something different than other
people without disabilities may not have been entitled to.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator from Vermont yield to the Senator from
Vermont?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has just yielded the
floor.
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Vermont thanks the Senator from Vermont.
The Senator from Vermont will now take the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont is
recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there has been a good debate here by the
Senators from Missouri, Iowa, Vermont, Tennessee, and others who have
spoken about this. I know these are extremely important amendments,
especially to the primary sponsors, and the Senator from Iowa and the
Senator from Missouri, and the others.
My perspective is that as ranking member and floor manager on this
side of the bill, I look at a whole lot of amendments. At one time, we
had a couple hundred amendments. We whittled those down. Dozens of
Senators on both sides of the aisle have agreed to withhold their
amendments. I spent the weekend talking with Senators, asking them to
withhold their amendments. And they did. Others we were able to get in
a managers' agreement, a managers' package, something I am still
waiting to hear back on from the other side. I assume we will get that.
Many Senators on both sides will see the bulk of their amendments in
the managers' package. But at some point we have to go on.
I suggest, for whatever it is worth, whatever is done, whatever is
passed, whether it is the amendment of the Senator from Missouri, or
whether it is the amendment of the Senator from Iowa, this issue will
be in conference. The Senator from Utah and the Senator from Vermont,
as the two main conferees, will have to try to work out yet another
overall compromise. We have had debate for almost 2 hours. We are
beyond reasonable to ask that the Senator from Missouri and the Senator
from Iowa simply allow the Senate to accept both amendments by a voice
vote. They will be in the bill. The practical effect of that, I might
say, will not be any different if a vote were to be had on the floor
because we still have an issue that will be resolved ultimately in
conference. The one difference will be that we have had a debate that
extended for almost 2 hours. The debate will then be completed and we
could go on to other issues.
I would like to see us finish this bill tonight. I am not propounding
this as a unanimous consent request, but I am suggesting it to the
Senators. The Senator from Utah is not on the floor, and I don't wish
to speak for him, but the Senator from Utah and the Senator from
Vermont would find that agreeable.
Mr. FRIST. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LEAHY. Yes.
Mr. FRIST. When the Senator says accept the two amendments by voice
vote, does he mean the Harkin proposal and ours?
Mr. LEAHY. Yes, to accept them both. My reason for doing that is----
Mr. FRIST. That would be unacceptable. We spent a lot of time talking
about the fundamentals. We have spent a lot of time debating this. We
will object to that.
Mr. LEAHY. I am not doing this as a unanimous consent request. It is
just an idea. The Senators have an absolute right, on both sides, to
ask for a vote on their amendments. My concern is going forward,
especially even if we have votes on them, the practical results will be
much the same because we are still going to have to revisit it in the
committee of conference.
We can finish this bill tonight. I just throw it out for what it is
worth. I have been here 25 years and I know the Senator has a right to
get a vote on his amendment. I am just trying to get to the practical
result, which will, in the end, still be the same.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator
Collins as a cosponsor, along with Senator Sessions, if he has not
already been added, to the Frist-Ashcroft amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there is no need for this amendment. IDEA
already contains provisions to ensure that schools are able to remove
truly dangerous children from the classroom. But it also ensures that
these children receive the services they need--not only educational
services, but counseling, behavior modification, and other related
services--so that their bad behavior will hopefully not happen again.
This makes more sense than simply sending kids out of the streets,
which is exactly what the Frist-Ashcroft amendment proposes to do.
The worst example of what happens when students are sent home without
necessary services happened last year in Springfield, Oregon. When Kip
Kinkle brought a weapon to school, he was immediately suspended. He
went home with his gun, killed his parents, then returned to school and
started firing.
The greatest protection a school can provide to its students and
community is to be aware of the warning signs of danger and provide the
services that can prevent the student from using violence.
Why would we want to strip those very protections from our schools
and communities by amending IDEA to end all services to students with
disabilities? In fact, why don't we have these protections in place
regarding all children, not just those children served under IDEA?
Although several of our colleagues here today have pointed to all
sorts of horror stories allegedly involving IDEA students, I would urge
my colleagues to be get the facts straight.
(1) For the vast majority of children with disabilities, most
discipline problems can be handled by implementing their individualized
educational plan, which now includes behavior management strategies.
(2) IDEA currently allows a school to suspend a child for up to 10
days per incident.

[[Page S5540]]

(3) Moreover, IDEA allows a school to discipline a child with a
disability just like it would discipline any other child, so long as
that child's behavior is not a manifestation of his or her disability.
Mr. President, IDEA took three long years to reauthorize, and was the
product of bipartisan negotiations involving both chambers of Congress
and the Administration, with extensive public input.
The IDEA regulations have just been issued, and they particularly
strengthen the area of disciplinary procedures.
In many places, schools are only starting to use the tools that are
available to them under current law in cases where disciplinary actions
that could be prevented with early intervention.
In fact, GAO is currently doing a study as to whether schools have
enough flexibility to discipline children with disabilities.
In this letter I received dated April 29, they stated that work on
this study should be delayed for two reasons:
(1) ``Nationwide data on school discipline for special education
students is not currently available, but is being collected this
year,'' and
(2) ``IDEA regulations have only recently been published, allowing
insufficient time for their results to be felt and measured.''
I ask that the text of this letter be printed in the Record following
my remarks.
Mr. President, at this point I believe it is not necessary and in
fact it would be unconscionable and premature to amend the IDEA and
risk compromising the implementation of this landmark legislation.
Special education students should not be the scapegoats here. And let
me state again, not one of the children involved in the tragedies that
we have witnessed over the past two years was a special ed. student. We
need to focus this legislation on strengthening all schools for all of
our children, and stop blaming IDEA.
Mr. President, I want to join with the sheriffs, district attorneys,
leaders of police organizations, violence prevention scholars, and
school psychologists and counselors, in urging all my colleagues to
vote against the Frist-Ashcroft amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I intend to vote in favor of the pending
amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Ashcroft, to enhance school
safety. This bill is based in large part on the work of the Republican
Juvenile Crime Task Force, on which I served. I am pleased to see that
the amendment includes three provisions I proposed to the Task Force to
help make our children's schools safer.
The first provision authorizes the use of funds to train school
personnel, including custodians and bus drivers. These key people on
and near school grounds can be helpful in finding suspicious objects,
pipe bombs, or other means of harm if they had the proper training.
These personnel can be utilized for identifying potential threats,
crisis preparedness, and emergency response. I intend to build on this
work in the FY 2000 Treasury appropriations bill by supporting the role
of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in training school
personnel in the detection of weapons and explosives.
The second provision authorizes the use of funds for the purchase of
school security equipment and technologies, such as metal detectors,
electronic locks, and surveillance equipment. This provision is based
on S. 996, the ``Students Learning in Safe Schools Act of 1999'' which
I introduced on May 11, 1999.
The third provision would invest more resources in School Resource
Officers, including community policing officers. This important
initiative expands the Cops in Schools program which I was pleased to
author as S. 2235 in the 105th Congress. This bill was enacted into law
in 1998 and this Spring the Justice Department is making $60 million
available for this program in this year alone. School Resource Officers
would work in cooperation with children, parents, teachers and
principals to identify dangers and potentially dangerous kids before
violence erupts and innocent children get hurt.
The Ashcroft Amendment includes many other important provisions to
enhance school safety. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in
favor of this amendment.
I thank the chair and yield the floor.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, let me briefly comment on what I think is
most appropriate. We have spent a couple of hours on the Frist-Ashcroft
amendment. It is a pretty clear and pretty straightforward amendment.
We have debated some very useful aspects. I would like a vote on this
amendment, because I think it will improve safety in our schools. It
closes this loophole. I feel very strongly about not postponing it
until later, or deferring it, or handling it in conference. I would
like to see an up-or-down vote on it and move on after that.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have had a pretty good debate, and it
has been said that it has taken 2 hours. That doesn't bother me. I have
spent years on this bill. I spent years on it. I spent my entire
lifetime with a disabled brother. Do you think 2 hours means anything
to me? It doesn't mean anything to me. We spent 3 years on this bill--3
years--bringing IDEA up to date. Do you think 2 hours bothers me? Not a
bit.
I am going to say something to my friend from Tennessee. He is a good
man; he has a good heart. I am going to read back to my friend from
Tennessee his words spoken on the floor May 14, 1997. The issue then
was a Gorton amendment, which would basically have turned back to the
local school districts the power to basically discipline kids with
disabilities. I want to read back to my friend from Tennessee what he
said then:

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong
opposition as well to this amendment before the Senate, put
forth by the Senator from Washington, an amendment which
would instruct local education agencies to set out their own
policy--a potentially very different policy--in disciplining
students with disabilities. In short, under his amendment,
each school district potentially would have its own distinct
policy in disciplining disabled children. And with 16,000
school districts, the potential for conflicting policies is
very real. And I am afraid this would be a turn-back to the
pre-1975 era before IDEA. Is this a double standard? I say
no. Clearly, we have outlined a process whereby students, if
there is a manifestation of a disability, would go down one
process. And if a discipline problem was not a manifestation
of a disability, that student would be treated just like
everyone else.

I am continuing to quote from the statement of the Senator from
Tennessee on May 14, 1997:

I think this is fair, this is equitable. Remember, if
behavior is not a result of that disability, all students are
treated the same in this bill. If behavior is secondary to a
disability, there is a very clear process which is outlined
in detail. Yes, it does take several pages to outline that,
but it sets up a balance between the school, between school
boards, between parents, and between children.

Senator Gorton claims this amendment is about local control, and I
feel that it will be used, I am afraid, to turn back the hands of the
clock to the pre-1975 conditions where we know that children with
disabilities were excluded from the opportunity to receive a free and
appropriate public education.

I say to my friend in Tennessee that he was right then. Mr.
President, he was right then. Now we are caught up with the issue of
guns and bombs.
Mr. FRIST. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. The Senator was always kind enough to yield to me. I
would certainly respond with the same kind of favor in response to the
Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Does the Senator from Iowa believe there should be two
standards, if one child with a disability walks into a school with a
gun and a child without a disability walks in with a gun, if there is a
zero tolerance policy for the States, the individual who walks in with
the gun should be back in classroom within 45 days when the person
without a disability is totally disallowed?
Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Tennessee, I use his own words.
He said this is a ``double standard.'' I say no.
Mr. FRIST. Let me also say that in this bill, if you look on page 3,
lines 1 through 8, in terms of intentional or not intentional, in terms
of whether or not someone brings a gun or a firearm----
Mr. HARKIN. Where is the Senator reading from?
Mr. FRIST. In terms of ``intent.'' We have narrowed this bill so
specifically

[[Page S5541]]

in terms of an individual bringing a gun or a firearm with intent into
the classroom that they should all be treated the same. I think it is
important that is what this amendment is all about is equal treatment,
fair treatment, the same treatment, whether or not you have a
disability, whatever your educational status is, that you are treated
the same, if you bring a gun into the classroom or you bring a firearm
into the classroom.
Mr. HARKIN. Is the Senator talking about subsection (a)(2) on page 3?
Mr. FRIST. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. I read that. It says, ``Nothing in clause (I)(1) shall be
construed to prevent a child with a disability who is disciplined
pursuant to the authority provided under clause 1''--that is,
expulsion--``from asserting a defense that the carrying or possession
of the gun or firearm was unintentional or innocent.''
I ask the Senator, to whom does that child assert the defense?
Mr. FRIST. To whom?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. FRIST. To the people he jeopardizes by bringing into that
classroom a gun. Is it intentional or not intentional when you come in?
It should not matter other than it is intentional. He needs to be
treated the same as everyone else. If you are placed out of the
classroom, if you do not have a disability, you ought to be placed out
of the classroom for that same period of time whether you have a
disability. All children should be treated the same.
Mr. HARKIN. We have already been through that. I don't know if we
need to go over it again. We have already decided that if a kid brings
a gun to school, the principal can take that kid out of that school
immediately, can call the police and have the police come and haul them
away.
Does the Senator disagree with that?
Mr. FRIST. That is the not issue. It is who ends up back in the
classroom. I pointed out again and again the statistics of individuals
with disabilities, because of this special loophole, who end up within
45 days back in the classroom bringing a gun the first time, the second
time, and ending up back in the classroom. If you do not have a
disability, you cannot end up in the classroom. Let's treat everyone
the same if they bring a gun or if they bring a bomb into the
classroom. That is what the amendment is about.
Mr. HARKIN. The Senator says a kid can assert a defense that the
carrying or possession was unintentional. I ask, to whom? It doesn't
spell it out here. They can assert a defense. But assert it to whom?
The principal?
Mr. FRIST. Yes. To the local authority, to the principal, to the
teacher. That is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. He can assert that defense.
Mr. FRIST. That is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. That it was unintentional. And what kind of process is
set up which would ensure that there would be a fair and impartial
hearing on that?
Mr. FRIST. The same process that applies to every other student, the
other 85 percent of the students in the classroom. That is the whole
point. Let's treat everyone the same. If they come into a classroom
with a gun or a bomb, you treat them the same. The local authorities
do. The principal does. The teachers do. That is the whole point. Let's
treat them the same. It is what equity is all about when we are talking
about guns in the classroom, or firearms and bombs in the classroom.
You treat them the same. They don't end up back in the classroom.
That is the fundamental essence of what this amendment is all about.
You treat them the same.
Mr. HARKIN. If I might remind the Senator that he started off talking
about the Littleton incident. I am going to get into this, because I
think it is important. I ask the Senator--I will start with a
statement. I hope it is not disputable that in the last 39 months there
have been eight school shootings in which kids have died. How many of
those shootings involved a kid with disabilities? I ask the Senator.
Mr. FRIST. I have not seen those statistics. I would be happy to take
a look at them.
Mr. HARKIN. I will say it and open it up to any repudiation. There
have been eight school shootings in 39 months. Not one of those
involved a kid with a disability--not one. Yet we have an amendment
going after kids with disabilities. Yet not one involved a kid with a
disability. In fact, I will point out that four of the kids killed at
Littleton were kids with disabilities.
Mr. FRIST. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. Of course, I yield.
Mr. FRIST. How many people have to die or be murdered before the
Senator from Iowa is willing to close this loophole? Do you want to
wait? Is that the point of using statistics? Wait until people are
murdered? We know people with disabilities who bring a firearm or a
bomb to school are ending up back in school when students without
disabilities are not. Do you want to wait until statistics show people
are murdered?
Mr. HARKIN. No. That is why we changed IDEA 2 years ago, I say to my
friend, to provide that whoever brings a gun or weapon to school can be
immediately removed by the police and taken down to the police station.
That is why we did that.
Mr. FRIST. That gets them out for 10 days?
Mr. HARKIN. No.
Mr. FRIST. Then what?
Mr. HARKIN. During that 45 days, I say to my friend, during the 45
days--he should know this; I am sure he does--during the 45 days there
is an Individualized Education Program, an IEP, developed during that
45 days. That IEP will address behavior modification, therapy services,
and intervention to make sure the behavior does not occur again. This
IEP protects not just the child but protects the school. The only way a
school needs to let a kid back in is if that kid is meeting the
objectives in the IEP and the school wants them back in. That is the
process.
Mr. FRIST. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. Sure. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. FRIST. There were eight students in Tennessee a year and a half
ago brought firearms in the school. We have gone through this, I know.
Two had no disability and were expelled. They are out. Six of the eight
were disabled students, individuals with disabilities, and were in
special education. For three of those who brought the gun to the
classroom, it was related to a manifestation of their disability. It
has to be that the individuals with disabilities have individual needs
that have to be addressed. They should be addressed. Constitutionally,
they should be addressed. Ethically, they should be addressed.
When it comes to a firearm, or a when it comes to a bomb, after those
45 days, three of those eight students in Tennessee who brought a bomb
to the classroom, or a gun, or firearm, firearm, deadly weapon, ended
up back in school through this loophole when none of the other students
without a disability had that loophole. They entered back into the
school.
When you keep saying get them out for 10 days, in truth, whether it
is 35 or 45 days, they are back in the classroom and treated in a
different way. I say treat them the same.
Mr. HARKIN. Again, I ask my friend from Tennessee, was that under the
old law or the new law?
Mr. FRIST. Those eight, may have been under the old law, I am not
sure. I gave other statistics with the nine students from this year. I
will have to check on that.

I don't want to stress the statistics too much. I keep using them
because I have a great fear something bad will happen as a result of
the law we created.
I can say on the 45-day period which we have talked about and worked
on writing together, if a person is a threat during that 45 days, and
your team says you are a threat, the Senator is exactly right, they can
be kept out another 45 days. After that 45 days, what? I guess it can
keep going on. We have great faith in that.
As someone who has, as the Senator, seen a lot of individuals with
disabilities, if somebody brings a gun into the classroom and they are
expelled like everybody else for 10 days and go through a manifestation
period, I don't know exactly how to know whether that individual is
threatening. We have to go through all the disabilities. That will be a
tough diagnosis to make in terms of saying, no, you are too threatening
to go back when parents are there who are saying go back; teachers,
lawyers, who say he hasn't done anything over the last 15 or 20 days,
maybe we should let him go back.

[[Page S5542]]

That is what our bill gets out. Treat everybody the same, if you have
a disability or no disability. If you bring a gun or firearm to school,
you should be treated the same. The same applies to cessation of
services. You should be subjected to the decisionmaking of the local
principals and teachers in terms of services, as well as in terms of
expulsion.
Mr. SESSIONS assumed the Chair.
Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Tennessee that the example he
keeps using in Tennessee did occur under the old law, not the new law.
I hope we can forget about using that example.
Under the new law we passed, we do provide that 45 days can be
extended indefinitely if the school officials feel that child is a
threat either to himself or herself or to the school.
Again, I just hope that example is not used because it confuses
people. We shouldn't be confusing people when the new law is different
than the old law.
I take a back seat to no one when it comes to the issue of safety in
schools. I just put two daughters through public schools all their
lives. One just graduated from college; my second daughter is a senior
in public high school--student body president, too, I might add. Why
not brag? If you can't brag about your kids, what can you brag about?
Both my wife and I have always been concerned about safety at school.
We have talked a lot about it with our daughter, Jenny, so I don't take
a back seat to anyone in terms of safety. There are few things as
critical to any parent as making sure the kids are safe when they go
out the door in the morning and when they come home in the afternoon.
I think the recent tragedies in Colorado are the culmination, the end
result, of eight school shootings in 39 months--Oregon, Kentucky,
Mississippi. I point out, again, to my friend from Tennessee, the kid
in Oregon was expelled, went home, got a gun and came back and shot
kids. I don't know if expulsion helped in that case.
If you want to base this on the fact that expulsion will make the
kids safer in school, I say look what happened in Oregon. It didn't
seem to work there.
I do believe that what has happened during these 39 months and what
happened in Littleton is, indeed, a call to action to our families, to
our churches, schools and communities.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. I am just getting on a roll.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield to his friend on the other side?
Mr. HARKIN. I yield without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. HATCH. I have to ask the Senator, this debate has gone on for
quite a well. It has been one of the better debates I have seen or
listened to, on both sides.
It is clear we have a difference of opinion. It is clear both sides
think they have a legitimate case to make. I know the distinguished
Senator is one of the champions for persons with disabilities, as am I.
We have worked closely together through the years. I understand the
difficulties that are involved here. I understand his sincerity. I also
understand the sincerity of the Senator from Missouri and the Senator
from Tennessee. They are decent people. They are good men. The Senator
from Tennessee is a major force on the Labor Committee, as is the
distinguished Senator from Iowa.
We are in the middle of a bill that really needs to be passed now.
This is our seventh day on this bill. It is not a full-blown crime bill
that took a tremendous amount of time. This is a limited, narrow bill
with a lot of provisions that will make a difference with regard to
children in our society. I would like to bring it to conclusion.
I guess I am asking my friend from Iowa, can we get an idea of how
much time the Senator desires? I will talk to my people on my side to
try and shorten our time so we can proceed with the rest of the
amendments on this bill and hopefully lock in the final time agreement
on all the remaining amendments and a final vote certain so everybody
in the Senate will know what we are doing. I just want to ask my
colleague if he will cooperate with me and set a time agreement so we
can move this bill ahead, rather than have this stay in the logjam it
is in.
It is a sincere set of differences. It seems to me the way to resolve
those differences is time honored. We go to a vote on this amendment
and then I ask unanimous consent that the next amendment be the
Senator's amendment which rebuts this amendment. So we go to a vote on
the amendment of the Senator from Iowa and let the chips fall where
they may.
I don't see any reason to delay this bill when I am willing to make
that offer. I will see that the Senator gets an amendment immediately
following.
If you win, you win; if you lose on this one, you lose.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while the Senator is thinking over his
offer, and he will yield without losing his right to the floor, during
the few moments when the Senator from Utah was otherwise engaged on the
Senate floor and I discussed this with him, I made a suggestion that we
actually accept both the amendments--the amendment of the Senators from
Tennessee and Missouri and the amendment that the Senator from Iowa
would have--knowing that it goes to conference, where the distinguished
Senator from Utah will be the Chair, I will be the ranking member from
the Senate. This whole issue is going to have to be revisited in
conference, anyway. I can guarantee from my experience that it will be
different from the other body.
I suggest that as a possible way out. I have a couple of reasons for
doing that: No. 1, with 25 years experience, it is a pragmatic way to
do it; secondly, this is the juvenile justice bill. Earlier this
afternoon, I was speaking about crimes against senior citizens. If we
stay on this much longer, the juveniles we are talking about today will
be senior citizens that we may want to protect tomorrow.
I would like to bring this to an end. We have an agreement. I think
there will be time agreements on anything left. The distinguished
Senator from Utah and I are going to very soon propose a package of
managers' amendments that wipes out a lot of the deadwood and perhaps
we could go forward.
I throw that suggestion out again. I know the Senator from Tennessee
said he would not find that acceptable, and of course he, as any
Senator, has an absolute right--the Senator from Missouri, as any other
Member, has an absolute right to have a vote one way or the other on
their amendment or in relation to it.
However, I ask the Senators that they might want to consider that.
Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield further.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield further without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. HATCH. I can understand why the Senators from Missouri and
Tennessee want a vote on their amendment. I can understand why the
Senator wants a vote on his amendment. It is a legitimate way to
resolve an issue. I don't know which way the votes will go on either
issue and I take a great interest in this as well. But there will be a
conference and we will probably resolve these issues in the best
interests of all.
My position is we have had a lengthy debate. I have deliberately
stayed off the floor because I wanted Senators to have a free and open
debate on this. But it seems to me we have had the debate. Basically,
both sides have really explained their positions. Everybody knows what
they are.
My suggestion is we go to a vote on the amendment of the Senator from
Tennessee and the Senator from Missouri, up or down, and then if they
lose, they lose. Then I will ask unanimous consent, whether they win or
lose, that the Senator be entitled to immediately bring up his
amendment which would undo everything they are doing and we go up or
down on a vote there. And we even could have an additional period of
time so people could hear one last explanation on the differences
between the two sides.
What I want to avoid is a filibuster. I want to avoid the Senator
feeling he has to now delay this whole bill because he feels deeply
about this issue. I feel deeply about it, too. I think these Senators
on this side feel deeply about it. You feel deeply about it. Frankly,
there is still a conference where we can work with both sides to see if
we can resolve this as we go to conference. But I would like to be able
to push this bill forward, because it is an important bill and every
day we delay--we all know once we get it through the Senate, the

[[Page S5543]]

bill has to come through the House. Then we have to go through
conference. Then we have to send it down to the President. If he signs
it, then it becomes law.
We are talking weeks or months before we can get a juvenile justice
bill passed that might prevent more Columbine High School massacres.
But we have to get this done.
We also have a supplemental appropriations bill that has to be
brought up, because it is important. It is not fair to hold this bill
hostage--either side--now. It is not fair to hold this bill hostage
because of a dispute that literally is a legitimate dispute on both
sides that can be resolved by voting. Let the chips fall where they
may. I have had to do that. I have had to eat a lot of stuff here on
the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. As have I.
Mr. HATCH. As has the distinguished Senator from Vermont.
As floor managers, we are trying to bring people together. I say to
the distinguished Senator from Iowa, I believe he has faith that I will
always try to do what is right for persons with disabilities. I will
use my optimum good efforts to try to make sure this matter is resolved
in a manner that is credible and acceptable to both sides--or at least
as acceptable as can be to both sides. But I would like to set a time
limit for further debate, which I hope will not be very long because
you have been debating now for hours. I think virtually everything has
been said that needs to be said. Then let's just go to those votes.
The Senator is not on a list right now, to come up, I do not believe,
after this amendment. But I will get you on the list. I will ask
unanimous consent you be given that privilege. I think it is fair. I
think it is a way of resolving this. I don't want to see a filibuster
here at the last minute on a bill of this importance when this could be
resolved through voting and when I am giving the Senator a shot at his
amendment, which basically rebuts theirs, immediately following it. I
think that is fair. It is a reasonable way of doing it.
You are dealing with two managers who have done their utmost to bend
over backwards for everybody on the floor. I have even bent over
backwards for the Senator from Minnesota, time after time--I finally
got a smile out of him. It is the only time he smiled all day.

But I would like to see my friend from Iowa do that. If he would, I
would personally appreciate it. I would like to get this bill done, at
least pushed forward as far as we can. I believe we can finish this
bill tonight if we have time today. We have had 7 days on this bill. I
would hate to go on 8 days, but I would even do that if we have time
agreements on all these amendments, time agreements on when we vote,
and let the chips fall where they may and let's go at it.
I intend to call up an amendment as soon as these two are disposed
of, if that is what we do, and we will move ahead on the other
amendments and we will try to shorten the time on all the amendments. I
am asking the distinguished Senator from Iowa to shorten the time,
agree to a time agreement, and I will certainly live up to asking
unanimous consent and getting his amendment immediately following the
amendment of the distinguished Senators from Tennessee and Missouri.
Will the Senator please help me in that regard--help us, Senator
Leahy and me?
Mr. HARKIN. I will respond to my friend from Utah, and he is my
friend and someone I like a lot, and respect a lot.
Mr. HATCH. And vice versa.
Mr. HARKIN. He has made a very impassioned plea here, and I know he
feels strongly about the bill.
But I just have to respond this way. This bill may be cited as the
Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation
Act of 1999.
Mr. HATCH. Right. That is if we ever get it passed.
Mr. HARKIN. Kids with disabilities haven't been shooting anybody. I
mean, let's be honest about it. The reason this bill is here on this
floor is because of what happened in Littleton, CO. The Senator from
Tennessee, when he first started out----
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that point, just on that point?
I am sorry to interrupt him, but this bill has been in the works for 2
solid years. We have worked with our colleagues on the other side
repeatedly. I think the distinguished Senator from Vermont and I are
together on the managers' package. It is very comprehensive. This is
not some quick thing. We have worked very hard on it. Littleton--yes--
--
Mr. HARKIN. But what precipitated bringing it to the floor?
Mr. HATCH. I would have brought it to the floor before Littleton, but
we didn't have the time to do it. But it certainly helped.
Mr. HARKIN. Everyone hears talk about school shootings and school
violence. As I have pointed out, as I said to my friend from Utah,
there have been eight school shootings in 39 months and 27 have been
killed. Not one of those involved a kid with a disability. Not one. Two
years? We spent 3 long years, and I spent years before that, working
with IDEA. We spent 3 years hammering out an agreement because there
was this clash between the school boards and the principals and the
teachers and the parents of kids with disabilities--3 years we sat in
rooms around here.
Mr. HATCH. And I am a strong supporter.
Mr. HARKIN. We finally got it resolved. I can remember as though it
was yesterday when we went to the Mansfield Room. It was Newt Gingrich,
it was Trent Lott, there were Democrats and Republicans and the
disability community and representatives of the principals and the
school boards. We sat in that room right there, that Mansfield Room,
and we all said hallelujah, we all agree. We didn't all get what we
wanted. Parents had to give up something. Principals gave up something.
But we got a bill we all agreed we were going to live with and work
with.

We agreed in that room that we were not going to go back and make
changes on this bill. We were going to give it a chance to work. These
are the changes we made.
I say again to my friend from Tennessee, he keeps bringing up this
example--that happened under the old law, not the new one. The new law,
I say to my friend, the regulations for the new IDEA, just went into
effect in March of this year. I have been on the Department of
Education for a year to get these regs out, but they received them in
March. We have not even given it a chance to work. Yet, that great
bipartisan effort, that bipartisan solution that we had that culminated
in the IDEA amendments of 1997, somehow is now being torn apart.
Why? Because of school shootings--what is going on?--when none of
these kids were disabled?
I know the Senator from Missouri is a nice guy. The last thing he
would want to do is to be mean to anybody. But I have to tell you, if
you back up and see it from where I am coming from, I have to tell you
honestly, with all my heart, this is almost scapegoating kids with
disabilities. I know you do not mean to do that. But I have talked to
so many parents out there. They talked to me about this amendment and
said: Why are they scapegoating my kids? My kids didn't shoot anybody.
My kids with disabilities haven't done anything. Why are we doing this?
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield without losing the right to the
floor?
Mr. HARKIN. Let me please finish. This amendment does not belong in
this bill.
If I am going--if I am taking time, I say to my friend, the only
reason I am taking time is because I think there are a lot of Senators
here who do not understand what is going on. They have not had the
privilege I have had of working on disability issues for 25 years. I
believe they need to be informed.
It took us 2 hours today simply to get us to agree that if a kid
brings a gun to a school, regardless of whether that kid is disabled or
not, they can kick him out right away and take him to the police
station. It took us 2 hours just to get that agreement.
Now we are onto another phase, and that phase is what happens after
they are removed. I do not think it has been fully fleshed out yet as
to why there is a process set up for kids with disabilities. Then we
have to get to the third stage and that is what happens at that point
in time, at the end of 45 days. If I take some time, I say to my friend
from Utah, it is because I believe I

[[Page S5544]]

have an obligation to my families with kids with disabilities--
Mr. HATCH. I know that.
Mr. HARKIN. To be able to look them in the eye and say: I did
everything humanly possible to make sure that every Senator who comes
down and casts that vote knows exactly what that vote is about. I do
not believe I have done my job yet. I, obviously, have not done my job
yet.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. And I am going to take more time to do my job.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield without losing his right to the
floor?
Mr. HARKIN. I yield without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. HATCH. I am suggesting we take some more time, but that we agree
on a time limit so everybody in the Senate knows. What that does for
you--you are concerned about Senators learning, knowing what to do and
hearing your position--when they know there is a time certain, that is
when Senators generally try to listen. I am not asking you not to take
more time. I am not asking you to not filibuster. I am asking you--
Mr. HARKIN. I am just not certain how much time it is going to take
me. That is why---
Mr. HATCH. I am asking you to set a reasonable time limit. I am also
suggesting, as somebody who has been around here as long as the Senator
from Iowa, that the time-honored way to resolve these matters when you
have a legitimate, honest difference of belief is to vote. Right now,
the Senator does not have the right to a vote on his amendment, as I
understand it.
Mr. HARKIN. I have my amendment filed.
Mr. HATCH. You cannot bring it up.
Mr. HARKIN. I have my amendment filed.
Mr. HATCH. I want your amendment to come up after this.
Mr. HARKIN. I have my amendment filed.
Mr. HATCH. You cannot get it up in this context without unanimous
consent. I will get that for you.
Mr. HARKIN. I can get it up anytime.
Mr. HATCH. Sure you can. What I am saying is, let's vote, but do it
after you have a reasonable time to explain your position. But let's
set a time limit so 99 Senators are not held up.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wonder--
Mr. HARKIN. I still have the right to the floor. I yield, again,
without losing my right.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are trying to do a number of things.
One, the Senator from Utah and I are reflecting our respective parties.
We want to get through the bill, get a final vote one way or another
and do it in such a way as to protect Senators on both sides of the
aisle. He has a responsibility for his side of the aisle, and I have
responsibility for my side of the aisle. I take that responsibility
strongly. Senators have a right to be heard and a right to vote. But at
some point, we have to wrap it up and vote.
Mr. HATCH. That is right.
Mr. LEAHY. May I suggest this: Senators may have good, strong debates
on this--and I yield to nobody in my admiration of the Senator from
Iowa and what he has done. I have taken his lead on so many issues
involving the disabled because he is a recognized national expert on
this.
My suggestion, another possibility, is we set this matter aside and
start voting on some of the things we have already done. We finished
debate, or all but the last couple of minutes of debate, on the
Lautenberg amendment. Let's vote on that. Let's vote on something on
the chairman's side of the aisle and maybe set it in such a way that
those votes will come within a few minutes of each other.

During that time, Senators will be able to talk more. The Senator
from Utah and I will be able to bring up the managers' amendment and
then see if it is possible to have time agreements, but time agreements
in such a way that Senators will know this amendment comes up at this
time, this amendment comes up at another time, so there will be more
focus.
I suggest that as a possibility. We also know that as much as we
talk, oftentimes these things are worked out during a rollcall vote.
That is one way we can do it.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Iowa has the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. Again, I yield without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take just a moment. I certainly
pay tribute to the--I have not heard more passionate, more heartfelt,
more substantive, more powerful oratory and argument on the floor of
the Senate than what Senator Harkin has done. I thank him as a friend.
I say to my colleagues, if I can get their attention for a moment--
Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch--if there is agreement to see what can
be resolved in discussions while Senators come to agreement with one
another, I would be very pleased, on behalf of myself and Senator
Kennedy, to have the pending amendment laid aside and we will just go
right to this disproportionate issue, which is a complicated and
important debate. I am ready to do that right now. If you want to try
to work this out, I am ready to ask consent to lay the pending
amendments aside and go right to this amendment and the debate and we
have time set for it. I want to make that clear.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield again without losing his right to
the floor?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin
be permitted to offer his amendment, and that the regular order be, for
voting purposes: the Frist-Ashcroft amendment, then the Harkin
amendment--so Senator Harkin's amendment will immediately follow--then
the Wellstone amendment and then the Lautenberg amendment, and then we
will have one from our side as well at that point. Is there any
objection to that order?
Mr. HARKIN. I reserve the right to object.
Mr. HATCH. I am putting it in the order I think you want to be in.
Mr. HARKIN. I reserve the right to object, and I say this----
Mr. HATCH. This is not the vote. I am just putting the order
together.
Mr. HARKIN. I understand. I am saying if there is a vote on the Frist
amendment, then what kind of time is allotted to the Senator from Iowa
for his amendment?
Mr. HATCH. We have to agree on this. We are not setting time limits.
Mr. HARKIN. You are just setting the order.
Mr. HATCH. I want to set a time----
Mr. HARKIN. Will you read that again?
Mr. HATCH. I am asking unanimous consent that the order of the next
group of amendments to be voted upon be Frist-Ashcroft, Harkin,
Wellstone and then Lautenberg and then one from our side.
Mr. HARKIN. I think there may be some people here who may want--I
don't know what the majority leader's predisposition is on this. Maybe
some people want to move to Wellstone and vote on that before they get
to this. I hate to preclude that possibility with a unanimous-consent
request that this is the only order we will take. I would object to
that.
Mr. HATCH. You would object to having yours put into the appropriate
order?
Mr. HARKIN. Only if that order is locked in totally.
Mr. HATCH. It is locked in, but it is locked in in a way that
protects you--that is what I am trying to do here--so everybody knows
what the matter is. I am putting in an order so that you can
immediately follow the Frist amendment.
Mr. HARKIN. You say that upon completion of a vote on the Frist-
Ashcroft amendment----
Mr. HATCH. Then you have a right to call up your amendment.
Mr. HARKIN. Then I have a right.
Mr. HATCH. That is what I am saying.
Mr. HARKIN. Don't put it in that wording because that locks in the
order and because there may be votes before the Frist amendment.
Mr. HATCH. No, there will not be votes before Frist.
Mr. HARKIN. Then I object.
Mr. HATCH. Why? This protects you.
Mr. HARKIN. We may want to lay it aside and go to another amendment.
Mr. HATCH. We can do that. This is to benefit you. You don't give up
one

[[Page S5545]]

thing other than you get in line; you are not in line now, behind the
Frist amendment. To be frank with you, my purpose is to give you a shot
at your amendment. If theirs happens to be adopted, you have a shot at
yours which does away with theirs.
Mr. HARKIN. Actually, it does not do away with it. It modifies it; it
does not do away with it.
Mr. HATCH. But it puts you in a position, and you don't lose a thing.
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I
suggest, again, what I suggested earlier: if this can be set aside, go
to the Lautenberg amendment and vote on it very quickly, one on your
side that can be voted on quickly thereafter, and then go back to the
Frist-Ashcroft amendment, partly so that we can talk during the votes.
I don't make that as a request, but I suggest that really as a way out
of all of this without giving up anything.
Mr. HATCH. With the same understanding that Senator Harkin has the
right to the floor, that is just not acceptable. The Senators from
Missouri and Tennessee want a vote on their amendment. They are willing
to go ahead with Senator Harkin's amendment immediately following, if I
understand it, and let the chips fall where they may.
I just want to move this ahead. I am trying to protect you so you are
in order to come in at that point. If you don't want to, that is fine
with me. It is an advantage to you.
Mr. HARKIN. I don't know that it makes a lot of difference.
Mr. HATCH. It keeps the thing focused so people know what you are
talking about. To me, that is a reasonable request.
Mr. HARKIN. Well----
Mr. HATCH. Let me withdraw it then. I don't care. What I am trying to
do, I say to Senator Harkin again without you losing the right to the
floor, I am trying to move this ahead. I am making a legitimate good-
faith effort to move it ahead. It is apparent that we are not going to
have a vote until we have the Ashcroft-Frist, Frist-Ashcroft amendment
voted on.

I would like, then, to give you the opportunity to have your
amendment called up, which modifies their amendment. Then we will have
a vote on your amendment. Then we go and just keep going down the line,
as we have done. We are not going to move ahead until we vote on this
amendment. If you are going to filibuster, that is another matter.
Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator that I may still move to table the
Frist-Ashcroft amendment.
Mr. HATCH. That is a right the Senator has.
Mr. HARKIN. I have a right to do that.
Mr. HATCH. Sure.
Mr. HARKIN. I may move to table; whereupon, after that motion to
table is dispensed with, one way or the other--obviously, I am sure I
would lose on that--the bill then becomes open to amendment. I may have
some amendments to the Frist-Ashcroft amendment.
Mr. HATCH. Amendments or an amendment?
Mr. HARKIN. Amendments. And that could only occur, if I understand
the parliamentary procedure, after a motion to table is dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No amendment is in order at this point.
Mr. HARKIN. At this point.
Parliamentary inquiry. If I move to table the Frist-Ashcroft
amendment, and that is disposed of, as I understand the unanimous-
consent request, the bill then would be open for amendment--or the
amendment would be open then after there is an action on it, on that
amendment, on the motion to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Frist amendment were tabled, the
question would recur on the Lautenberg amendment.
Mr. HARKIN. No. No. What would happen if the Frist amendment were not
tabled?
Mr. HATCH. Parliamentary inquiry. I do not think the Lautenberg
amendment is next on that list.
Mr. HARKIN. If I might, Mr. President, reclaiming my right to the
floor----
Mr. HATCH. Could I have that parliamentary inquiry? I just want to
know, what is the order? I do not think Lautenberg is next.
Mr. HARKIN. On the parliamentary inquiry, I just want to read from
the unanimous-consent request, Order No. 8.

Ordered further, That the following amendments be the only
remaining first degree amendments in order, with relevant
second degree amendments in order thereto only after a vote
on or in relation to the first degree amendment and the
amendments limited to time agreements, where noted, all to be
equally divided in the usual form.

So, obviously, a tabling motion would be a vote in relation, and
therefore reading that, I submit, that then relevant second-degree
amendments would be in order. I make that parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is correct that a
second-degree amendment would be in order if the motion to table Frist
fails.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. HATCH. What I propose does not change that at all. If we put
these amendments in order, the Frist-Ashcroft, Harkin and Wellstone and
Lautenberg, that still does not take away your right to move to table
and then file a second-degree amendment, if you desire to. We would
have to dispose of the Frist-Ashcroft amendment first. And you would
have every right to do that.

Mr. HARKIN. Again----
Mr. LEAHY. Is that correct?
Mr. HATCH. Is that correct? All I am doing is setting the order in
which these things would follow. He would not be deprived of moving to
table the Frist-Ashcroft amendment, and if it is not tabled of offering
amendments.
Mr. HARKIN. Offering amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the understanding of the unanimous
consent request, a vote on Frist would include either a motion to table
or an up-or-down.
Mr. HATCH. I do not understand.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If your interpretation of your consent request
is that a vote on Frist includes a vote to table, then we would be
correct in that we have agreement on that.
Mr. HATCH. Well, I think we would.
Mr. HARKIN. You want to read that unanimous consent request again? I
am still----
Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be permitted
to offer his amendment, and that the regular order be the Frist-
Ashcroft amendment, and if there is a motion to table by Senator
Harkin, and it is not tabled, then it would be open for----
Mr. HARKIN. Or any motion to table.
Mr. HATCH. Any motion to table, and it is not tabled, then it would
be open for a second-degree amendment. But immediately following the
disposition of that would be the Harkin amendment with the same
conditions, the Wellstone amendment with the same conditions, and the
Lautenberg amendment with the same conditions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, then under his proposal,
how many second-degree amendments could be offered to the Frist-
Ashcroft amendment if, in fact, the tabling motion was not agreed to?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How many angels can dance on a pin?
Mr. LEAHY. I did not hear the response.
Mr. ASHCROFT. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the motion to table the Frist amendment
fails, then that amendment is open to relevant second-degree
amendments.
Mr. HARKIN. Relevant second-degree amendments, in the plural?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. Let me ask one other question about this unanimous
consent request. Let's say someone wants to set this aside and move on
to another amendment. Would that be allowed under this proposal?
Mr. HATCH. With unanimous consent, it would.
Mr. LEAHY. That would require unanimous consent, I would assume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would require unanimous consent.
Mr. HARKIN. Just as it does now.
The unanimous consent request, again, because I really want to
protect my rights, and I just want to make sure my rights are fully and
adequately protected, I ask the Senator if perhaps it could be reduced
to writing or something just so I can take a look at it. I

[[Page S5546]]

am going to be here for a while talking anyway.

Mr. HATCH. We will be happy to do that.
Mr. HARKIN. I just want to make sure my rights are protected. That is
all. I just want to look at it.
Mr. HATCH. I withdraw my unanimous consent request at this particular
point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn.
Mr. HATCH. We may want to set this aside for that purpose. If we do,
I will ask the Senator, would the Senator please give some
consideration to my request that we have a time agreement--I am not
suggesting what time, but that we have a time agreement on the Frist-
Ashcroft amendment so that everybody here knows what is going on? Then
people will listen to his recitation of what he believes as to the
situation. Can you give us a time agreement?
Mr. HARKIN. Not at this time I cannot, I say to my friend. I cannot
at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I said, I take a backseat to no one in
my concern for safety in schools, having a daughter who is a senior in
high school now and a daughter who just graduated from college, both of
whom have attended public schools all of their lives.
I daresay that what has precipitated this bill has been the recent
tragedy in Littleton, CO, and the eight shootings over 39 months in our
public schools in America. These tragedies have, indeed, called us to
action, called us as families, churches, schools, communities, parents,
teachers, and, yes, as lawmakers.
I hope these tragedies lead us all to take positive and constructive
steps to reduce the likelihood of any recurrence. We want to make sure
all of our schools are places of learning, not of fear.
But we should not let this tragedy of Littleton lead us into
emotional, unfounded, though well-intentioned actions which can harm
the most vulnerable in our society, and those are our kids with
disabilities.
I know that the amendment is well-intentioned. The Senator from
Tennessee and the Senator from Missouri are good people. But this would
amend the Individuals with Disabilities Act, and I believe in the
deepest part of my being that this amendment will have just the
opposite effect. If enacted, it will do a couple of things. It will
make our schools and communities less safe, and it will turn the clock
back on all the advances we have made in our country to ensure that
kids with disabilities have a fair shot at the American dream.
This amendment targets a group of students who are more likely to be
the victims of school violence than the perpetrators. It is the kids
with disabilities, now mainstreamed into our schools, who are beat up
on, preyed upon, made fun of by nondisabled kids. Time and time again,
it is the kids with disabilities who are the victims of the violence.
This has been true for a long time, a long time.
Why are we singling them out with this amendment? None, not one, of
the eight school shootings in the last 39 months was perpetrated by a
child in special education. So why do we have this amendment?
Well, I just want to point out, sadly, four of the students shot in
the rampage at Columbine High School were special ed kids --four of
them. So why are we singling out kids with disabilities? Why are we
changing a law that we passed 2 years ago, that we just got the
regulations issued in March of this year, which has not had even an
opportunity to work? Why are we doing it?
Well, I forget which Senator it was who said, well, we do not want to
wait until something bad happens. My gosh, under that philosophy, what
else can we do to our schools? How about all the kids with
disabilities? What are we going to do with them if we don't want to
wait until something bad happens? That philosophy can take you down a
lot of alleys, a lot of dead-end alleys. I think the answer to ``we
don't want to wait till something bad happens'' is exactly why we
passed the amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act 2 years ago. That is why we have said, if a kid is violent, brings
a gun to school, they can get them out immediately to protect the
school.
I hope everyone heard here today--we finally got an agreement on that
point--that if a kid brings a gun to a school, regardless of whether
that kid is disabled or not, they can call up the police and have that
kid hauled down to the police station immediately, immediately. Now,
when there is some thought around here that somehow because a kid is
disabled, the principal has to go through all kinds of hoops to get
them out of school, I say that is not true. And we finally at least got
that nailed down today.
I yield to my friend from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I want to ask the Senator one question.
Mr. HATCH. Would the Senator yield for another inquiry from the
manager?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator.
Mr. HATCH. I have been trying to avoid a filibuster here on a bill
that I think everybody admits is very important. The Senator has
indicated he is willing to filibuster. And as somebody who has been
around here a long time, who knows how to do it, I recognize one when I
see one.

Let me make an offer here that I think is superfair. I have tried to
make an offer that the Senator get in line right behind this amendment
so he has every shot at his amendment.
Let me ask Senators Frist and Ashcroft, as well, would both sides be
willing--since we know 60 votes is the key, would both sides be willing
to do this: That we call up for a vote, after another reasonable time
for final debate here, but hopefully a very short time, call up the
Ashcroft-Frist/Frist-Ashcroft amendment? And if it does not get 60
votes and we call yours up right after, if neither of them gets 60
votes, we pull them both, rather than have a filibuster here--excuse
me, Lautenberg and Frist. OK.
Let me ask, I have to ask the Senator from Vermont. It has been
suggested that since we had had problems with this amendment, which is
60 votes, if they don't get 60 votes, they pull it. We do the same with
the Lautenberg; if he doesn't get 60 votes, we pull that.
Mr. HARKIN. You are going to have to ask Senator Lautenberg that.
Mr. LEAHY. Are you talking about the--
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I didn't hear the question.
Mr. LEAHY. I want to make sure I understand this. If the Senator from
Utah is suggesting that if the most hotly contested gun amendment does
not get 60 votes, we throw it out--
Mr. HATCH. Right.
Mr. LEAHY. --I don't think anybody is going to accept that.
Mr. HATCH. We throw this one out and that one out.
Mr. LEAHY. I think there is a better way of doing that. I was
discussing it with the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. I would
like to listen to his suggestion.
Mr. LOTT. Who has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ABRAHAM). The Senator from Iowa has the
floor.
Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator from Iowa yield to me?
Mr. HARKIN. Of course.
Mr. LOTT. I think everybody is trying in good faith to find a way to
deal with this issue and move on. I thought that idea just proposed
might work, but it looks as if that would be objected to.
What I would like to propose as an alternative--and it is being typed
up now, and we want both sides to look at it--is that we go forward. We
set aside the pending amendment, and we go forward with a series of
votes, including probably the managers' package, which a lot of people
have been interested in and concerned about. They would be able to see
what it was. And then go to the Lautenberg amendment and have a vote.
Then go to a Smith-Jeffords amendment and have a vote. Then go to
Wellstone and have a vote, and then to a McConnell.
So we would have a series of stacked votes while we continue to work
to see how we can resolve other outstanding issues. But rather than
just continuing to talk back and forth without making progress, looking
at the hour here, if we could have a series of, I believe it would be
five votes--six votes now--I think that would be one way to give us
time so we could make progress and

[[Page S5547]]

give us time to continue to work on these other issues.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the majority leader yield?
Has the Smith-Jeffords amendment been sent up and discussed? We have
several amendments that have already been offered, and I do not know
why we are--maybe I do know why and I just don't want to realize after
this very amiable discussion, Mr. Leader, that we had earlier about how
we were going to cooperate and let the public hear what we are really
doing here.
I ask--we have several amendments, on both sides--what would the
regular order be, Mr. Leader? As I understand it, the Parliamentarian
can answer that. There was no Smith-Jeffords in there. We have an
order, and it would be nice to not suddenly suggest that perhaps 60
votes would do it. And then we could hear--
Mr. LOTT. Well, 60 votes--it was suggested.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. In good fellowship, I know.
Mr. LOTT. It was suggested. This is not taking everything in the
exact order. We have been moving the order around back and forth since
Monday. For instance, the managers' amendment--usually you don't do
that until the last thing. In a show of good faith, an indication from
Senator Leahy was that Senators would like to have that done and see
what is in it. We would put that first in the pecking order, which
would not be the way it is always done, but it would be constructive.
Then Lautenberg, I think, would be the next pending thing. And these
others, I am not sure of the exact order they are in, but I propose
that we do them that way so we can move forward.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I might say, if the Senator from Iowa will
yield so I may respond.
Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
Mr. LEAHY. I find much in the proposal--I realize it is going to be
typed up and has not been made yet, but the proposal by the Senator
from Mississippi is a good one for moving us forward. I am not sure the
managers' package would even need a rollcall vote. If that is the case,
the first rollcall vote will be on the amendment of the Senator from
New Jersey, and the next one would be--well, it would be whatever order
the distinguished leader has spoken. Again, based on the experience I
have had managing bills, I tend to agree with the distinguished
majority leader. This might be a good way to get us moving. I also
suggest that it protects the Senator from Iowa, the Senator from
Missouri, and the Senator from Tennessee. But it moves us forward.
Mr. LOTT. Right. We are having this typed up now. We will get copies
to the managers on both sides and the leadership. But I believe this is
one way to keep the bill going. We have had a good lengthy discussion
today, and there is a fundamental disagreement on this. At some point,
I hope the Senator from Iowa--like on Lautenberg and on these others,
we worked through this without second-degreeing, without obstructing.
You all have had some amendments you don't like, and we have had a few
amendments we don't like, but in the end you vote. If you win, you win;
if you lose, you lose. It still has to go to conference and all that. I
hope we can get an agreement on this. I don't think anybody is
disadvantaged. I think everybody will think they have had a fair shot.
Senators Frist, Ashcroft and the Senator from Iowa can talk during the
votes and see if we can't find a way to bring it to a conclusion.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Iowa to yield
for a question.
Mr. HARKIN. I still have the floor. I will yield without losing my
right to the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. My question is really vis-a-vis the Senator from Iowa
to my colleague from Utah. The amendment I have been trying to get on
the floor is the Wellstone-Kennedy amendment dealing with
disproportionate minority confinement. I assume when we listed the
amendments that already has a 2-hour limit set.
Mr. LOTT. If the Senator from Iowa will yield, he is getting to be a
really good traffic cop here.
Mr. HARKIN. Red light, green light.
Mr. LOTT. If your understanding is that you would like to have your
vote maybe earlier in the lineup, I don't see a problem with that. We
try to alternate, Republican and Democrat.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine. We already have a 2-hour time limit on
that. We agreed on that.
Mr. LOTT. Two hours more debate?
Mr. WELLSTONE. It is on disproportionate minority confinement. It is
the amendment I have with Senator Kennedy.
Mr. LOTT. I think that is another amendment. Don't you have another
Wellstone amendment?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I have another one.
Mr. LOTT. This is regarding your other Wellstone amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I have been waiting on the floor forever. I am pleased
at what the Senator from Iowa is doing. The one laid aside is going
into the managers' package. I have been waiting patiently. When you put
it in order, please put in the Wellstone-Kennedy amendment, which deals
with a very important question that we have been trying to debate for
days.
Mr. LOTT. This one is No. 356, identified as a Wellstone amendment.
It is not the amendment you are speaking of. If I understand you
correctly, you are talking about a Kennedy-Wellstone amendment, and you
need 2 more hours for debate.
Mr. WELLSTONE. This has been agreed to for days. That is right. The
amendment, I am assuming, in the sequence that we are talking about is
the Wellstone-Kennedy amendment dealing with disproportionate minority
confinement. Two hours to be equally divided is the agreement on that.
No. 356 has been allegedly put in the managers' amendment. If we can
please put this one on the list.
Mr. HATCH. Nobody ever agreed to 2 hours. I don't know if we ever had
an agreement on that. Of course you have to have enough time to argue,
but I hope it is not 2 hours.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa has the floor, and I
ask if he will yield without losing his right to the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield under those conditions.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask if it might be in order to suggest the absence of a
quorum, which I am not doing, but to do that under a unanimous consent,
that at the completion of it the Senator from Iowa would be allowed to
reclaim the floor.
Mr. LOTT. I ask the Senator from Iowa if he will be willing to have a
vote on his amendment in the sequence we are talking about here?
Mr. HARKIN. I want to see the lay of the land before I answer a
question like that.
Mr. LOTT. I am inquiring because I had nobody to ask that. You all
have had a good, full debate. I wondered if you would not be ready to
go to a vote now.
Mr. HARKIN. No, I don't feel that I am. I haven't even finished my
statement yet. As I said earlier to my friend from Utah, I believe
there are a lot of misperceptions out there on this amendment, and
being the poor debater that I am and the poor teacher that I am, I
don't believe that I have fully and adequately represented what this
means to families with kids with disabilities. It will probably take a
little longer simply because I am so poor at getting across my point,
it seems. So I am going to have to take a look at that before I make
any decisions. I am not going to answer hypothetical questions.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. HARKIN. I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will yield to the leader to do that. I
ask unanimous consent that when the quorum call is dispensed with, this
Senator, the Senator from Iowa, be given the right to the floor at that
point in time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield the floor, you will have the
floor when we return, too. That was agreed to. I will put in a quorum
call to try to work this out.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S5548]]

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
privileges of the floor be granted to Lucille Zeph for the pendency of
the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Under the previous arrangement, I further suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. 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. LOTT. Let me make it clear at the beginning, Mr. President, we
don't want to in any way dispossess the Senator from Iowa from his
opportunity to be further heard, if he so desires, on his position with
regard to the Ashcroft-Frist amendment. I ask in this agreement that
that discussion be set aside and we go to four other amendments and
have the debate and stacked votes on those amendments.
I will state the agreement which Senator Daschle had a chance to
review. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set
aside and the Senate proceed immediately to the managers' package, and
following that amendment, the following amendments be considered for
votes in the following sequence, under time agreements where noted, in
the usual form.
I want to emphasize, the managers' package would go first; there
would be some description of that. We understand that would probably
not require a recorded vote. I further ask consent that the amendments
be voted in the order listed below, with 2 minutes for debate prior to
each vote for explanation. In other words, we will have 2 hours of
debate on the first one, then go to the other amendments, but before
the actual votes occur there will be 2 minutes for final explanation,
and that all provisions of the consent agreement of May 14 be in place.
The amendments are as follows: The Wellstone disproportionate
minority amendment, for 2 hours of debate; the McConnell amendment
regarding public schools, 30 minutes; the Boxer amendment regarding
afterschool time, 10 minutes; and the Gordon Smith-Jeffords amendment
regarding pawnshops. We will specify the time when we have had a chance
to review that.

That is the order.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there
are no second-degrees; is that correct?
Mr. LOTT. It would be the usual agreement of no second-degrees prior
to a vote on the motion to table.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, a Wellstone-Kennedy amendment is
listed?
Mr. LOTT. Yes.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object, frankly, this is
addressing the amendment which is pending, and it is rather complex. I
would be grateful for an opportunity to look at this agreement if it is
written up. I would like to have a chance to consider it.
Mr. LOTT. As I told the Senator from Iowa--and I believe Senator
Frist has been on the floor most of the time--this is in no way
intended or will not disadvantage or eliminate this amendment. It will
just set it aside so we can make some progress on amendments where time
agreements are already locked in. We will have votes on those
amendments at the end of those agreed-to times.
Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, let me just remind
everyone that we have approximately 24 hours left of this week. In that
timeframe we have to do not only the rest of this bill but the
supplemental appropriations bill. The only way we are going to finish
this is if everybody is willing to cooperate a little bit more and
indulge the leadership and the managers of this bill in such a fashion
that will allow completion.
It has been difficult, and, I must say, increasingly frustrating, for
those who have tried to work through all of this in a way that would
allow some reasonable conclusion. It seems the longer we work on it,
the more everyone's back is up. It is essential we work together and
try to resolve this matter. We have been on this bill now for over a
week. It is time to bring it to a successful conclusion.
I ask the cooperation in the remaining hours of this debate on the
part of Members on both sides, so that we can finish it.
I have no objection.
Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator Daschle for his comments. I very strongly
feel the same way. We have come a long way on this bill. The underlying
bill was one that had bipartisan support.
We have narrowed down the number of amendments to a finite list.
Senator Reid has worked very diligently to accomplish that. We must
deal with the supplemental appropriations bill before we go. In order
to do that, we will have to have some cooperation.
I have been criticized because I have maybe tried to be too fair,
everybody has that fair, straight-up shot: No second-degrees, make your
point, have the vote, win some, lose some. If we go with that attitude,
we can complete this list and the other amendments and complete this
bill and do the supplemental.
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I
think this is a good step forward. The Senator from Utah and I and the
Senator from South Dakota and the Senator from Mississippi have worked
very hard, along with appropriate other people, to cut down the list.
I ask one question, because it is one we are obviously going to be
asked: Under this agreement, when will we vote on the Lautenberg gun
amendment? When would the leader expect we would be voting on the
Lautenberg amendment?
Mr. LOTT. There will be an effort for that to be either the first or
the second vote. The pending business, I believe, would be the
Ashcroft-Frist issue. We would have to dispose of that and then we
would go to, I hope, a series of additional stacked amendments which
would lead off, I presume, with Lautenberg right at the front.
In order to do that before we did Ashcroft-Frist, we would have to
get another agreement. I would like to do it because I think that is an
issue that a lot of people feel very strongly about. I would like to do
it like the rest. It is time to vote.
Mr. LEAHY. The distinguished leader is saying it would not be voted
on tonight?
Mr. LOTT. No, it would not be voted on tonight. What we would do, for
these four amendments, is debate and then vote, and the pending
business would be the Frist-Ashcroft amendment at the end of that. I
want to make that clear so you are not dispositioned by that.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Is it possible to modify this consent request to say
the Frist-Ashcroft amendment would be the pending business at the
conclusion of this vote, and no later at the onset of the business
tomorrow morning?
Mr. LOTT. That is the status. But I would be glad to modify it to
that extent, because it just confirms what the status is, procedurally,
anyway.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent as
amended?
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I agree with Senator Ashcroft with one provision, if we
say ``Senator Harkin retaining the right to the floor when the Senate
returns to the Frist-Ashcroft amendment.''
I have the right to the floor now. I had the floor. I just want to
make sure when this amendment comes back up that I have the right to
the floor.
Mr. LOTT. Is that the procedure? Did he have the floor anyway?
I am told you have that right anyway, so I don't think we give
anything up by including it in the unanimous consent request.
Mr. HARKIN. OK.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LOTT. Then I would add we would then pass this amendment by voice
vote. I was just kidding, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. HARKIN. That last part was not included.
Mr. LOTT. That was not there.
Mr. LEAHY. That was not included.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S5549]]

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are now anxiously awaiting the comments
of the Senator from Minnesota. We hope he will feel free to condense
his time. Oh, the managers' amendment would be first. We expect there
would be stacked votes in sequence between 7:30 and 8.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have a managers' amendment which has been
cleared on both sides as far as I know. This amendment is a compilation
of amendments by Members on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. The Senator
from Utah has the floor.
Mr. HATCH. I now ask unanimous consent that any pending amendments be
temporarily set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 363

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send a managers' amendment to the desk
and ask for its 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 en bloc an amendment numbered 363.

(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Chairman and I have been able to put
together a managers' amendment and a package of amendments that improve
S. 254 in a number of ways that should please Members from both sides
of the aisle. We have accomplished this task by finding the middle
ground, and the bill will be a better one for it.
I said last week during the Senate's consideration of this bill that
we should not care whether a proposal comes from the Republican or
Democratic side of the aisle. A good proposal that works should get the
support of all of us. Our first question should be whether a program or
proposal will help our children effectively, not whether it is a
Democratic or Republican proposal.
This managers' amendment and package of amendments reflects that
philosophy. It shows that when this body rolls up its sleeves and gets
to work, we can make significant progress. I commend the Chairman for
his leadership in this effort and I am glad we were able to work
together constructively to improve this bill.
Many Members had good additions and modifications to make to this
bill, and we have agreed to accept them in the managers' package of
amendments.
In addition to the amendments included in the package, the chairman
and I have worked together on a managers' amendment to address a number
of my longstanding concerns with the underlying bill. Let me explain
what those changes accomplish.
I noted my concern at the beginning of this debate that the State
prerogative to handle juvenile offenders would be undermined by this
bill. The changes we made to the underlying bill in the managers'
amendment satisfies my concerns. For example, S. 254 as introduced
would repeal the very first section of the Federal Criminal Code
dealing with ``Correction of Youthful Offenders.'' This is the section
that establishes a clear presumption that the States--not the federal
government--should handle most juvenile offenders--18 U.S.C. section
5001. While the original S. 254 would repeal that provision, the
managers' amendment retains it in slightly modified form.
In addition, the original S. 254 would require Federal prosecutors to
refer most juvenile cases to the State in cases of ``concurrent
jurisdiction . . . over both the offense and the juvenile.'' This
language created a recipe for sharp lawyering. Federal prosecutors
could avoid referral by simply claiming there was no ``concurrent''
jurisdiction over the ``offense'' due to linguistic or other
differences between the federal and state crimes. Even if the
juvenile's conduct violated both Federal and State law, any difference
in how those criminal laws were written could be used to argue they
were different offenses altogether. This was a huge loophole that could
have allowed federal prosecutors to end-run the presumption of referral
to the State.
We fix this in the managers' amendment, and clarify that whenever the
federal government or the State have criminal laws that punish the same
conduct and both have jurisdiction over the juvenile, federal
prosecutors should refer the juvenile to the State in most instances.
Finally, I was concerned that, contrary to current law, a federal
prosecutor's decision to proceed against a juvenile in federal court
would not be subject to any judicial review. The managers' amendment
would permit such judicial review, except in cases involving serious
violent or serious drug offenses.
Another area of concern has been the ease with which S. 254 would
allow federal prosecutors to prosecute juveniles 14 years and older as
adults for any felony.
While I have long favored simplifying and streamlining current
federal procedures for trying juveniles, I believe that judicial review
is an important check in the system, particularly when you are dealing
with children. S. 254 included a ``reverse waiver'' proposal allowing
for judicial review of most cases in which a juvenile is charged as an
adult in federal court. I had suggested a similar proposal last year.
The managers' amendment makes important improvements to that provision.
First, S. 254 gives a juvenile defendant only 20 days to file a
reverse waiver motion after the date of the juvenile's first
appearance. This time is too short, and could lapse before the juvenile
is indicted and is aware of the actual charges. The managers' amendment
extends the time to make a reverse waiver motion to 30 days, which
begins at the time the juvenile defendant appears to answer an
indictment.
Second, S. 254 requires the juvenile defendant to show by ``clear and
convincing'' evidence that he or she should be tried as a juvenile
rather than an adult. This is a very difficult standard to meet,
particularly under strict time limits. Thus, the managers' amendment
changes this standard to a ``preponderance'' of the evidence.
As initially introduced, S. 254 would require juvenile criminal
records for any federal offense, no matter how petty, to be sent to the
FBI. This criminal record would haunt the juvenile as he grew into an
adult, with no possibility of expungement from the FBI's database.
The managers' amendment makes important changes to this record
requirement. The juvenile records sent to the FBI will be limited to
acts that would be felonies if committed by an adult. In addition,
under the managements' amendment, a juvenile would be able after 5
years to petition the court to have the criminal record removed from
the FBI database, if the juvenile can show by clear and convincing
evidence that he or she is no longer a danger to the community.
Expungement of records from the FBI's database does not apply to
juveniles convicted of rape, murder, or certain other serious felonies.
Much of the debate over reforming our juvenile justice system has
focused on how we treat juvenile offenders who are held in State
custody. The Federal government for years has required States, in order
to qualify for certain grant funds, to provide certain core
protections, including separating juveniles from adult inmates, keeping
status offenders out of secure facilities, and focusing prevention
efforts to reduce disproportionate confinement of minority youth.
In the last Congress, S. 10 either eliminated or gutted each of these
core protections. The chairman and Senator Sessions significantly
improved S. 254 in this regard, and I commend them for that. The
managers' amendment continues to make progress on the ``sight and sound
separation'' protection and the ``jail removal'' protection.
Specifically, the managers amendment would make clear that when
parents in rural areas give their consent to have their children
detained in adult jails after an arrest, the parents may revoke their
consent at any time. In addition, the judge who approves the juvenile's
detention must determine it is in the best interests of the juvenile,
and may review that detention--as the judge must periodically--in the
presence of the juvenile.
The managers' amendment also clarifies that juvenile offenders in
rural areas may be detained in an adult jail for up to 48 hours while
awaiting a court appearance, but only when no alternative facilities
are available and

[[Page S5550]]

appropriate juvenile facilities are too far away to make the court
appearance or travel is unsafe to undertake.
The managers' amendment contains a significant improvement in the
sight and sound separation requirement for juvenile offenders in both
Federal and State custody. S. 254 has been criticized for allowing
``brief and incidental'' proximity between juveniles and adult inmates.
This amendment fixes that by incorporating the guidance in current
regulations for keeping juveniles separated from adult prisoners.
Specifically, the managers' amendment would require separation of
juveniles and adult inmates and excuse only ``brief, inadvertent or
accidental'' proximity in non-residential areas, which may include
dining, recreational, educational, vocational, health care, entry
areas, and passageways.
I am pleased we were able to make this progress. I appreciate that a
number of Members remain concerned, as do I, about how S. 254 changes
the disproportionate minority confinement protection in current law.
This will be an important debate, and I continue to believe we should
support an amendment intended to correct that part of S. 254.
S. 254 includes a $200 million per year Juvenile Delinquency
Prevention Challenge Grant to fund both primary prevention and
intervention uses after juveniles have had contact with the juvenile
justice system. I and a number of other members were concerned that in
the competition for grant dollars, the primary prevention uses would
lose out to intervention uses in crucial decisions on how this grant
money would be spent.
With the help of Senator Kohl, we have included in the managers'
amendment a clear earmark that 80 percent of the money, or $160 million
per year if the program is fully funded, is to be used for primary
prevention uses and the other 20 percent is to be used for intervention
uses. Together with the 25-percent earmark, or about $112 million per
year if that program is fully funded, for primary prevention in the
Juvenile Accountability Block Grant that was passed by the Senate in
the Hatch-Biden-Sessions amendment, this bill now reflects a
substantial amount of solid funding for primary prevention uses.
I expressed some concern when the Senate passed the Hatch-Biden-
Sessions amendment authorizing $50 million per year for prosecutors and
different kinds of assistance to prosecutors to speed up prosecution of
juvenile offenders. I pointed out that this amendment did not authorize
any additional money for judges, public defenders, counselors, or
corrections officers. The consequence would be to only exacerbate the
backlog in juvenile justice systems rather than helping it.
The managers' amendment fixes that by providing $50 million per year
available in grant funds to be used for increased resources to State
juvenile court judges, juvenile prosecutors, juvenile public defenders,
and other juvenile court system personnel.
I mentioned before that S. 254 includes a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution urging States to try juveniles 10 to 14 years old as adults
for crimes, such as murder, that would carry the death penalty if
committed by an adult--the resolution does not urge the death penalty
for such children. While Vermont is probably one of the few States that
expressly allows for the trial of juveniles 10 years and older as
adults for certain crimes, I do not believe that this is a matter on
which the Senate must or should opine. The managers' amendment
correctly deletes that sense-of-the-Senate from the bill.
These improvements to S. 254 in both the managers' amendment and in
the managers' package of amendments make this bill worthy of our
support, and I am glad to do so.
The chairman and I have agreed that Members from both sides of the
aisle had good additions and modifications to make to this bill, and we
have agreed to accept them in the managers' amendment. Let me give some
examples of amendments we have agreed to incorporate into the bill.
Senators Landrieu and Schumer proposed amendments to the Juvenile
Delinquency Prevention Challenge Grant program to help abused, foster,
and adopted children so they will not fall through the cracks and
become at-risk for delinquency;
Senator Durbin sponsored an amendment to help schools use caller-ID
to deal with bomb threats;
Senator Feingold sponsored an important amendment to clarify the
intent requirement in the new gang crime so it has a better chance of
withstanding a constitutional challenge;
Senators Sessions, Robb, Allard, and Byrd joined together on an
amendment to authorize a national hotline for confidential reporting of
people who have threatened school violence. This important proposal was
first proposed by Senator Robb in a more comprehensive amendment that
was tabled in a party line vote;
Senators Kohl, Biden, Dorgan, Dodd, and others from both sides of the
aisle, including Senator Hatch, have made a number of good proposals
for prevention and intervention of juvenile crime.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from
Connecticut, Senator Dodd, to talk a little bit about a program we
understand has been accepted by the Senate for inclusion in this bill.
Five years ago, during the last re-authorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, Senator Dodd, Senator Nunn and I included
a provision in that Act to allow for several pilot projects around the
nation centered on increasing character education in our schools.
That legislation helped foster the growth of the Character Counts
movement across a few schools in a few states.
The amendment that the Senate has agreed to accept today will expand
upon that effort. The bill provides $25 million in funding for
character education through the Department of Education, including $15
million for schools and $10 million for after-school programs.
My colleagues have heard me talk before about the Character Counts
program, where children and teachers use six pillars of character and
incorporate them into their daily lessons. Things like trustworthiness,
respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship.
After five years, I believe that I can say that the effort to bring
character education to our schools has been a success. In New Mexico,
200,000 kids and 90 percent of our schools participate in some form of
character education. Teachers tell me that character education has
empowered them in a fabulous way to teach and reinforce positive
behavior by their students.
Schools which have utilized Character Counts report lower instances
of truancy, classroom disruptions and student violence. Character
Counts makes schools better places to learn for our children, and
teaches them values in the process.
And it's not just the teachers who want to bring this program to our
nation's children. Parents believe that it is important too. A recent
survey by the Superintendent of the Albuquerque Public Schools found
that 84 percent of parents felt that strengthening education programs
which teach character and integrity should be a high priority for their
schools. Improving character education is the number three overall
concern parents express about the quality of their children's education
in Albuqerque. The amendment accepted today will allow more schools to
address this concern.
I have heard colleagues say that six percent of all juvenile
criminals commit 60% of all of the violent crime in America. This bill
will encourage states to treat this small percentage of violent
juvenile offenders like adults and get them off of the streets.
It is obvious that there are a lot of very good kids out there,
working hard every day to go to school, study hard and improve their
lives. Character education will help the adults in their lives to teach
them to make good decisions, based on things like respect, caring, and
responsibility.
I understand that the Senate also has accepted two other Domenici
amendments to allow states to use some of their portion of the $450
million Accountability block grant program and part of the $200 million
Delinquency Prevention Challenge grant program to fund character
education initiatives. This will provide states with additional
resources to incorporate character education in their schools, if they
choose to do so.
I have seen this work in New Mexico, and I am pleased that the Senate
has

[[Page S5551]]

agreed to help bring Character Counts to other areas of the country
where maybe it has not caught on quite as well as it has in my state or
Connecticut. I thank the Senate for accepting my amendments and I yield
the floor.

preventing Delinquency Through Character Education

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the distinguished
Senator from New Mexico in offering this amendment to provide support
for character education projects in schools and in after-school
programs. These programs, organized around character education, would
provide alternatives to youth at risk of delinquency and work
specifically to reduce delinquency, school discipline problems and
truancy and to improve student achievement, overall school performance,
and youths' positive involvement in their community. Our amendment--
which I understand will be considered as part of the managers'
package--would authorize no less than $25 million per year for
character education in schools and in after-school settings.
I am not here today to claim that character education is the answer
to all the questions that have been posed to us as policy makers,
parents and community members in the wake of the tragedy at Littleton,
CO.
But character education is part of the answer. Today's children have
so many obstacles to overcome, including violence, drug use, peer and
cultural influences, and too much unsupervised time on their hands. As
a society, we must find ways to help these children become responsible
citizens, to distinguish between right and wrong. To do this, we must
build on traditional education by nurturing students' character.
That is fundamentally what character education is about--it is about
reinforcing those elements of character which bind us together into
communities and into this great nation. Ideas like--trustworthiness,
respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship--underlie all
of our government and civic organizations. We must reinforce these
beliefs with our children at every opportunity.
Parents have the primary responsibility here. Churches and other
community organizations support these efforts. Schools are a key part
of the equation. And these ideas must be a part of a child's day--after
school--when they are often unsupervised and most risk of negative
behaviors.
And that is what this amendment does. It would set aside $25 million
for school-based and after-school programs in character education.
Schools could use these funds to work with parents and develop a
character education program for their schools. We have seen so many
successful programs in schools in my state; indeed, over 10,000
students currently participate in these activities. And the schools
report amazing turn-around with reduced absenteeism, discipline
problems, graffiti and fighting and improved student achievement and
student participation in positive extra-curricular activities.
In addition, this amendment would support afterschool programs that
are organized around character education. These out of school hours are
a key opportunity for our youth. We can provide enriched academic
activities, sports and the arts. Or we can leave them to the
alternatives--smoking, drug use, teen pregnancy, delinquency, and
crime. I believe the better route is supervised, quality after school
programs--and these programs will be even stronger with the inclusion
of a character education focus, such as provided in this amendment.
I commend my friend and colleague from New Mexico for his dedication
to our children and to character education. I am pleased to be here
with him again today to move forward this critical initiative that
truly gets at the core of delinquency.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for
accepting the mentoring amendment that I offered, and I want to thank
my colleague Mr. Dorgan for cosponsoring this amendment.
I believe that youth mentoring is an important piece of our effort to
decrease violence among our young people. This amendment encourages us
to take youth mentoring seriously. It asks states to develop criteria
for assessing the quality and effectiveness of mentoring programs and
to reward those programs that do a good job. It also asks the
Departments of Justice and Education to disseminate information on best
mentoring practices, so that mentors can receive guidance on how to
make the best use of their time with students.
Since the school shooting in Littleton, Colorado, a few weeks ago,
Congress and the nation have been grappling with the question ``How do
we prevent such a terrible tragedy?'' The answer to this question is
complex, and, as we know from our debate here on the floor of the
Senate, there are many different points of view as to what more we
should do to keep our kids healthy and safe.
I believe that one of the things we must do is increase the amount of
quality time our young people have with caring, responsible adults.
Without a doubt, the most important adult in a child's life is that
child's parent. But even the most committed, well-intentioned parents
cannot be with their children 24 hours a day. And often young people,
especially teenagers, feel uncomfortable talking to their parents about
sensitive or troubling issues.
That is why it is important that young people have someone in their
lives they can turn to in troubling times. Now, some kids are fortunate
enough to have a trusted aunt, uncle, or family friend in whom they can
confide. But some are not so lucky. Fortunately there are caring adults
who volunteer their time to become that trusted friend--we call them
mentors.
We cannot know for certain that having mentors would have stopped the
two teenagers in Littleton from harming their classmates. But we know
that the young men were troubled. And if we can increase the number of
individuals who are close enough to a young person to detect problems
when they arise, we increase our chances of keeping those problems from
spiraling out of control.
Mr. President, we know that mentoring works. In 1995 a Big Brothers/
Big Sisters of America Impact Study showed that at-risk young people
with mentors were 46% less likely to begin using illegal drugs; 27%
less likely to begin using alcohol; 53% less likely to skip school; 37%
less likely to skip a class; and 33% less likely to hit someone than
at-risk children without mentors.
In a 1989 Louis Harris poll, 73% of students said their mentors
helped raise their goals and expectations.
And a Partners for Youth study completed in 1993 revealed that out of
200 non-violent juvenile offenders who participated in a mentoring
relationship, nearly 80% avoided re-arrest.
I believe in the power of mentoring, because I've seen it firsthand
in my own state of Nebraska. In Nebraska, we have a fantastic program
run by Tom and Nancy Osborne called TeamMates. TeamMates is a school-
based program that pairs adult volunteers one-on-one with middle and
high school students.
The Osbornes created TeamMates quite simply because they saw an unmet
need. They realized that there are a lot of bright and capable young
people out there who receive too little support and encouragement. In
order to reach their potential to become good citizens and productive
members of their community, these young men and women just need a
helping hand.
Tom and Nancy started TeamMates in 1991, and the success they saw in
that first year inspired them to continue. They started out with 25
matches, and of the students in those matches, 20 graduated from
high school and 18 pursued postsecondary education.

The response to TeamMates has been highly encouraging. Principals and
administrators have commented on the positive attitude change they see
in students in just the first year of their relationship with a mentor.
And 99% of the mentors choose to continue their relationship with their
students after the first year.
Right now there are 475 TeamMate matches throughout Nebraska. And
they hope to have a total of 900 a year from now.
We have another terrific mentoring program in Omaha called All Our
Kids, which began in 1989 at McMillan Junior High School. At present,
nearly 80 mentors are providing guidance to at-risk junior and senior
high school students.

[[Page S5552]]

And All Our Kids enjoys a strong relationship with the Omaha Public
Schools System. OPS staff work closely with All Our Kids staff to
identify students who need the services provided by its long-term
mentoring and scholarship program.
With our help, TeamMates, All Our Kids, and other promising mentoring
programs throughout the nation will be able to expand the horizons of
more young people by providing them with caring adults to show them the
way.
I also want to thank the managers for accepting my Sense of the
Senate urging the President of the United States to allow each Federal
employee to take one hour a week to serve as a mentor to a young person
in need.
Recently, Jim Otto, Nebraska State Director of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, called me and said, ``I read what you said about the
importance of youth mentoring, and I want to let you know that I'm a
mentor in the TeamMates mentoring program in Lincoln. I want you to
know it's been a great experience.''
Jim said he was fortunate that his employer allowed him to take one
hour a week of administrative leave to spend time with his student. But
he also said that some of his colleagues in other Federal agencies and
departments were not so fortunate. Many employees would like to become
mentors, but they just can't take time away from work.
Now, we have a lot of dedicated individuals throughout the nation who
serve as mentors. Several members of my own staff participate in the
Everybody Wins program in the D.C. Public Schools. And, as I mentioned
earlier, we have great mentoring programs in Nebraska. But we need more
adults to say, ``I want to make a difference.''
The purpose of this legislation is to enable more adults to take the
time to contribute to the well-being of their communities. It's just
one hour a week, but in a child's life it can make a world of
difference.
Mr. President, whether it's helping a student take an interest in
schoolwork, helping build a young person's self-esteem, or helping a
young man or woman communicate more effectively with parents, friends,
and teachers, a mentor can be that invaluable safety net that keeps a
child from falling into despair.
Now, there are many steps we can take to try to prevent violent acts
once an individual reaches that point of desperation, but it is better
for all of us if we intervene before that point--and it is also less
costly.
With additional support for good mentoring programs we will be able
to reach more young people before they become lost to substance abuse,
isolation, or any other destructive behavior that leads them to commit
acts of violence against themselves or others. In helping these
programs continue their good work, we raise the hopes of more of our
children. And when our children's hopes are high, we all benefit.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am glad to be a cosponsor of the
mentoring amendment offered by my colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Kerrey,
and I commend him for his work on this issue. I also want to thank the
managers of this bill for accepting our amendment.
When it comes to juvenile delinquency, I subscribe to the notion that
``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' I think it makes a
great deal of sense to spend a dollar now to try and prevent young
people from becoming criminals in order to save the thousands of
dollars it would cost later to incarcerate and rehabilitate them.
I believe one of the most effective forms of prevention is mentoring.
I have seen firsthand that mentoring can make an important difference
in a child's life through my participation in a wonderful program
started by Senator Jeffords called Everybody Wins. Every week, I have
the privilege of spending an hour or so with a boy named Jamal. It has
been a pleasure to watch him learn and grow into a fine, confident,
young man.
I would encourage any of my colleagues who want to make a real
difference to become a mentor. At-risk young people with mentors are 46
percent less likely to use illegal drugs and half as likely to skip
school than at-risk youth without mentors. Nearly three-quarters of
young people with mentors indicate that their mentors have helped to
raise their goals and expectations.
Unfortunately, there are too many at-risk youth who do not have an
adult willing or able to give them the regular, individual attention
they need. The amendment offered by Senator Kerrey and I would help to
ensure that exemplary youth or family mentoring programs in each of our
states are funded by the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Challenge
Grant program established in this bill. I believe this would be a good
investment in our young people, and I again thank my colleagues for
their support of this amendment.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to express my appreciation to the
managers of this bill for agreeing to include in the manager's package
my amendment to authorize the FAST (Families and Schools Together)
program.
Over the last few weeks, we have all spent much time mourning lost
children--whether they are lost to bullets or to the lure of a violent
culture, whether they end their lives holding a gun or facing one. And
we have spent much time discussing the many factors that can lead our
young people to become lost. We can blame guns, or mindless T.V., or
savage movies, or violent video games, or illegal drugs. But we know
that a child is most likely to be lost--most likely to fall under the
influence of these evils--when he or she is alone, cut off from
parents, teachers, and the community.
FAST is a successful program that finds troubled youth and reconnects
them with their schools and families. FAST brings at-risk children,
parents, and educators together to help them learn to succeed at home,
in school, and in their communities. FAST helps ensure that youth
violence does not proliferate to our schools and communities by
empowering parents, helping to improve children's behavior and
performance in school, preventing substance abuse, and providing
support and networking for families by linking them to community
resources and services.
Currently, the FAST program--which was created in my home state of
Wisconsin--is being implemented in 484 schools in 34 States and five
countries. It has received numerous national honors and awards, and is
supported by the Department of Education, Department of Justice, Office
of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention, Department of Health and
Human Services, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration, National Institute of Mental
Health, Head Start, the Harvard/Ford Foundation, and the United Way of
America.
My amendment is simple and effective. It authorizes $12 million a
year for the next five years to the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Programs in the Department of Justice for FAST sites and
programs. Of this amount, $10 million will go toward the implementation
of local FAST sites and programs and $2 million will be used for
research and evaluation of FAST. This amendment will allow more
communities across the nation to reap the benefits of FAST--and will go
a long way toward preventing youth violence in this country.
Mr. President, one of the best ways to prevent youth violence is by
building and preserving close, healthy relationships within families.
The FAST program is instrumental in achieving this goal, and has been
proven to work in reducing behavioral problems among troubled youth. I
am pleased that Senators Hatch and Leahy have recognized the importance
of this small, yet vitally important program by including the FAST
amendment in the manager's package. I thank them for their efforts in
working with me on this amendment.
I yield the floor.

behavioral and social science research on youth violence

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today we are offering an amendment to the
juvenile justice bill to authorize funding for the National Institutes
of Health to carry out a broad-based initiative for basic research into
youth violence. This research will look into the fundamental cause of
such violence and will be linked to research on the most effective ways
to prevent it.
Clearly, we must do more to enhance our understanding of the
fundamental psychological, behavioral, and social factors that
contribute to violence by young people.

[[Page S5553]]

NIH currently provides modest support for behavioral research related
to violence, but the research is seriously under-funded in light of the
obvious magnitude of the problem. In addition, the current funding is
spread across many NIH Institutes and some important areas are not
funded at all.
This coordinated initiative, relying on the Office of Behavioral and
Social Sciences Research at NIH, will enable NIH to respond more
quickly to the crisis of youth violence, eliminate the gaps in current
knowledge, and focus more effectively on the important high priority
questions that scientists in the field have identified.
Violence is also a public health problem, and it is as perilous as
any epidemic. The tragic shooting rampage by the two students in
Colorado shocked the country into a greater sense of urgency about
youth violence. Many elements contribute to violent behavior, and it is
seldom traced to any single cause.
These causes need to be better understood if we are to design
effective methods for treatment and prevention. We also need a greater
understanding of how to apply the knowledge that we already have.
More effective school, family and community prevention activities can
be designed on the basis of what we learn from research and from the
practical experience of clinicians, educators, and social scientists.
The goal of part of this research effort will be to develop better
organizational models of effective partnerships among scientists,
public agencies, and community members. The research will also address
the psychological impact of violence on the victims, since many
perpetrators of violence were themselves victims of violence earlier in
their lives.
Our proposal for greater NIH research is an essential part of the
answer we are seeking to the tragedies of juvenile violence, and I urge
the Senate to support it.

FAST Program

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator Kohl's
amendment which was included into the Juvenile Justice bill's Manager's
Package. Mr. President, Senator Kohl's amendment would expand the
Families and Schools Together or FAST program to reach the many at-risk
students in need. FAST is an award winning drug abuse prevention
program that supports and empowers parents to be the best line of
defense between their children and the dangers of drug abuse. The
program uses a cooperative approach that gives parents professional
support to prevent and confront drug abuse in the home.
I am proud to report, Mr. President, that the FAST program, which has
received many awards and honors since its development 10 years ago, was
founded in my home state of Wisconsin by Dr. Lynn McDonald. Dr.
McDonald is one of the nation's experts on the prevention of drug abuse
by young people. The unique FAST program is today being used in 484
schools in 34 states and five countries.
Research indicates that to be most effective, substance abuse
prevention education should be initiated when children are young.
Researchers also believe that prevention efforts that focus on family
and peer relationships can greatly reduce risk factors for our
children. While no one solution will rid our country of the problem of
youth drug abuse, it is critical that we make available to students,
parents and schools successful programs that can make a difference.
FAST has a proven track record: it has been tried, adapted, implemented
and studied. It is clearly a program that has proven successful and
should be expanded to reach more families in need.
It is important to note, Mr. President, that we are not powerless to
help prevent destructive behaviors, such as drug abuse, in our
children. The FAST program requires a strong, committed partnership
between schools and families to help the students at risk and to
intervene successfully to prevent the downward cycle of drug abuse,
which too often leads to youth violence.
I support this amendment, Mr. President, because I know that FAST is
a prevention program which helps young children at risk for developing
problems later on--by working with them and their families early on.
Senator Kohl's amendment is a wise investment at the front end to catch
students before their risky behavior results in tragic consequences for
themselves and their families. With assistance from the FAST program,
families become their own child's best prevention resource.

WORKER PROTECTION

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have been engaged over the last week
in the important, and at times difficult, task of defining how the
nation will address the problem of youth violence and crime. Our goal
is to develop steps that will be more effective in protecting society
against juvenile crime and enabling youth to become productive and
successful members of our society.
We must also protect the rights of the men and women in the criminal
system responsible for working with juvenile offenders. It is in the
nation's interest to ensure that states which receive federal dollars
for their juvenile justice programs administer these programs in a
manner that protects the worker, the juvenile offender, and ultimately,
the taxpayers and citizens.
This amendment will ensure that workers who provide juvenile justice
services do not lose their jobs, their existing bargaining rights, or a
loss of benefits if their program receives federal funds.
This is not a new concept. Since enactment of the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act in 1974, Congress has recognized the
importance of making sure that the rights of state workers are
protected in juvenile justice programs funded with federal money.
Current law provides that the distribution of federal funds for state
juvenile justice programs will not displace workers, negatively reduce
their wages, or impair existing collective bargaining agreements.
The intent of the current law, and of this amendment, is two-fold: to
protect workers' rights, and to protect the safety of juvenile
offenders. For almost 25 years, the law has protected the employment
rights of tens of thousands of state workers in the court system and
the juvenile justice system. These men and women, whose jobs are funded
through grants to the states, are at the core of our juvenile justice
system. They perform vital work, supervising and training troubled
youths in the courts and in the parole system. Even with the
protections under current law, and even when workers are covered by
collective bargaining agreements, these are not high paying jobs.
Salaries go from the high teens to the low thirty thousand dollar
range.
The law also ensures the quality of the services provided by these
workers. Protecting the rights of current, experienced workers
maintains the stability of the workforce and ensures that well-trained,
qualified personnel are staffing the juvenile justice system. If we are
serious about protecting society against violent youth--if we are
serious about rehabilitating young people and safely returning them to
society, then we need well-trained and experienced workers and a stable
workforce with adequate skills and training in our juvenile justice
system.
This amendment will make sure that existing collective bargaining
agreements, and the rights under those agreements, would not be
disturbed when a state program receives a federal grant. The amendment
will prevent displacement of current workers when a program receives a
federal grant. For workers who are not covered by a collective
bargaining agreement, this amendment may be the only job protection
they have when their program is funded under a federal grant.
We all agree that the juvenile justice system must be improved. Let's
also agree that preserving the existing rights of state juvenile
justice workers, and preventing disruption of existing employment
relationships, are essential components that must be part of an
improved system. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

demonstration program for high risk youth

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, America is struggling with a disturbing and
growing trend of youth violence. While it is true that crime is
generally down in many urban and suburban areas, it is equally true
that crime committed by teens has risen sharply over the past few years
and it is expected to continue to rise. Crime experts who study
demographics warn of a coming crime wave

[[Page S5554]]

based on the number of children who currently are younger than 10 years
old. These experts warn that if current trends are not changed, we
might someday look back at our current juvenile crime epidemic as ``the
good old days.''
Thirty years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then an official of the
Johnson Administration, wrote that when a community's families are
shattered, crime, violence and rage ``are not only to be expected, they
are virtually inevitable.'' He wrote those words in 1965. Since then,
arrests of violent juvenile criminals have tripled.
If we have learned anything from this debate and from all the
research that has been done on juvenile violence, it is that there is
no magic bullet, no single solution or panacea to the problem of rising
juvenile crime. Juvenile crime is a complex problem that demands a
myriad of responses. It is a problem that demands a partnership
solution involving family, community, religious institutions, the
media, the schools and law enforcement.
The amendment I am offering today with Senator Lieberman is a multi-
tiered approach. First, the proposal targets youth who are at the
highest risk of leading lives that are unproductive and negative; youth
who have been or are likely to be incarcerated. Second, it brings
together representatives of local government, juvenile detention
providers, local law enforcement, probation officers, youth street
workers, local educational agencies, and religious institutions to
provide highly intensive, coordinated, and effective intervention
services to high risk youth.
We provide seed money ($4 million a year with a 30% match) to enable
the establishment of a collaborative partnership in 12 cities: Boston,
New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Denver, Seattle,
Cleveland, San Francisco, Austin, Memphis, and Indianapolis. We also
provide grants to grass roots entities in 8 cities to fund intervention
models that establish violence-free zones through mediation, mentoring,
coordination with law enforcement and local agency partnerships and the
development of long term intervention strategies.
Research has documented that this is the approach that yields
sustainable results. According to Public Private Ventures, Inc., which
has been engaged in the study of programs for children, youth and
families, interventions for seriously at-risk older youth and youth who
have already become involved with the juvenile justice system require
an innovative joining of youth development and crime reduction
strategies. This amendment does just that.
At the same time we must recognize that government solutions are
limited. Government is ultimately powerless to form the human
conscience that chooses between right and wrong. Locking away juveniles
might prevent them from committing further crimes, but it does not
address the fact that violence is symptomatic of a much deeper, moral
and spiritual void in our Nation.
In the battle against violent crime, solid families are America's
strongest line of defense. But government can be an effective tool if
it joins private institutions (families, churches, schools, community
groups, and non-profit organizations) in preventing and confronting
juvenile crime with the moral ideals that defeat despair and nurture
lives.
This amendment is a step in that direction and I urge its adoption.

``PARTNERSHIPS FOR HIGH-RISK YOUTH''

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support Gregg's ``Partnerships for High
Risk Youth'' amendment. This amendment establishes a national
demonstration project to identify the most effective practices and
programs for reducing youth violence. This initiative will provide 12
high-risk cities across the nation with funds to carry out local
demonstration projects. These initiatives will help us learn much more
about the best programs for reducing youth violence. Communities across
the country will benefit from the knowledge.
The most successful violence prevention programs take a comprehensive
approach to youth violence. The goal is to reach out to youth and their
families on a variety of levels. Diverse groups--law enforcement,
schools, mental health professionals, religious organizations, parents,
and teachers--all need to join forces. This amendment supports this
vital type of cooperation. The knowledge we gain will save lives.
Communities across the country will be able to learn from these
successful models and develop similar programs in their own towns and
cities.
Boston has long understood the importance of community cooperation,
and many of the ideas we have discussed have proven effective there.
Boston's strategy is based on three strong commitments--tough law
enforcement, heavy emphasis on crime prevention (including drug
treatment), and effective gun control. Neglect of any one of these
commitments undermines the whole strategy.
Several years ago, concerned groups in Boston joined forces to
develop community-based solutions that made youth violence ``everyone's
business.'' Successful partnerships have included the pairing of mental
health professionals, police and probation officers and school
administrators with clergy, community leaders, and even gang members
themselves. Statistics show that this strategy works. During the period
from July 1995 through December 1997, there was only one juvenile death
in Boston that involved a firearm.
Boston's Ten Point Coalition has received national acclaim for its
work with troubled youth. This is exactly the type of program that
Senator Gregg's amendment will support. The Ten Point Coalition which
was founded by Rev. Eugene Rivers, is an ecumenical group of clergy and
lay leaders who are working to mobilize the community on issues
affecting African-American youth--especially those at risk. The
Coalition is committed to helping at-risk children reach their full
potential, and it offers training, technical assistance, resource
development, and networking opportunities to churches and other
community groups interested in mentoring, advocacy, economic
alternatives, and violence prevention. Its goal is to build a coalition
of churches nationwide, united in their commitment to changing
children's lives and reducing violence.
This amendment will help outstanding initiatives like this across the
country, and I urge the Senate to support it.

violence prevention training for early childhood educators

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, one of the best ways to approach juvenile
justice is to prevent violent offenses from occurring in the first
place. Therefore, I am pleased to offer the ``Violence Prevention
Training for Early Childhood Educators'' amendment to S. 254, which is
aimed at preventing the development of violence in children at the
earliest ages so that they never grow up to become juvenile offenders.
This amendment--which I understand will be contained in the Managers'
amendment at the conclusion of consideration of the bill--would
authorize no less than $15 million in grants for teachers to learn
violence prevention skills.
All of us have been shaken by the tragedy at Littleton, CO. Americans
are left searching for answers to many questions. How could these
teenagers have committed such brutality? What happened to the innocence
and joy of youth? How can society help prevent such violent, deadly
behavior from happening again?
One of the most effective solutions is to begin violence prevention
at an early age. This program is a carefully thought-out program aimed
at true prevention. It is designed to help early childhood educators--
the people who work directly with young children in preschools, child
care centers, and elementary schools--learn the skills necessary to
prevent violent behavior in young children. This amendment would
provide support to programs that prepare these professionals so that
early childhood teachers, child care providers, and counselors are able
to teach children how to resolve conflicts without violence. In
addition, these professionals are in the perfect position to reach out
and extend these lessons to parents and help whole families adopt these
powerful skills.
Research has demonstrated that aggressive behavior in early childhood
is the single best predictor of aggression in later years. Children
observe and imitate aggressive behavior over the course of many years.
They certainly

[[Page S5555]]

have plenty of exposure to violence, both in the streets and at home. A
Boston hospital found that 1 out of every 10 children seen in their
primary care clinic had witnessed a shooting or stabbing before the age
of 6.
I am disheartened to report that in my home State of Connecticut, 1
in 10 teens have been physically abused. Alarmingly, more than a third
of teenage boys report that they have guns or could get one in less
than a day. In these circumstances, aggression becomes very well-
learned by the time a child reaches adolescence.
We must provide children with strategies for altering the negative
influences of exposure to violence. Early childhood offers a critical
period for overcoming the risk of violent behavior and later juvenile
delinquency. And the proper training of professionals who work with
young children offers one of the most effective avenues for reaching
these kids.
This is not to suggest that early childhood professionals would
replace parents as a source of teaching social skills and acceptable
behavior. Instead, these teachers should demonstrate these skills with
the children in their care and be encouraged to work with the whole
family to address conflict without violence and aggression.
In 1992, Congress enacted similar legislation to provide grants for
programs that train professionals in early childhood education and
violence counseling. These grants funded some remarkable programs. In
my home state, a program at Eastern Connecticut State University
trained students--half of whom were minority, low-income individuals--
to be teachers in their own communities, and trained child care
providers in violence prevention with young children.
Unfortunately, just as these efforts were getting off the ground and
starting to show promising results, the funding for the program was
rescinded as part of the major 1994 rescission bill. Looking back,
after the horrible events in Littleton, CO, Springfield, OR, and too
many other communities, I think we can clearly see that was a mistake.
Hindsight is always clearer--but let's not make the same mistake going
forward. Let's reinvest in these efforts so that we can prevent our
children from developing into violent juvenile offenders.
Preventing future acts of violence is an issue that rises above
partisan politics. I think we can all agree that steps need to be taken
to reduce the development of violent behavior in children. Please join
me in this effort to begin creating a safer society for everyone,
especially our children.

truancy prevention

Mr. DODD. As many of my colleagues know, I have worked consistently
for the last several years to address what I believe is one of the key
``gateway'' offenses leading to delinquency and serious crime among our
youth--Truancy. Working with Senator Sessions, we have been able to
include language encouraging states and local communities to pursue
truancy prevention programs with the assistance they will receive under
this bill. I want to thank Senator Sessions for working with me on this
effort.
Truancy is a dangerous and growing trend in our nation's schools. It
not only prevents our children from receiving the education they need,
but it is often the first warning of more serious problems to come.
Truant students are at greater risk of falling into substance abuse,
gangs, and violent behavior. For many students, truancy is the
beginning of a lifetime of problems.
It is estimated that, in the past ten years, truancy has increased by
as much as 67 percent. On an average school day, in the United States,
as many as 15 percent of junior and senior high school students are not
in school. In some urban schools, absentee rates approach 50 percent.
Alarmingly, the problem is becoming increasingly prevalent in our
elementary schools. Almost one quarter of Connecticut's truants were 13
or younger.
By some estimates, truants cost our nation more than $240 billion in
lost earnings and forgone taxes over their lifetimes. Yet this sum does
not include the billions more in dollars spent on law enforcement,
foster care, prisons, public assistance, health care and other social
services.
Fortunately, truancy is a solvable problem. Many communities,
including many in Connecticut, have set up early intervention
programs--to reach out and prevent truancy before it leads to
delinquency and more serious criminal behavior. A number of Connecticut
cities have brought back truant officers, hired drop-out prevention
workers, held parents accountable for their students absences, denied
credit to students with unexecused absences, and have created truancy
courts.
These programs are showing signs of success. Several towns have
reported dramatic drops in daytime burglary rates--some as much as 75
percent--after instituting truancy prevention initiatives.
Unfortunately, communities have had difficulty implementing these
programs as truancy is considered an educational rather than a criminal
justice issue, and, with growing classroom enrollments, many
financially-strapped schools simply do not have the resources to
adequately address this problem.
The provision that Senator Sessions and I are adding to the juvenile
justice bill will ensure that communities have the wherewithal they
need to respond to this increasingly serious problem. The legislation's
goal is to promote anti-truancy partneships between law enforcement
agencies, schools, parents, and, community organizations. While each
community must create a program which works for it, I believe that
there are certain key components of successful programs.
First, parents must be involved in all truancy prevention activities
and they must be given incentives to face up to their own
responsibilities. Second, students must understand that they will face
firm sanctions for truancy. Third, all hubs of this partnership wheel--
law enforcement, educational agencies, parents, and youth serving
organizations--must work together to help solve this problem.
Truancy is an early warning that a child is heading in the wrong
direction. I am hopeful that states and communities will use this new
authority to support high quality truancy partnership projects. And we
can move on to spend more time celebrating the accomplishments of our
children than grieving over lost opportunities to stop the cycle
leading to violent crime.

federal son of sam legislation

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last year, I introduced a bill to correct
problems with the Federal Son of Sam Law, as those problems were
perceived by the United States Supreme Court. Today, I am reintroducing
this legislation, which deals with a continuing problem. The New York
statute analyzed by the Supreme Court, as well as the Federal statute
which I seek to amend, forfeited the proceeds from any expressive work
of a criminal, and dedicated those proceeds to the victims of the
perpetrators crime. Because of constitutional deficiencies cited by the
Court, the Federal statute has never been applied, and without changes,
it is highly unlikely that it ever will be. Without this bill,
criminals can become wealthy from the fruits of their crimes, while
victims and their families are exploited.
The bill I now introduce attempts to correct constitutional
deficiencies cited by the Supreme Court in striking down New York's Son
of Sam law. In its decision striking down New York's law, the Court
found the statute to be both over inclusive and under inclusive: Over
inclusive because the statute included all expressive works, no matter
how tangentially related to the crime; under inclusive because the
statute included only expressive works, not other forms of property.
To correct the deficiencies perceived by the Court, this bill changes
significantly the concepts of the Federal statute. Because the Court
criticized the statute for singling out speech, this bill is all
encompassing: It includes various types of property related to the
crime from which a criminal might profit. Because the Court criticized
the statute for being over inclusive, including the process from all
works, no matter how remotely connected to the crime, this bill limits
the property to be forfeited to the enhanced value of property
attributable to the offense. Because the Court found fault with the
statute for not requiring a conviction, this bill requires a
conviction.
The bill also attempts to take advantage of the long legal history of
forfeiture. Pirate ships and their contents

[[Page S5556]]

were once forfeited to the government. More recent case law addresses
the concept of forfeiting any property used in the commission of drug
related crimes, or proceeds from those crimes. I hope that courts
interpreting this statute will look to this legal history and find it
binding or persuasive.
The bill utilizes the Commerce Clause authority of Congress to
forfeit property associated with State crimes. This means that if funds
are transferred through banking channels, if UPS or FedEx are used, if
the airwaves are utilized, or if the telephone is used to transfer the
property, to transfer funds, or to make a profit, the property can be
forfeited. In State cases, this bill allows the State Attorney General
to proceed first. We do not seek to preempt State law, only to see that
there is a law in place which will ensure that criminals do not profit
at the expense of their victims and the families of victims.
One last improvement which this bill makes over the former statutes:
The old statue include only crimes which resulted in physical harm to
another, this bill includes other crimes. Examples of crimes probably
not included under the old statute, but included here are terrorizing,
kidnaping, bank robbery, and embezzlement.
Mr. President, our Federal statute, enacted to ensure that criminals
not profit at the expense of their victims and victim's families, is
not used today because it is perceived to be unconstitutional. I
believe victims of crime deserve quick action on this bill, drafted to
ensure that they are not the source of profits to those who committed
crimes against them. I ask for your support.

amendment no. 352

Mr. CHAFEE. I just want to be clear about the civil liability
provisions. Does this bill create civil liability immunity for gun
manufacturers, dealers of guns accessed in the home, or manufacturers
or distributors of safety devices?
Mr. KOHL. No. It creates civil liability immunity only for gun
owners.
Mr. CHAFEE. Does this bill create civil liability immunity only for
gun owners who use a safety device?
Mr. KOHL. That is correct.
Mr. CHAFEE. Does that immunity apply if the gun owner is negligent--
even if he doesn't actually give anyone permission to use the gun, but
for example leaves the key to the lock sitting next to the gun?
Mr. KOHL. No.
Mr. CHAFEE. And is it correct that this section does not change in
any way existing product liability law?
Mr. KOHL. That is correct.
Mr. CHAFEE. And, finally, is it correct that any pending suits
against gun owners would be allowed to continue?
Mr. KOHL. That is correct.
Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator once again. On another matter, I want
to make equally clear for the record exactly what a ``secure gun
storage or safety device'' is and is not. Specifically, would the
Senator from Wisconsin agree with me that the definition of such
devices in our amendment is intended solely to include personalized
guns, lockable devices which either are affixed to a firearm directly,
or to secure locked containers or safes.
Mr. KOHL. I would agree.
Mr. CHAFEE. Finally, would you further concur with me that our
definition of a ``secure gun storage or safety device'' is not intended
to include a permanent feature of a home or motor vehicle, such as a
closet or glove box, even though such environments also may be locked?
Mr. KOHL. I would agree.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the past several days, we have
debated the best practices and programs for preventing youth violence.
We have disagreed on a number of issues including the need to restrict
guns, invest in after-school care, and expand counseling services and
mental health services for troubled youths and children. But there is
one issue that members on both sides of the aisle agree on--parents
play an important role in their children's lives.
Everywhere we look, children are under assault: from violence and
neglect; from the break-up of families; from the temptations of
alcohol, tobacco, sex, and drug abuse; from greed, materialism, and the
media. These are not new problems, but in our time, they have become
increasingly serious. Against this bleak backdrop, the struggle to
raise children and to support families, emotionally as well as
practically, has become more difficult.
Parents bear the first and primary responsibility for their sons and
daughters--to feed them, to shelter them, to talk to them, to teach
them to ride a bike, to encourage their talents, to help them develop
physically and emotionally, and to make countless daily decisions that
influence their growth and development.
Parents are the most important influence in their children's lives,
but they are being pulled in many different directions. Healthy
development depends on strong parental guidance. Spending time together
is an essential part of building positive parent-child relationships.
Yet time together is increasingly scarce.
Parents are eating fewer meals and having fewer conversations with
their children. Between 1988 and 1995, a significant drop took place in
parent-child activities. Sixty-two percent of mothers reported eating
dinner with their child on a daily basis in 1988, but only 55% reported
doing so in 1995. Fifty percent ate dinner with their child in 1988,
but this rate dropped to 42% in 1995.
We need to support parents, not attack and blame them. Sylvia Hewlett
and Cornel West said it best in the title of their recent book, ``The
War Against Parents.'' That's exactly how it feels for many of today's
parents. Like parents before them, they struggle to keep children at
the center of their lives. But major obstacles stand in their way,
undermining their efforts.
Over the course of the last thirty years, public policy and private
decision-making have often tilted heavily against the activities that
comprise the essence of parenting. A myopic government increasingly
fails to protect or support parents, while the competitive forces in
the marketplace are allowed to take up more and more time. We talk as
though we value families but act as though families are a last
priority. Sooner or later, worn-out parents get the message that
devoting their best time to raising children is a lonely, thankless
undertaking that cuts against the grain of other activities that are
apparently valued more highly by society.
Last week, I spent time in Boston talking to students about violence
and other issues affecting their lives. I asked them whether they felt
their parents were too busy to talk to them--and 3/4ths of the students
raised their hands.
Parents need to spend more time listening to children--and the nation
agrees. A recent Newsweek poll asked, ``How important is it for the
country to pay more attention to teenagers and their problems?''
Eighty-nine percent of those polled replied that it is very important.
If parents are not raising their children, we need to worry about who
is.
The wrong kind of parenting can cause problems as well. Inconsistent
or overly harsh discipline, may lead children to develop aggressive
behavior. Inconsistent discipline is often associated with poor
behavior in school and at home. These children also tend to have more
trouble establishing strong relationships with their family, their
teachers and their fellow students.
Parenting and coaching classes can make a significant difference in
avoiding such problems. A recent study published in the American
Psychological Association's Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology found that mothers who participated in Head Start parenting
programs showed a decrease in their use of harsh criticism and an
increase in their use of positive and competent discipline. The
children were happier and their behavior was more satisfactory than
children whose mothers did not receive parenting education.
When parents have the skills to deal effectively with their children,
they are less likely to be abusive. Unfortunately, too many parents
lack these essential skills. Each year over 3 million children are
identified as victims of abuse or neglect. The consequences are
devastating. Traumatized children are more likely to have alcohol and
substance abuse problems and learning problems. They are also more
likely to be arrested as juveniles and to engage in abusive behavior
toward their own children when they become parents.

[[Page S5557]]

We know that suffering abuse as a child is strongly related to
subsequent delinquency and abusive behavior later in life. But improved
parenting skills can help break this vicious cycle. Parenting support
and education have been proven to reduce abuse. In the Prenatal and
Early Infancy Project, high-risk mothers were randomly assigned to one
of two groups. One group received visits by specially trained nurses
who provided coaching in parenting skills and other advice and support.
The other group received no services. For those who received the
assistance, child abuse was reduced by 80% in the first 2 years. 15
years after the services ended, these mothers had only one-third as
many arrests, and their children were only half as likely to be
delinquent.
Law enforcement officials also recognize the benefits of training
parents. More than 9 out 10 police chiefs (92%) agreed with the
statement, ``America could sharply reduce crime if government invested
more in programs to help children and youth get off to 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.''
These law enforcement officers are right. Parenting classes in
conjunction with early education programs improve caregiver skills they
also reduce crime dramatically and they reduce the likelihood of later
delinquent behavior. A High/Scope Foundation study at the Perry
Preschool in Michigan provided at-risk 3 and 4 year-olds with a quality
Head Start-style preschool program, supplemented by weekly in-home
coaching for parents. Two decades later years later, by age 27, those
who had been denied the services as toddlers were five times more
likely to be chronic lawbreakers.
A similar program in Syracuse provided child development and health
services for at-risk infants and toddlers and parenting support for
their mothers and fathers. The study found that kids denied the
services were ten times more likely to be delinquent by age 16.
We pay a high price for abuse and neglect. In addition to its
damaging psychological consequences, it is estimated that $22 billion
is spent each year on services for abused children, their families, and
foster care families. Investing in prevention programs, particularly
parent support and education, will significantly reduce these abuse-
related expenditures.
There is no question that investing in parents will pay-off. When we
don't make this investment, we all pay more later, not just in terms of
lives and fear, but also in tax dollars.
The ``Parenting As Prevention'' Act, which Senator Stevens and I are
proposing, will fund several initiatives that will improve parenting
skills.
To identify the best parenting practices, a National Parenting
Support and Education Commission will be established. The Commission
will identify the most effective parenting practices, including the
best strategies for disciplining children and youth, the best
approaches for building integrity and character, and the best
techniques for ensuring healthy brain development.
The Commission will also conduct a review of existing parenting
support and education programs, and will provide Congress and the
Administration with a detailed report of its findings. Perhaps, most
important, essential parenting information will also be provided to
parents--no new family will leave a hospital or adoption agency without
information on how to best care for a baby. In Massachusetts, such an
initiative is already underway.
Our amendment also supports the establishment of a grant program to
strenghthen state initiatives for supporting and educating parents.
Block grants will go directly from the Department of Health and Human
Services to the states. Each state will establish their own Parenting
Support and Education Council to award local grants. States will use
their funds to establish support and education resource centers for
parents and to strengthen support programs for children and teenagers.
The grant program will support a wide variety of parental support
initiatives including: home visitation for mothers of new babies; the
distribution of parenting and early childhood development materials;
the development of support programs for parents of young children and
teenagers; respite care for parents of children with special needs; and
the creation of a national toll free number that will offer counseling
and referral services for parents.
Finally, our amendment will improve mental health services for
violence-related stress. Regional centers around the country will be
established to provide special training and research in psychological
counseling and treatment. We know that the early years are essential to
healthy development and that inadequate care during this critical
period can have a devastating impact on future behavior. To reverse the
impact of negative early experiences, regional centers on psychological
and trauma response will identify the best practices for dealing with
these problems. In the long run, successful early intervention is the
best way to modify the culture of violence instilled in so many youth.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Investing in parents
and children is one of the best ways to prevent youth violence and we
clearly need to do more in order to achieve this important goal.
I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for this amendment be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

MIT,

Family Resource Center,

Cambridge, MA, May 18, 1999.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: It is with pleasure that I write to
express my full and enthusiastic support for your Amendment
to S. 254 entitled ``PARENTING AS PREVENTION.''
The provision of the Amendment, including the establishment
of a Parenting Support and Education Commission, a State and
Local Parenting Support and Education Grant Program, and
Grants to Address the Problems of Violence Related Stress to
Parents and Children, could not be more needed, or more
timely. I am confident that the Amendment will make a major
contribution in addressing the pressing needs of parents in
our country, and thus in preventing the tragic problems among
children and youth that confront our nation today.
You are to be commended for your leadership in bringing
forward this critically important legislative initiative.
In addition to serving as Administrator of Parenting
Programs at MIT, I am Chief Consultant to the Harvard
Parenting Projects and Director of the Harvard Project on the
Parenting of Adolescents at the Harvard School of Public
Health. I am also Founding Chair and National Liaison for the
National Parenting Education Network.
If there is any assistance that I can provide to the new
Commission, I would be very happy to do so.
Respectfully yours,
A. Rae Simpson, Ph.D.,
Administrator, Parenting Programs.
____

The Latin School of Chicago,

Chicago, IL, May 18, 1999.
Dear Senator Kennedy: I am writing to support your efforts
at adding The Stevens-Kennedy Amendment to S. 254--the
Parenting as Prevention Act. I have working at parenting
education for two decades. I have taught parent education to
lawyers, social workers, teachers, parents and students in k-
12 settings in some of the most violent neighborhoods in
Chicago. I have been able to prove that it does help children
and parents to have more options, to understand the needs of
children and others and to choose non-violent solutions to
problems.
I have also been working for several years on parent
advocacy groups to professionalize parent education and get
some consensus regarding best practices. We need support and
resources to do this. Many of us have been doing this for
years at our own expense because we know how important parent
education and support is to parents and future parents. Thank
you for your efforts and please call upon me in any way I can
to support your good work. We need this Act to do our good
work.
Very sincerely yours,
Dana McDermott Murphy,
Adjunct Professor, Family Studies Program--Loyola of
Chicago; Coordinator, Parent Education Initiative, The Latin
School of Chicago; Member, Advisory Council of the National
Parent Education Network; and Member, Advisory Board of the
Parenting Project-Boca Raton, FL.
____

Websters International, Inc.,

May 18, 1999.
Senator Edward Kennedy,
c/o Parenting Coalition International,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: I am in support of the Stevens/
Kennedy Amendment to S. 254 subtitled; PARENTING AS
PREVENTION.
This is a most critical time in America's history. All of
us need to realize, recognize,

[[Page S5558]]

and support the premise that parents are the single most
important factor in determining the success or failure of
their child. Beyond a doubt, based on the very latest
research, parents are their child's most influential
teachers. Therefore, it stands to reason that parents truly
desire to learn the skills and attitudes they need in order
to be the best parent they can be for their child. Those
skills and attitudes do not come naturally; they are learned.
We need programs that will ensure that parents are taught
those skills and attitudes using the most positive methods
available. Too many of them have learned negative parenting
through the bad examples of their own parents.
We must start sending positive messages to our children
instead of the poor, often confusing scenarios, we present to
them now. I believe providing the states with funds to help
them implement such programs would be most desirable, but
only if we have a true method of determining that the monies
are being spent correctly on parenting materials that have
been proven to make a difference in the lives of both parents
and their children, and that such programs are making a
difference.
Sincerely,
Gretchen Gleaves,
Vice President.
____

The Heaths,

Haverford, PA, May 18, 1999.
Belinda Rollins,
President, Parenting Coalition International, Inc.,
Washington, DC.
Dear Belinda: Thank you for the privilege of reviewing and
commenting on the provocative Stevens-Kennedy Amendment to S.
254.
Establishing a Parenting Support and Education Commission
must be a component of any effort to improve the lives of
America's children. Parents, defined broadly as anyone who
has made a commitment to care for a child from now until the
child reaches adulthood, provide their children with
continuity of understanding and love as those children move
through their growing years. That continuity is vital given
the complexity of the society in which our children live, the
range of experiences that they have and the vast number of
choices which they have to make.
Senator Kennedy and his staff are to be congratulated for
incorporating into the existing bill this additional
component that will provide a means of strengthening parents'
ability to nurture their children.
My experience of over thirty years of working with parents
as well as consulting with parent programs world wide has led
me to recognize the need for a Commission that focuses on the
role of parents in the lives of their children, the effects
of that role on the parents themselves and how to support
parents that they may more effectively nurture their
children. The Commission to be created by this bill will
address these needs in at least three ways.
(1) Establishing such a commission will give recognition to
the importance of parents in the lives of their children. No
educational or social agency provides the continuity of love
and care that parents give to children. This commission will
keep in the national consciousness the unique role of the
parent.
(2) The Commission will provide a means for investigating
in depth social issues related to parenting. For example,
rather than the public argument over whether or not mothers
should work the commission could investigate the conditions
that allow parents to have the time they need with their
children while also carrying on their own lives and earning
an income for their families.
(3) Having state and local initiatives, as described in the
bill, will provide a means for raising issues from the local
level to national attention as well as a means of passing
down current research and information.
This amendment to S. 254 adds a significant component to
the national agenda of supporting children by recognizing the
important role that parents have in the lives of their
children and by providing support and information to parents
that will enhance their ability to nurture their children.
Again let me thank you for giving me an opportunity to
respond to this innovative amendment.
Sincerely,
Harriet Heath, Ph.D.,
Director, The Parent Center, Bryn Mawr College.
____

Belinda: Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to
review this amendment. I am amazed that you were able to get
it put together and through the channels to be added to the
bill. Congratulations.
I hope my letter supports the amendment is the way you had
hoped.
I do have some comments on the amendment itself, as I think
you were also asking for. I find it fascinating the groups
you have included and see the political reasons for doing so.
Your political savvy is amazing and so necessary if you are
going to achieve your goals. And I am so glad that you are
there working towards the betterment of parents.
A few comments: In your list of Commission members you need
people knowledgeable about parental development and about the
role of the parent in child development. I am not sure I am
saying this very clearly but the writing on parents tends to
focus on what parents do with and to their children, not on
the determinants of the parental behavior themselves.
Parenting tends not be discussed as it affects the parent
except for specific periods such as the early adjustments to
parenthood and parenting the adolescent when the mother may
be menopausal and the father seeing limits to what he may
accomplish.
I am uneasy about the dichotomy that seems to exist in the
8th and 9th listing. A good parenting education program, not
including that produced through the media, has a strong
supportive component.
In 8 are you speaking of family support programs that
provide social and medical services as well as parenting
education and support or are you referring to parent programs
that are defined as totally emotionally supportive of parents
without a content component except what the parents offer
each other?
Speaking of ``best practices'' gives me visions of a cook
book. It implies there are good recipes and all we have to do
is identify them. I have not yet figured out how to write
these sections but so much of parenting is developing plans
for specific situations. Planning involves considering
several key factors which include obvious such as the
developmental level of the child, the temperament pattern,
the needs, and the less often mentioned factors such as what
are the parents' values and beliefs. The fact that parents
deal with the issues they face by considering key factors
must be recognized, and supported because, as we all know,
one approach does not meet the needs of all children. But
maybe all this is too complex for a bill.
One other issue--for future consideration. You pass over
the elementary school years. They are a time when parents can
delight in their children as those children are old enough to
explore new skills, discuss ideas and just enjoy each other.
These are also the years parents can do so much in preparing
their children for the adolescence. It is a time of giving
them that factual information they can use when making
decisions about drugs, sex, etc. It is the time for
developing decision making skills. And maybe most of all it
is the time of deepening the loving relationship that will
carry them both through the teen ages.
All of this may be too much for the bill. I look forward to
the continuation of the discussion.
Again, thank you Belinda for the work you are doing and for
including me in it.
I will send you a paper copy of the letter. Should it go
somewhere else also?
Best wishes. See you Friday,
Harriet.
____

Fight Crime; Invest in Kids,

May 18, 1999.
Re Stevens-Kennedy Amendment to Juvenile Crime Legislation.

Dear Senator: As an organization led by over 500 police
chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, victims of violence, leaders
of police organizations, and violence prevention scholars, we
write in support of the Stevens-Kennedy ``Parenting as
Prevention Act'' amendment to S. 254.
Today, kids are being raised in households where both
parents must work. In many cases, single, working parents
raise children on their own. These new stresses are
compounded by our increasingly mobile society. Parents often
lack nearby grandparents and other close relatives to share
the work of raising a child as well as provide coaching and
emotional support.
The Stevens-Kennedy amendment recognizes that we must help
parents face today's challenges in raising a child from the
toddler to teen years. We all have a vital stake in seeing
that children are provided with the best quality parenting
because it is a critical factor in determining if a child
will grow up to be a criminal or a contributing citizen and
good neighbor.
Programs that help parent raise infants and toddlers
supporting parents have been shown to dramatically reduce
child abuse and neglect and other factors that increase the
chances for kids to later engage in criminal behavior. For
example, the Prenatal and Early Infancy Project (PEIP)
randomly assigned half of a group of at-risk mothers to
receive visits by specially trained nurses who provide
coaching in parenting skills and other advice and support.
Rigorous studies show the program not only reduced child
abuse by 80% in the first two years, but that fifteen years
after the services ended, these mothers had only one-third as
many arrests, and their children were only half as likely to
be delinquent.
The amendment would also help parents who struggle in the
volatile teen years by offering advice, family counseling,
and other services. Research demonstrates that parental
involvement is critical in the teen years for the healthy
development of kids, and to help troubled kids get back on
track. For example, the Multi-Systemic Therapy program for
teens already involved in serious crime works closely with
the teens' parents and in replications around the country it
has been shown to cut long-term rates of re-arrest by up to
70%.
The Stevens-Kennedy amendment provides much needed
resources to treat victims of abuse and neglect, sexual
abuse, violence, and other traumas. Research shows that when
children are directly abused, or even when they witness
violence in their lives, their developing brain's anatomy and
chemistry is altered--a sound, or some other stimulus can
``flip the switch'' and their heart races as their mind
becomes concentrated on flight . . . or fight. As opposed to
the myth that children are infinitely resilient, Bruce

[[Page S5559]]

Perry of Baylor College of Medicine says, ``If anything we
now know that children are more vulnerable to trauma than
adults.'' Perry estimates that over 5 million children in the
United States witness or experience traumatizing violence
every year, including 1 million who are victims of abuse or
neglect.
Programs that help parents raise responsible, healthy
adults save lives and money. For example, a RAND cost-benefit
estimate of the PEIP program concluded that the savings to
the government alone (excluding other benefits to society at
large) were four times the costs, and that figure did not
include many savings, such as expected lower welfare costs
for the children beyond age 15, nor the extra taxes they may
pay as adults. RAND found that government savings from the
program exceeded program costs by the time the kids were four
years old.
If we can be of further help as you consider this
amendment, please don't hesitate to call us.
Sincerely,
Sanford A. Newman,
President.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of
the Parenting As Prevention Act be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Summary of the Stevens Amendment--Parenting as Prevention Act

The Parenting as Prevention Act addresses youth violence
and juvenile delinquency by providing support and training to
parents and potential parents to improve their parenting
skill and focusing attention on brain stimulation to improve
early childhood development.
A Rand study shows that for every dollar invested in
parenting and improving early childhood education through
brain stimulation, at least $4 are saved in later prison
costs, rehabilitation costs, special education expense,
welfare payments, etc. GAO puts the savings at above $7 for
every dollar invested.
This state block grant program would be administered by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services and developed in
cooperation with the Attorney General who has responsibility
for juvenile justice prevention programs such as the Boys and
Girls Club, the Secretary of Education who provides some
support to early childhood learning, the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development who would help distribute materials on
parenting through public housing programs, the Secretary of
Labor who offers parent training to welfare mothers as part
of the Welfare to Work program, the Secretary of Agriculture
who operates the WIC program and distributes information to
rural America through the Cooperative Extension Service, and
the Department of Defense who runs child care centers and
provides other services to children of military families.
A National Parenting Support and Education Commission would
be established to identify the best practices for parenting
on issues ranging from discipline to character development to
brain development to gun safety (Eddie Eagle). It would
review existing parenting support and education programs and
report back to Congress and the Administration on which ones
are most effective.
The Commission would publish materials for parents in
various formats on parenting practices and brain stimulation
or distribute already available materials. No new family
would come home from the hospital or adoption agency without
information on how to raise the baby. Referral information on
existing federal, state, and local programs would also be
collated on one sheet of paper for distribution which would
include eligibility criteria, phone numbers, and addresses.
The Commission must wrap up its work within 18 months. Such
funds as are necessary are authorized for appropriation.
A State and Local Parenting Support and Education Grant
Program is established which would provide a block grant to
states with a small state minimum: States with Indian
populations over 2% would provide 2% of the money to tribes.
The State would establish a State Parenting Support and
Education Council to award grants at the local level which
would include state government, bipartisan representation
from the state legislation, and interested groups to be
appointed by the Governor. If a state had an existing group,
it could use that.
The State Council could award grants for:
(1) Parenting support programs for young children including
distribution of parenting materials on brain development and
best parenting practices; one on one visits to mothers of new
babies on brain development and best parenting practices
(cited as the best way to reduce child abuse, a leading cause
of juvenile delinquency and violent crime); and parent
training programs.
(2) Parenting support for teenagers including providing
parenting materials in conjunction with existing programs
such as Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCA, after school programs,
and parent training classes, support groups, and mentors.
(3) Parenting support and education resource centers
including a national 800 toll free number offer counseling,
parenting advice, and referral to existing programs; and
respite care for parents with children with special needs
(retarded, mentally ill, behavior disorders, FAS/FAE).
A state which got a grant to provide a statewide program or
a local group would only have to report back every two years,
but would have to use specific performance measures, i.e.
things like improvement in IQ scores, school achievement
tests.
No more than 5% of the money could be used for
administrative costs. The typical rate is 18-30 percent.
A state would have to maintain its existing effort, i.e. it
can't cut its existing state program and replace it with a
federal grant.
The program is authorized at such sums as are necessary.
Finally, the bill creates a program to reverse bad brain
wiring caused by exposure to physical or sexual abuse or
family/community violence. Research shows early intervention
to be much more effective than later rehabilitation efforts
as an adult.
Again, best practices for dealing with these problems would
be identified by regional centers of excellence on
psychological trauma and response.
Indian tribes, Native Hawaiians and other non-profits would
be eligible for grants which would last for 3 years.
This program is authorized at such sums as are necessary.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be
agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 363) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
The Senator will withhold. The Senate is not in order. The Senator
from Minnesota.

Amendment No. 364

(Purpose: To make an amendment with respect to disproportionate
minority confinement)

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of myself, Senator Kennedy, Senator Feingold, and Senator
Feinstein.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself,
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Feingold, and Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an
amendment numbered 364.

Mr. WELLSTONE. 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 129, strike lines 6 through 14, and insert the
following:
``(24) address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and
system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without
establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the
disproportionate number of juvenile members of racial
minority groups who come into contact with the juvenile
justice system.''

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me talk in a general way about
this. This legislation deals with juvenile justice. This amendment
focuses on the justice part. We speak to what is called
disproportionate minority confinement. What that really means, in
concrete terms, to use one example, is African American kids ages 10 to
17 make up 15 percent of the population, but 26 percent of all juvenile
arrests, 32 percent of delinquency referrals to juvenile court, 46
percent of juveniles in public long-term institutions, and 52 percent
of cases judicially waived to criminal court; that is, adult court.
In the current legislation, what we have done is we turn the clock
back a long ways. In the past, since the late 1980s, we have always
tried to deal with this question of disproportionate minority
confinement. What this legislation does is to essentially reverse this
progress. I think, roughly speaking, about 33 percent of the
population, ages 10 to 17, are minority youth. They represent about 66
percent, or thereabouts, of kids who are now incarcerated. The question
is, Why?
There are lots of different reasons. Let me just list some that come
from Department of Justice reports, some lessons that have been learned
from some five different States. Some of the factors that can
contribute to minority overrepresentation can be: racial ethnic bias,
insufficient diversion options, system labeling, barriers to parental
advocacy, poor juvenile justice/community integration, low-income jobs,
few job opportunities, few community support services, inadequate
health and

[[Page S5560]]

welfare resources, inadequate early childhood education, inadequate
education quality, lack of cultural education, single-parent homes,
economic stress, limited time for supervision. The factors go on.
But the key to an effective juvenile justice system is to treat every
offender as an individual, to treat every offender fairly, and to
provide the needed services to all. All youth who come into contact
with the juvenile justice system should receive fair treatment. Surely
every Senator agrees with that proposition.
The disproportionate minority confinement requirement in the current
law is bringing about change and focusing attention on the problem. The
current law says we call upon States to try to come to terms with this
question. We call upon States to collect the data. We call upon States
to think about whether or not there are steps that can be taken, and to
put into effect some of these programs and some of the steps that could
be taken to deal with this problem, to bring about more fairness, to
end some of the discrimination.
As you look at this graph here, when you have 15 percent of young
people ages 10 to 17, African American, but 46 percent of the juveniles
in public, long-term institutions are African American kids, this ought
to bother all of us. We ought to come to terms with this.
William Raspberry wrote in the Washington Post last week:

These numbers strongly imply not disproportionate
lawlessness, but dissimilar treatment throughout the juvenile
justice system.
At the very least, they are the type of numbers that ought
to prompt criminal justice authorities across America to take
a closer look at what they are doing.

That is what is so incredible about this legislation right now. It is
as if starting in the late 1980s and then going to 1993 we recognized
this problem, and in our juvenile justice legislation, up to this bill,
we have said to States: You need to collect the data; you need to look
at this problem; you need to try to address this problem.
This piece of legislation essentially guts this effort, and the
amendment that we have offered is essentially the same House language
that is now in their juvenile justice bill. It addresses juvenile
delinquency prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed
to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or
quotas--that is very important--efforts designed to reduce, without
establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the
disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority groups who come
into contact with the juvenile justice system.
There were close to 400 votes--I want my colleagues to listen to
this--400 votes in the House of Representatives for this amendment that
we now bring to the Senate floor.
The current law talked about the need to address this problem, to
reduce the proportion of juveniles detained or confined in secure
detention facilities, jails and lockups, who are members of minority
groups if such proportion exceeds the proportion such group represents
in the general population.
S. 254 guts the current law and talks about segments of the juvenile
population. What does that mean? Boys? Girls? It does not deal with the
issue of race and the severe overrepresentation of young kids of color
who are locked up. That is the issue.
This amendment that I bring to the floor with Senator Kennedy,
Senator Feingold, and Senator Feinstein essentially says that we call
upon the States to address the juvenile delinquency prevention efforts
and system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing
or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate number
of juvenile members of minority groups who come into contact with the
juvenile justice system.
This is an eminently reasonable amendment, but it goes to the heart
of the debate about racial justice in our country. S. 254 undermines
this DMC core requirement of the Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention
Act which directs States to identify this disproportionate confinement,
to assess the reasons it exits, and to develop strategies to address
the disproportionate number of minority children in confinement.
This legislation, S. 254, as now written, takes those efforts--some
good efforts by our States, some 40 States involved with this--and
basically heads these efforts for the scrap heap. This is a huge step
backward.
This amendment has nothing to do with quotas. It does not require or
suggest the use of numerical quotas for arrests or release of any
juvenile from custody based on race. No State's funding is based upon
quotas or anything else. But this amendment does put the Senate on
record supporting the disproportionate minority confinement core
requirement which now is in existing law that addresses a very serious
and a very real problem.
It is well-documented that in every State--nearly every State--
including my State of Minnesota, minority youth are overrepresented at
every stage of the juvenile justice system, particularly in secure
confinement. For example, a study in California showed that minority
youth consistently received more severe punishments and were more
likely to receive jail time than white youth who committed the same
offenses.

Another study in Portland, OR, found minority youth being locked up
at a rate several times higher than their arrest rates.
We ought to be concerned when, roughly speaking, 7 out of every 10
youths in secure confinement are minority juveniles in our country, a
rate more than double their percentage of the youth population. Should
we be concerned about that? Isn't this juvenile justice legislation?
Let's look at the justice part.
We have close to 7 out of 10 kids who are in confinement in our
country today who are locked up, incarcerated--juveniles, who are kids
of color, minority kids, double their percentage of the population. We
have way too many examples of kids having committed the same offense as
white kids but receiving stiffer sentences or winding up incarcerated,
and it is not right. It is unconscionable. It is unacceptable.
I do not think this whole problem of disproportionate minority
confinement is the product of bigoted or racist authorities, though
there is too much bigotry and there is too much racism. It is far more
complex, and it results from all kinds of things, including the
likelihood that minority youth are more likely to be poor, they are
going to be unable to find work, uneducated, or, as William Raspberry
suggests in his column, or they are politically unconnected, which
means they will be less likely to have their children released to their
custody by police officers and judges.
From William Raspberry's piece:

It may result in a tendency of white officials to basically
look at white kids as troubled youth and black offenders as
troublemakers, gangsters or predators.

Forty States are doing good work. The Department of Justice issued a
report several months ago which talked about some of the lessons
learned from five States. I began to talk about some of those lessons
earlier on and the kinds of efforts these States--Arizona, Iowa, North
Carolina, Florida, and Oregon--are taking.
I believe Senator Kennedy will come down and speak shortly on this
amendment and then I will follow up his remarks. I am anxious to hear
what my colleague from Utah has to say because he has been a Senator
who has been extremely sensitive to these issues.
This does not make any sense. We have language in our current
legislation that deals with this problem of the disproportionate number
of kids of color who are locked up so we can find out what is going on
and how we can do better. States all across the Nation are collecting
the data and trying to find out what is wrong and trying to do better.
This current legislation before the Senate really turns the clock
back. Why as a nation do we not want to come to terms with this
question? Again, let me be clear about this, the current law talks
about the need to reduce the proportion of juveniles who are detained
or secured, confined in these secure detention facilities, the
disproportionate number of minority groups, and then S. 254 comes along
and talks about segments of the juvenile population.
This basically undermines the efforts that are underway. We are not
talking about segments of the population. We are talking about race
and, as a matter

[[Page S5561]]

of fact, it is very important that we continue to identify some of the
problems we have to confront as a nation that deal with race. We are
not talking about segments of the population; we are talking about the
question of race.
Our amendment--I want every Senator to focus his or her attention on
this--takes the House language, which was passed by 400 votes, and we
talk about the importance of addressing the juvenile delinquency
prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed to reduce,
without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the
disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority groups who come
into contact with the juvenile justice system.
The current law, before this piece of legislation, acknowledges race
is an issue. Whether we want to talk about it or not, whether we want
to recognize it or not, whether we are comfortable with it or not, this
isn't an issue that arose overnight.
In 1988, over a decade ago, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice
released a report to Congress on race in the system called ``The
Delicate Balance.'' They made the point, and this became part of the
law that we had to do better as a nation, that we should be troubled by
this, that we should be troubled that close to 70 percent of the kids
who are locked up are kids of color, minority youth.
We want to make sure there is no discrimination. We want to make sure
kids are treated fairly. We want to make sure that all of our citizens
have some confidence in this justice system. Well, this piece of
legislation takes us a long ways back, a long ways back.
For those who want to talk about the constitutionality of the DMC
provision, it is just a scare tactic. It is just a figleaf. I read the
language of the amendment which makes it crystal clear that we are not
talking about numerical standards or quotas. I would like to read from
a letter and ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record
at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. WELLSTONE. This is from 23 law professors endorsing the
constitutionality of the disproportionate minority confinement
amendment. I just read:

There can be no serious constitutional objection to the DMC
requirement in existing law. First, it does not single out
members of racial minorities for any sort of distinctive
treatment, nor does it impose any burdens on anyone else. The
Supreme Court's decisions made it clear that constitutional
questions arise, not merely from the use of racial terms in a
law--for otherwise compiling census information about race
would be unconstitutional--but only if there is some burden
or benefit allocated on the basis of race. . . . The DMC
requirements do nothing that crosses this minimum threshold.

This letter goes on and makes really a very strong case, signed by 23
law professors in our country.
I want to just make it real clear that the disproportionate minority
confinement amendment that I bring to the floor with Senator Kennedy is
about race. Can I say this one more time to colleagues? Because when
you vote on this, please understand this amendment is about race.
Please understand that this amendment has the support of probably every
single civil rights organization in our country. Please understand that
this amendment has the support of just about every single children's
organization you can think of, starting with the Children's Defense
Fund.
Please understand that this amendment and your vote is all about
race, because please understand that we are doing better, but to have a
really better America we have to do even better when it comes to
questions of race and discrimination.
Please understand that many citizens in our country do not have
complete confidence in the system. When the minority community sees
that close to 70 percent of their kids are locked up, when their kids
make up not even 35, 33 percent of the population, and when they see
that kids of color wind up incarcerated, when white kids do not, having
committed the same offense, or given longer sentences, and when they
see all the ways in which there is discrimination--and we have not come
to terms with what is really going on with so many kids in these
communities--it makes members of minority communities in our country
very suspicious of a piece of legislation which focuses on juvenile
justice but takes out the language we had in our legislation dealing
with kids that assures that States will collect the data and will look
at this question and try and do better.
I am telling you, this is a huge vote. This is all about race. It is
about the disproportionate share of minority youth in our Nation's
juvenile justice system. It is about helping States come up with plans
to enhance prevention, to work with communities. It is not about
releasing individuals from confinement because of their racial makeup
or about instituting some kind of quota system. It is about fairness.
It is about ending discrimination. It is about justice. It is about
doing better as a nation. It is about doing better for all of our
children, including children of color, and that is why this amendment
has such intense, broad support. And it is why 400 Members in the House
of Representatives voted for this amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will yield to the Senator or yield the floor, if you
like.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Minnesota to simply yield for a
question.
Let me say at the outset that I am honored to support this amendment.
I am glad that Senator Wellstone, Senator Kennedy, and many others have
joined in this effort.
For those who question whether Senator Wellstone's testimony before
the Senate is accurate, I share with them some statistical information
which came as a shock to me. General McCaffrey, who is our Nation's
drug czar, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year. I
asked General McCaffrey if the statistics I had read were accurate.
The statistics I had read were as follows: 12 percent of the American
population is African American; 13 percent of those committing drug
crimes are African American; 33 percent of those arrested are African
American; 50 percent of those convicted are African American; and 67
percent of those in prison for drug crimes are African American.
This is clearly completely disproportionate. This segment of the
population has been focused on and what Senator Wellstone is seeking to
do with this amendment is to make certain that we do not close our eyes
to the reality. The statue of justice can keep a blindfold over her
eyes with the scales before her; we cannot put a blindfold over our
eyes. We have to be open to the reality that if we are discriminating
against any group of Americans, regardless of their background or
color, ethnic origin or race or religion, we have to be sensitized to
it.
I do not know why this bill takes a step backwards. Thank goodness
for the amendment offered by Senator Wellstone and others which puts us
back on the right track to be honest and fair in the administration of
justice in America.
I proudly stand in support of your amendment. I thank the Senator for
his leadership.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank Senator Durbin. He would like to be added as
an original cosponsor. I would be very proud for him to do that. I ask
unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be added as an original
cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
I have visited some of these facilities and they are pretty
troubling. When you visit--I think, again, of the visit to Tallulah,
LA--there and there is just a sea of, in this particular case, African
American faces, young kids--many of them, by the way, locked up for as
long as 7 weeks in solitary confinement, 23 hours a day; that is part
of what they do there--it is troubling.
I think in the State of Louisiana--I do not know what the overall
percentage of the population is, but I think about 80 to 85 percent of
the kids that are confined there are African American. Here is what
makes this so troubling.
It would be easy--I want every Senator listening to this--to simply
attribute this large discrepancy to the fact that young people of
different racial groups commit different types of crimes.

[[Page S5562]]

In 1992, though, there were significantly higher rates of admission
of African American juveniles for every offense group. Please listen to
that, because I do not want some colleague to come out on the floor and
say: Well, there is a reason for this. These kids commit the crimes in
exactly this percentage or this proportion.
Crimes against persons: Black males and females were six times more
likely to be admitted to State juvenile facilities than their white
counterparts-- same crimes, six times more likely.

Property crimes: Black males were almost four times more likely to be
admitted to State juvenile facilities than white males, and black
females were almost three times more likely to be committed than white
females.
Drug offenses: Black males were confined at a rate 30 times that of
white males. In fact, among all offense categories, black youth were
more likely to be detained than white youth during every year between
1985 and 1994. Minority youth were also more likely to be removed from
their families than white youth. Black youth are also much more likely
to end up in prisons with adult offenders.
In 1995, nearly 10,000 juvenile cases were transferred to adult
criminal court by judicial waiver. Of those proceedings, cases
involving black youth were 50 percent more likely to be waived than
those cases involving white youth. Overall, again, black youth were 52
percent of all the children and adolescents waived to adult court, and
in most States minority juveniles were overrepresented on average in
these adult jails at a rate more than 2\1/2\ times their proportion of
the total youth population. These are damning statistics.
When he was director of the Massachusetts Department of Services,
Commissioner-Member Jerome Miller wrote of the cumulative effect of
decisions made throughout the juvenile justice process:

I learned very early on that when we got an African
American youth, virtually everything from arrest summaries to
family history to rap sheets to psychiatric exams to waiver
hearings, as to whether he would be tried as an adult to
final sentencing, was skewed. If a middle-class white youth
was sent to us as dangerous, he was much more likely to be
dangerous than the African American teenager with the same
label. Usually the white kid had been afforded competent
legal counsel, appropriate psychiatric and psychological
testing, been tried in a variety of privately funded options
and, all in all, had been dealt with more sensitively and
more individually at every level of the juvenile justice
process. For him to be labeled dangerous, he usually had done
something that was very serious indeed. By contrast, the
African American teenager was dealt with as a stereotype from
the moment the handcuffs were first put on, to be easily and
quickly moved along to the more dangerous end of the violent/
nonviolent spectrum, albeit accompanied by an official record
meant to validate the biased series of decisions.

I say to my colleague, Mr. Durbin, I really appreciate his being
here. Sometimes when we are in this Chamber, this is our reality. I
want every Senator, including Republican Senators, to know, this is an
amendment that deals with a very sensitive issue. This is an amendment
that deals with race in America. This is an amendment that deals with
all of the biases that go with that. This is an amendment that says we
should not be passing a piece of legislation which essentially turns
the clock backward, which takes the language that we had in our past
juvenile justice legislation which calls on States to study this
problem, calls on States to address the problem, and calls on States to
do better, as many are doing right now, and essentially remove all that
language. It is a charade.
I will go on record right now--I cannot see any way that I can
support this piece of legislation if this amendment does not pass. I
cannot see any way as a Senator I can support this. I will put Senators
on notice--I think a good many Senators, many Senators should not be
able to support this piece of legislation if this amendment, which is
the same language passed by 400 Members of the House of
Representatives--that has to include some Republicans; am I correct?
Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Does not pass in the Senate.
What in the world is going on on the floor of the Senate that we are
unwilling to pass an amendment that just calls upon States to continue
to try to come to terms with this really huge, stark problem in
America? Why in the world am I even out here having to debate this?
I am going to reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time do I have on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Minnesota has 31
minutes 35 seconds.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Let me say to the Senator from Minnesota, again, in
support of this amendment--and I am happy to be a cosponsor of it--the
important aspect in the administration of justice that is often
overlooked is respect for the law. We teach our children to respect the
law. We try to make certain that they teach their children. It is that
legacy which allows the administration of justice to succeed.
When people lose respect for the law, it doesn't take too many of
them to turn on a system and break it down. This amendment being
offered by Senator Wellstone is an effort to make certain that we have
respect for the law here, respect for the equal administration of
justice.
We cannot be impervious or blind to the obvious. The obvious is
demonstrated by the statistics I have mentioned on the floor and those
read by Senator Wellstone. I cannot believe in 1999, at this stage in
the history of this great Nation, we are prepared in this piece of
legislation to take a step back in time when it comes to progress
toward racial harmony in America. If we are so foolish to do that, we
risk respect for the administration of justice and respect for the law.
People who observe this system can't ignore the fact that
disproportionate numbers of minorities are being incarcerated and
treated unfairly. I stand, as I am sure the Senator from Minnesota
does, in saying that I want those who break the law to answer for it. I
want to live in a safe neighborhood. I want to live in a safe town. If
the perpetrator of a crime is black, white, or brown, male or female,
it is irrelevant. They should be treated under our system of justice
fairly and the same.
But when we look at the end result of this system of justice and see
this disproportionate confinement of minorities, are we to turn our
backs on that? Are we to walk away from that? What do we do to this
Nation and our system of laws if we do? We risk, I am afraid, a
disintegration of a sense of community in America, a disintegration of
respect for law. Then we all suffer, not just African Americans, but
also Hispanic Americans, those of every color and hue and ethnic
background.
So I support this amendment, an amendment that passed overwhelmingly
in the House of Representatives. I hope it will be enacted as part of
this legislation. I say, as the Senator from Minnesota has said, every
Senator should take this amendment very, very seriously.
I yield back to the Senator.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I don't want to take too much more of
my time right now, because I really want this to be a debate. I will
tell you, this amendment does not say you release kids. It has nothing
to do with that. And, by the way, most of the kids in these facilities
have committed nonviolent crime. That needs to be said as well. I have
met kids breaking and entering, theft of mopeds; you name it, they are
there.
What is going on right now in the country has a dramatic impact not
just on these kids and not just their parents, but it has a devastating
impact on minority communities. Let us finally please understand that
as well. The disproportionate minority confinement, the
disproportionate number of kids who are locked up, has a devastating
impact on minority communities, a devastating impact on family
relationships, a growing sense of anger and isolation and alienation
and--my colleague from Illinois is right--distrust of the institutions
in our country.
This is the final point, before I hear from my colleagues on the
other side. All too often these ``corrections institutions''--this
needs to be said--do not correct. They are a gateway to adult prison,
because a lot of kids get out, and when they get out, they have it on

[[Page S5563]]

record that they have served time. They do not get the adequate
training. They do not get the adequate support. And as opposed to any
real correction that takes place, you have a lot of kids who get out of
these institutions who are really, in many ways, kids who have become
much hardened and with much less chance of doing well.
So there is also a connection to this problem, I argue, in the fact
that, roughly speaking, in 1999 one-third of all African American men
between the ages of 18 and 26, or 20 and 28, are either in prison or
waiting to be sentenced, or have been paroled. Five times as many
African American men of this young age are in prison as are in college,
in higher education, in the State of California. We have to ask
ourselves what is going on.
Again, we were making progress up to this legislation. We were making
progress. We did something that made sense to our States. We called
upon our States to really look at this problem and try to address this
problem.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Exhibit 1

May 17, 1999.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul D. Wellstone,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, and Wellstone: As the
Senate is considering S. 254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile
Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999, it
has come to our attention that the sponsors of S. 254 have
altered the language of the Disproportionate Minority
Confinement (DMC) mandate in current federal law by removing
any reference to the word minority, claiming that the law as
currently written is unconstitutional. We believe this
argument is without merit.
There can be no serious constitutional objection to the DMC
requirement in existing law. First, it does not single out
members of racial minorities for any sort of distinctive
treatment, nor does it impose any burdens on anyone else. The
Supreme Court's decisions make it clear that constitutional
questions arise, not merely from the use of racial terms in a
law--for otherwise compiling census information about race
would be unconstitutional--but only if there is some burden
or benefit allocated on the basis of race. Cf. Anderson v.
Martin, 375 U.S. 399 (1964). The DMC requirements do nothing
that crosses this minimum threshold.
Second, the DMC mandate is designed to identify whether
unconstitutional racial discrimination is occurring in the
juvenile justice system. The Supreme Court has held that
practices that result in disproportionate burdens on racial
minorities are unconstitutional if they have been adopted
intentionally to have that effect. Washington v. Davis, 426
U.S. 229 (1976). The DMC requirements are directed at
precisely that concern: They ask the states to determine
whether DMC is occurring, and if it is, what its causes are.
It cannot possibly be unconstitutional for Congress to direct
that such an inquiry be undertaken. Cf. Hunter v. Underwood,
421 U.S. 222 (1985).
We hope that this information is useful as you continue
your debate on this legislation.
Sincerely,

Mark Tushnet, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of
Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Milner
Ball, Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of
Law; Taunya Lovell Banks, Professor of Law, University of
Maryland School of Law; Kelley H. Bartges, Associate
Clinical Professor of Law, University of Richmond Law
School; Steve Berenson, Assistant Professor of Law,
Shepard Broad Law Center, Nova Southeastern University;
Surrel Brady, Associate Professor of Law, University of
Maryland School of Law; Angela O. Burton, Professor of
Law, Syracuse University College of Law; Peter Byrne,
Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center;
Sheryll D. Cashin, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown
University Law Center; Sherman L. Cohn, Professor of Law,
Georgetown University Law Center; John M. Copacino,
Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Michael Dale,
Professor of Law, Shepard Broad Law Center, Nova
Southeastern University; Steven Drizin, Northwestern
University School of Law; John S. Elson, Professor of Law,
Northwestern University School of Law; Dan Filler,
Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of Law;
Pamela Stanbeck Glean, Clinical Professor of Law, North
Carolina Central University School of Law; Gerard F.
Glynn, Visiting Professor of Law, Barry University School
of Law; Martin Guggenheim, Professor of Law, New York
University School of Law; Randy Hertz, Professor of Law,
New York University School of Law; Paul Holland, Visiting
Associate Professor, Georgetown University Law Center;
Daniel Kanstroom, Associate Clinical Professor of Law,
Boston College Law School; Madeleine Kurtz, Acting
Professor of Clinical Law, New York University School of
Law; Lundy Langston, Professor of Law, Shepard Broad Law
Center, Nova Southeastern University; Stephen Loffredo,
Associate Professor of Law, City University of New York
School of Law; Kimberly E. O'Leary, Associate Professor of
Law and Director of Clinical Programs, University of
Dayton School of Law; Mari Matsuda, Professor, Georgetown
University Law Center; Denise Meyer, Professor of Law,
University of Southern California Law School; Alan D.
Minuskin, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Boston
College Law School; Wallace J. Mlyniec, Lupo-Ricci
Professor of Clinical Legal Studies, Georgetown University
Law Center; Paul O'Neil, Professor of Law, Pace University
School of Law; Bill Patton, Whittier School of Law;
Patricia Roth, Georgetown University Law Center; Phillip
G. Schrag, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center;
Abbe Smith, Associate Professor, Georgetown University Law
Center; Kim Taylor-Thompson, Professor of Clinical Law,
New York University School of Law; Wendy W. Williams,
Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center;
Stephen Wizner, William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of
Law, Yale Law School.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. As usual, I have to commend the Senator from Minnesota for
his heart and for his desire to try to resolve problems that are
difficult in our society. I have to say that I am concerned about the
disproportionate confinement of minority youth, especially young
African Americans and Hispanics, in our society--especially African
Americans because it is disproportionate. If you really stop and think
about it, the issue is who is committing the crimes.
I also agree it would be wonderful if we had a perfect system of
rehabilitation for these young people. The juvenile justice bill
provides an additional $547 million in addition to the $4.4 billion we
spend annually for helping young people to get rehabilitated or to help
prevent crime to begin with. I think that is the right direction.
This is probably the first bill in history that has 45 percent of the
money in the bill for law enforcement and accountability purposes and
55 percent of the money for prevention purposes. But, you know, you
still can't ignore the fact that these kids are committing crimes. Just
because you would like the statistics to be relatively proportionate,
if that isn't the case, because more young people commit crimes from
one minority classification than another, it doesn't solve the problem
by saying states should find a way of letting these kids out.
Now, if there is another problem, if there is literally a civil
rights violation or a discrimination against minority youth, then that
is a problem I think would need fixing. But I don't think that is a
case that has been made so far.
The Democrats' amendment requires States to address efforts to reduce
the proportion of juveniles who have contact with the juvenile justice
system who are members of minority groups, if such proportion exceeds
the proportion such groups represent in the general population. It
fails to take into consideration who is committing these crimes. If a
higher proportion of young African Americans are committing the crimes,
do we just ignore that because we don't like the fact that it is
disproportionate compared to Hispanic Americans or Anglo Americans? I
don't see how you get around the fact that the ones who are committing
the crimes are the ones who are arrested or incarcerated.
This amendment is not only ill-advised as a matter of policy and
principle, but it is also unconstitutional. The amendment makes an
overt racial classification. Juveniles must be classified according to
race in order for this amendment to be followed.
This amendment is unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court announced in
the 1979 decision of Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v.
Feeney:

A racial classification, regardless of its purported
motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only
upon an extraordinary justification.

Now, such a classification could be upheld if there is an
extraordinary justification, but that is not evident here. I just hear
that there are more young African American kids who go to jail than
white kids; therefore, there must be something wrong with the system.
I don't agree with that. If there are more young African American
kids

[[Page S5564]]

committing crimes, and especially vicious crimes and violent crimes,
you don't help the problem by saying they should not be punished and
they should not be incarcerated somehow or other be sent to--unless
there is a justification for that.
Now, according to Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney,
a 1979 decision:

A racial classification, regardless of its purported
motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only
upon an extraordinary justification.

That is the law, and I think it is a correct law.
More recently, in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, the Supreme
Court held that the Constitution requires the strictest judicial
scrutiny ``of all race-based action'' by Government. What does that
mean? It means that this amendment is subject to strict scrutiny and
can be constitutional only if it is, under Adarand, ``narrowly tailored
to achieve a compelling governmental interest.''
This amendment does not pass strict scrutiny. The only ``compelling
interest'' the Supreme Court has recognized in this context is the
remediation of past discrimination. Moreover, the Court requires a
particularized showing of past discrimination. I don't think anybody
would disagree with that.
Here there is no such proof of discrimination, and the current law,
which this amendment replicates--and, I might add, expands--is not
narrowly tailored to remedy past discrimination. In fact, the Justice
Department regulations under current law require States to intervene
regardless of the cause of disproportionate confinement. Instead of
remedying past discrimination, much of the current law is aimed at
prevention programs. This amendment, and the current law it replicates,
cannot pass strict scrutiny.
I wish I could support this amendment, but its constitutional flaws
prevent that. And, frankly, I believe that this amendment is bad social
policy, because basically this amendment just says that these young
people who have been engaged in criminal activity, somehow or other,
should be proportionately given a break because there are more--in this
case--young African Americans than young whites who are convicted. Now,
that is unconstitutional in the light of Adarand and the Feeney case,
and, frankly, under any principle of race neutrality in the justice
system.
The proponents of this amendment are motivated, in my opinion, by the
best of intentions. I share their concern. That is one reason I want
this juvenile justice bill to pass, so we can get serious about violent
juvenile crime and so we can use the tools of this bill to help to
prevent that in the future. And we have significant prevention moneys
in this bill to help get these kids away from ever committing crime
again.
Like I say, the proponents are sincere. They want to help minority
children avoid detention. However, I believe the best way to prevent
the detention of juveniles is to prevent juveniles--of all races--from
committing crime. I am proud that S. 254 provides $547.5 million in new
funds for prevention programs. I have had to fight to get that. That is
on top of and in addition to the $4.4 billion that we already have on
the books every year for prevention programs.
It is unhealthy for the Government to focus only on reducing the
detention of minority juveniles. We should focus on preventing crime
committed by juveniles of all races and recognize that detention of
juvenile offenders is sometimes necessary. As this current debate
illustrates, it is inherently divisive when the Government makes racial
classifications.
Look, if there is discrimination against minority kids, then you can
count on me. I will fight alongside of my Democrat colleagues to end
that discrimination. But to just say it is disproportionate without
consideration to what crimes were committed, it seems to me, is not
only unconstitutional, it is wrong.
S. 254 has a better provision. It requires that prevention resources
be directed to ``segments of the juvenile population'' that are
disproportionately detained. Such ``segments of the population'' could
include, for example, certain socioeconomic groups that are more likely
to be at risk. S. 254 directs prevention resources to such groups who
need these resources the most.
Finally, not only is this amendment unconstitutional, it sets a
terrible precedent. The premise of this amendment--requiring States to
provide racial groups special attention if members of those groups are
disproportionately likely to be detained--could be used to justify
racial profiles. In my opinion, racial profiling is also
unconstitutional, and I believe a significant number of constitutional
authorities would agree with my analysis on that.
The Government simply cannot use race as a classification or a factor
in the criminal justice system, because our system of justice should be
color blind. If it is not, then I will work to correct that. But I
don't have any evidence that it is not at this particular point, other
than the visceral feeling of some that because more young African
Americans than whites are convicted and sentenced to detention, there
must be something wrong with the system.
Mr. President, I strongly urge the Senate to oppose this amendment.
I also understand that in our society a lot of young African American
kids, a lot of young Hispanic kids, a lot of young Native Americans--
and you can just go down almost every minority; there are literally
dozens of minorities in this country--a lot of them don't have the best
chance in this life. They are born in poverty. They are born into
situations where there is no father, or they have a father who takes
off on them, or they have a father who won't accept responsibility.
They start off with a couple of strikes against them. I acknowledge
that. We have to do something about that. But that doesn't mean we have
to start racial profiling or that we have to start racial
classifications to get there, unless we can show that there is
prejudice, unless we can show that there is a reason to have this
amendment.
If I might add a final note. I have bent over backwards to craft
language which addresses the concerns raised by my colleagues. I think
my language is constitutional and it has bipartisan support. Senator
Biden supports the underlying amendment, and with good reason, because
it is constitutional.
Having said all of that, again I will reiterate that I respect my
colleagues. I respect their desire to right wrongs in our society. They
know that I work on that too. I respect their desire to make sure that
everybody is treated equally and in a decent manner. I respect their
approach to try to end discrimination in our society. I join with them
in those matters. But this particular amendment, it seems to me, is
unconstitutional, and I certainly hope our colleagues will vote against
it when I move to table it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 12 minutes.
Mr. President, I want to first of all, thank my friend and colleague,
Senator Wellstone, for offering this amendment and say that I welcome
the opportunity to join with him and urge the Senate to accept this
amendment, and to say that I think it is very basic and fundamental to
the underlying purpose of the legislation, which is to try to deal with
the challenge of juvenile violence in our country today.
Mr. President, the fact is that we should not have to be taking the
time of the Senate on this amendment, because I am sure, as Senator
Wellstone has pointed out, that this language which we are attempting
to place into the juvenile justice bill is effectively the language
that has been there since 1992. It was placed there as a result of
extensive hearings that were held by Congress and the Senate--during
that period of time--that showed the disparity of treatment between
blacks and whites in the juvenile justice system. There is a range of
different aspects of this particular provision.
I say at the outset that we will include in the Record a very
comprehensive review on the constitutionality of this issue. It
is interesting to hear that argument raised at this particular time,
because the language has been in effect since 1992 and not challenged
on a constitutional basis. It has just been mentioned during the course
of this evening.

But, Mr. President, we should not look at this particular undertaking
really in the abstraction of just juvenile justice. What we have to
understand is that we as a country inscribed

[[Page S5565]]

slavery in the Constitution of the United States, and we have been
trying to free ourselves from that admonition for some 200 years. We
fought a civil war over it.
Over the very recent times, with the leadership of Dr. King and many
others in the late 1950s and 1960s, we began to make some very
important progress in knocking down the walls of discrimination. But
still those elements of bigotry exist. Why else would we have the
greatest number of hate crimes against blacks in our society? That
happens to be a fact. We don't like it. We don't want it. We all
deplore it. We are going to try to address that with hate crimes
legislation. It is not going to solve all of the problems, but we are
going to at least try to recognize that this is an issue.
Why is it that even after all the legislation we have passed to try
to have fair and equitable employment on the basis of an individual's
value and what they can do in terms of their skills in doing a job, why
is it that we still find those barriers out there to knock out blacks
and Hispanics and individuals whose skin is not white? That happens to
be the case. We don't have to make that case tonight on the floor of
the Senate.
Why, in 1988, did we have to revisit the Housing Act that we passed
in 1968? Because of the continuation of racism in housing.
To listen to the Senator from Utah, you would think, maybe we do have
problems there, but we don't have any problems in juvenile justice.
Where are the studies? What studies have they looked at? That is just
absolutely preposterous. That is absolutely preposterous. It exists in
each of these areas I have mentioned. It exists in the criminal justice
system. It exists between individuals who are white and black, out
there tonight on the interstate highways, where you have racial
profiling and where the number of people who are pulled over because
their skin is black is sometimes four, five, six, seven times what it
is if someone else's skin is white--and done over a long period of
time. They can't demonstrate any higher percentage of incidents of
violations of the law, not in terms of the growth percentage, but just
in the incidental percentages. You can make that case. That is
happening everywhere.
We had provisions in the juvenile justice that say to communities
that we hope you will be encouraged to try to see in the areas of
juvenile justice what we might be able to do--to try to see if we can't
stem some of this problem among the young people in our society.
Why should we always have to wait until this problem exists? Why
can't we try to see what can be done in the early days of young people
to see what progress might be made?
This has not been used as a way or device to terminate funding for
any of the States. You can't say that. You can't demonstrate that. If
we had a fair time to talk about this and to debate it, you would find
that States are making important progress in many different areas to
try to deal with fundamental and underlying causes in their various
communities. That is what we want to encourage--quiet, competent,
effective work that is being done that can have an impact in terms of
trying to make our juvenile justice system fair and equitable for all
of the young people in our society.
Mr. President, this issue is of such importance, to be brought back
in the time of the evening with the limitations I think really does a
disservice to the importance of it. But we are where we are.
Let me mention the particular quote from the director of our
Massachusetts Department of Youth Services, Mr. Miller, a very
thoughtful, distinguished leader in terms of understanding the problems
of juvenile justice. This is what Mr. Jerome Miller wrote about the
cumulative effect of decisions made throughout the juvenile justice
process:

I learned very early on that when we got an African
American youth, virtually everything, from arrest summaries
to family history to rap sheets to psychiatric exams to
waiver hearings as to whether he would be tried as an adult,
the final sentence was skewed. The middle-class white youth
sent to us was more likely to be dangerous than the African
American teenager with the same label. Usually the white kid
had been afforded competent legal counsel, appropriate
psychiatric and psychological testing, been tried in a
variety of privately funded options, and all in all had
been dealt with more sensitively and individually at every
level of the juvenile justice process. For him to be
labeled dangerous, he usually had to have done something
very serious, indeed. By contrast, the African American
teenager was dealt with by stereotype from the moment the
handcuffs were first put on, to be easily and quickly
moved along to the most dangerous end of the violent/
nonviolent spectrum, albeit accompanied by an official
record meant to validate the series of decisions.

It goes on and on.
That is the state of the juvenile justice system in too many
constituencies across this country. All this language does is remind us
when we are talking about using the word ``justice,'' we are talking
about equal justice, equal justice for blacks and browns in our system,
equal justice for young people, equal justice for all.
Fundamentally, when we understand the problems we have in our
society, to represent here on the floor of the Senate that somehow the
juvenile justice system is an exception to all the kinds of challenges
that we have in this Nation, fails, I think, the basic reason and
rationality about what is going on in this country. It is not the
accepted.
That is the effect of this, to try and not prescribe quotas, not get
into the numbers game. That has never been part of the accusation on
this provision, but just to hope that communities and States will,
hopefully, develop a process and system that will be somehow more
sensitive to the challenges we are facing as a country, as a community
and in our States in juvenile justice.
This amendment cannot solve the problem and it won't even probably
solve the majority of the problem, but perhaps because of it, there
will be communities and there will be States that will have a truer
system of justice for all the young people of this country. That is
really what we ought to be undertaking and what we should be about.
The statistics on the treatment of minorities in the criminal justice
system require an immediate response--especially the treatment of
juveniles. I strongly support this amendment and I commend Senator
Wellstone for his leadership. It deals with one of the most serious
problems in current law--the disproportionate confinement of minority
youths in state juvenile justice systems. In fact, the underlying bill
will only make the problem worse, because it eliminates all references
to ``minority'' or ``race'' and instead refers only to ``segments of
the juvenile population.''
In 1988, after extensive testimony concerning the significant over
representation of minority youth in state juvenile justice systems,
Congress amended the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act to
require states to address this issue. In the 1992 amendments to the
Act, disproportionate confinement became a core requirement, by linking
future funding to a State's compliance with addressing this basic
issue.
Under current law, states are required to do three things: (1)
identify the extent to which disproportionate minority confinement
exists in their states; (2) assess the reason that it exists; and (3)
develop intervention strategies to address the causes. The law does not
require and has never resulted in the release of juveniles. It does not
require numerical quotas for arrest or release of any youth from
custody based on race. In fact, no state's funding has ever been
reduced as a result of non-compliance with this provision.
This issue has festered in the juvenile justice system for years. To
pretend otherwise is to ignore the facts. Over the past 10 years,
documented evidence shows that disproportionately occurs at all stages
of the system:
African-American youth age 10-17 constitute only 15% of the U.S.
population. But they account for 26% of juvenile arrests, 32% of the
delinquency referrals to juvenile court, 41% of juveniles detained in
delinquency cases, 46% of juveniles in secure corrections facilities,
and 52% of juveniles transferred to adult criminal court after judicial
hearings.
As these statistics indicate, the over representation of minority
youth increases as juveniles become more and more involved in the
criminal justice system. The result is that African-American youths are
twice as likely to

[[Page S5566]]

be arrested and seven times as likely to be placed in a detention
facility as white youths.
Black males are 6 times more likely to be admitted to state juvenile
facilities for crimes against persons than white youths--4 times more
likely for property crimes--and 30 times more likely for drug offenses.
Black youths are also much more likely to end up in prison with adult
offenders. In 1995, nearly 10,000 juvenile cases were transferred to
adult criminal court, and black youths were 50% more likely to be
transferred than white youths.
A study of the juvenile justice system in California found that
minority youth consistently receive more severe punishment than white
youth, and are more likely to be incarcerated in state institutions
than white youth for the same offenses.
A 1998 University of Washington study confirms the justice within the
juvenile system Narrative reports prepared by probation officers prior
to sentencing portrayed black juveniles differently from white
juveniles.
Black youth offenders were perceived as having character defects--
condoning criminal behavior.
White youth offenders were perceived as victims of bad circumstances.
For example, two 17-year-old boys, one black and one white, are
charged with first degree robbery. Neither had a criminal history; both
used firearms and were accompanied by two friends. Listen to the
probation officers' evaluation of the two boys--keeping in mind that
99% of the time, judges follow the recommendation of probation
officers:
For the African-American youth, the probation officer wrote:

This appears to be a pre-meditated and willful act by Ed. .
. . . There is an adult quality to this referral. In talking
with Ed, what was evident was the relaxed and open way he
discusses his lifestyle. There didn't seem to be any desire
to change. There was no expression of remorse from the young
man. There was no moral content to his comment.

For the white youth, the probation officer wrote:

Lou is the victim of a broken home. He is trying to be his
own man, but . . . is seemingly easily misled and follows
other delinquents against his better judgment. Lou is a tall
emaciated little boy who is terrified by his present
predicament. It appears that he is in need of drug/alcohol
evaluation and treatment.

In 1993, Allen Iverson--who is the NBA's leading scorer and so far
has led his team to the second round of the playoffs--was a senior in
high school in Virginia. At the time, he was the top rated high school
point guard and quarterback in the nation. One night, he and a group of
other friends, all of whom were black, went to a local bowling alley
and a racially-motivated fight broke out after a white kid directed a
racial epithet toward Iverson. Although punches and chairs were thrown
by both blacks and whites during the fight, no white kids were arrested
or charged with a crime. Iverson, however, was convicted of ``maiming
by mob'' and was sentenced to 15 years in prison with 10 years
suspended. He was denied bail pending the appeal, even though felons
convicted of more heinous crimes were routinely granted bail.
It was not until then-Governor Wilder granted Iverson partial
clemency, that he was released from jail. He then went on to play
basketball for John Thompson at Georgetown. He then left for the NBA
where he became the first-round draft pick of the Philadelphia 76'ers.
The only reason why Allen Iverson's case has a happy ending is because
he is a star athlete. Otherwise, he would still be in jail like the
thousands of other young black men who find themselves behind bars in
much larger numbers than their white peers.
It is wrong to deny minority youth the right to fair treatment by the
criminal justice system. Yet this legislation says to the African-
American community, the Hispanic community and other minorities that
Congress will continue to look the other way while minority youths are
confined at disproportionately high rates by the current system.
What this bill says to minorities is that although we recognize that
your children are more likely to be arrested than their white
counterparts, we don't care, that although your children are being
referred to juvenile court and adult court, at significantly higher
rates than white youths, we're turning our backs on you.
It is essential for this legislation to retain fair requirements to
deal effectively with this crisis. Current law does not require the
release of juveniles. It does not require incarceration quotas. It does
not require any other specific change of policy or practice. It does
not take prevention money away from white youths and give it to
minorities.
Disproportionate minority confinement is a serious problem requiring
an ongoing and continuous effort to achieve a juvenile justice system
which treats every youth fairly, regardless of race or background.
Examples of what the states are doing to address this challenge are
numerous. In Pennsylvania, the State Commission on Crime and
Delinquency provided funds to initiate prevention and intervention
programs, including:
A drop-out prevention program; a program to help young minority
females learn work and life skills; a program to decrease the
delinquency rate and increase the level of school retention and success
among targeted youth through life skills workshops, tutoring and
homework assistance, physical fitness and sports, community service
projects, and monthly parent group meetings.
By contrast, the underlying legislation encourages states to
prosecute even more juveniles as adults. It allows records of juvenile
arrests--not necessarily convictions--to be made available to schools,
colleges and vocational schools. It requires school districts to
mandate policies to mandate expulsion from school for regular
possession of drugs, alcohol, or even tobacco.
The consequences of disproportionate minority confinement are harsh
and unacceptable:
The Sentencing Project reported that \1/3\ of all African-American
males age 20-29 in the United States are under the jurisdiction of the
criminal justice system--either in jail, in prison, on probation, or on
parole.
The juvenile justice system often acts as a feeder system for
minority youth into the adult criminal justice system.
In most states, the result of an adult felony conviction is the loss
of voting rights. 1 in 7 of the 10 million black males of voting age
are now either currently or permanently disenfranchised from voting-
diluting the political power of the African-American community.
A significant impact of arrest or incarceration is often the
reduction of future wage earning and employability. One study showed a
25% reduction in the number of hours worked over the next 8 years.
The truly tragic consequences of disproportionate minority
confinement are removal of large numbers of potential wage earners, a
disruption of family relationships and a growing sense of isolation and
alienation from the larger society. These statistics only give us a
small glimpse of the harsh consequences. They don't begin to tell the
story of young black youth being targeted, harassed, intimidated, and
treated differently because of their race.
The United Methodist Church has said that ignoring discrimination in
juvenile sentencing * * * is `careless, callous, and discriminatory
enforcement of law.' ''
Ed Blackmon, Jr., Mississippi State House of Representatives, has
said the ``So many of these young people have great potential for
overcoming their troubles, and becoming successful young men and women
in their communities. However, with the absence of good legal
representation, and families that are not `well-connected', they find
themselves locked up, with very little hope.''
Kweisi Mfume, President and CEO of the NAACP, has said, ``The fact
that S. 254 eases the requirement that states address the
disproprotionatly high numbers of children of color in juvenile
detention facilities is, in itself, a crime.''
Marian Wright Edelman, Founder of the Children's defense fun, has
said ``With troubling reports of police brutality and racial profiling,
Congress must continue to work with the states to ensure that the
juvenile justice system affords our youth equitable and fair treatment,
and not repeal the previous decade's worth of progress.''

[[Page S5567]]

This past weekend, in her address to the National Conference on
Public Trust and Confidence in the Justice System, Supreme Court
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor emphasized the need for racial equality and
better legal representation, and called for improvements in family and
juvenile courts. She also cited a 1999 survey entitled ``How the Public
Views the State Courts''. According to that survey, 70% of African-
American respondents said that African-Americans as a group, receive
``Somewhat Worse'' or ``Far Worse'' treatment from the courts than
whites. A substantial number of whites agreed with this assessment.
As Justice O'Connor so aptly stated, ``Concrete action must be
taken'' to erase racial bias.
At the very least, we cannot offered to retreat from the requirements
of current law that the states must recognize and address this
festering problem. To do less is unacceptable. I urge the Senate to
accept our amendment and do the right thing on this critical issue of
racial justice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will speak on our time in opposition
to another subject for 10 minutes.
I rise today to address the issue of media and teen violence. I am
sure I cannot do better than Senators who have spent so much time this
month on this issue. I congratulate Senators McCain, Hatch, Brownback,
Bond, and Lieberman for their efforts.
However, because last year I had a personal, although long-distance
encounter, with one of the more notorious characters in the media
world, I thought I might share that event. First, I will start with a
few observations of a more general nature.
First, just four short observations:
One, clearly a large body of research proves that the media target
violence to teenagers. The movie and television rating system is too
often unenforced. I urge my colleagues to read Sissela Bok's book,
``Mayhem,'' for a systematic look at the selling of carnage and rage to
our youth by the media pushers.
Second, this issue is not new. Indeed, back in 1993 Senate bill 943,
the Children's Television Violence Protection Act, was introduced in
this body. Before that, we had a wide-ranging debate about television
and movie violence in the 1980s.
So far, the entertainment industry, using the best public relations
that money can buy, and by hiding their refusal to accept any
restriction on their poison behind the first amendment of the
Constitution, have been able to increase the violence and mayhem of
their products without any accountability.
In 1954, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, chaired by then Senator
Estes Kefauver, asked whether violence in media was destructive. The
media kings said more research was needed. In 1969, the National
Commission on Violence concluded that years of exposure to violence
will cause the vulnerable among us to engage in violence much more
readily and more rapidly.
I should add that CBS executives censored the script of CBS reporter,
Daniel Schorr, when he tried to report this finding on television news.
In 1972, a massive report by Surgeon General Jesse Steinfeld
concluded that a definite and causal relationship existed between
violence viewing and acts of aggression. Then, in 1981, data further
supporting Surgeon General Steinfeld's report was issued. This report
was published by the American Psychological Association, a group of
Boston pediatricians. They summarized 30 years of research on the
subject: Watching violence causes aggressive behavior. That is their
conclusion. To use the technical finding, there is a causal link
between exposure of children to violent images and subsequent violent
behavior.
As Senator Brownback pointed out earlier, there is more and more
evidence every single year that violence on television, in music, in
movies, damages our children and leads some of them to act out of some
of their violence in their daily lives.
Look at the trend lines. As violence has proliferated in the movies
and on TV, juvenile violence has come right along with it and
proliferated just as the violence in movies and on television.
Recently, at an event at which he raised $2 million from Hollywood,
even President Clinton said, ``As studies show, hundreds (of vulnerable
children) are more liable to commit violence themselves as a result of
watching violence on television or in the movies.''
Both the American Medical Association and the American Association of
Pediatrics have warned against exposing our children to violent
entertainment. These doctors have to help rebuild the lives of children
emotionally, sometimes physically maimed by elements of the
entertainment industry.

Number 4, finally it is clear to me that the relevant committees of
the U.S. Congress must continue to focus on this subject because the
Congress sometimes has a short attention span, and the mind polluters
know this. We have not had a comprehensive, intensive series of
investigations.
But Congress should do this: We have subpoena power, which the
relevant committees have, and should be used to compel those who hide
to come forth and reveal the memos, the research, and the marketing
tools they use to sell death and dismemberment to our children.
Mr. President, I hope that Senators will investigate the selling of
movies that have the PG-13 ratings to those that are 7, 8 and 9 years
of age as happened with Jurrasic Park. As Senator Lieberman said
recently, ``The evidence strongly suggests that Joe Camel has sadly not
gone away, but has been adopted by the entertainment industry
instead.''
In addition, we hope that committees will work on innovative
legislation along the lines suggested by Senator Bond that will simply
do one thing, the one thing the industry cares about: Making it less
profitable to make and sell death and hate. Only by doing that will we
force change. We have tried moral suasion and it is not working,
although it is by far the best solution.
Let me conclude, Mr. President, with a personal interaction with one
of the more outspoken opponents of change, Mr. Edgar Bronfman, chief
executive officer of Seagrams Limited, which owns, among other things,
Universal Studios and Universal Music Group, the world's largest record
label.
On October 5, 1998, I wrote a letter to him. In that letter, I
endorsed the plea of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, that
Universal Studios, owned by Mr. Bronfman, add a statement to the
studio's remake of the film ``Psycho.''
As most of my colleagues know, the subject of mental illness and
efforts to help those afflicted, the work to remove the stigma of
mental illness has been one of the issues I have worked on for much of
my career.
So when I made my appeal I suggested that the industry merely note
that in the years since 1960, when Alfred Hitchcock first made his
movie, we have seen major advances in the treatment of major mental
illnesses. We asked the statement also note that millions of Americans
affected by those brain disorders are leading fulfilled lives because
of medical research. We wanted to end the stigma attached to people who
are mentally ill, and thus ask for a special favor.
I ask unanimous consent my letter of October 5 to Edgar Bronfman be
printed in the Record, as well as the National Alliance for the
Mentally Ill bulletin about the movie.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
October 5, 1998.
Mr. Edgar Bronfman,
President and CEO, The Seagram Company Ltd., New York, NY.
Dear Mr. Bronfman: As you may know, I have a strong
interest in improving the awareness and treatment of mental
illness. Improving perceptions and policies toward the
mentally ill has become an important goal for both my wife,
Nancy, and me.
I am aware that your company, as the owner of Universal
Studios, is sponsoring the remake of the film, ``Psycho''.
The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI), has
suggested that a message, such as the one below, should be
displayed at the beginning of the film. This message would be
an important preface to a film that depicts mentally ill
characters in extremely negative terms. I support this
initiative to recognize the availability of treatment and
improve awareness.

[[Page S5568]]

Times have changed since 1960 and I believe it is important
to recognize that the mentally ill have a right to medical
attention without undue stigma from society.
The statement might read:
``Since 1960 when the original film Psycho was made,
knowledge of the major mental illnesses has grown enormously.
People who suffer from these brain disorders can be medically
treated and are no more violent than the general population
when they are under treatment.
``Please view this remake of Psycho keeping in mind that
millions of people are affected by these brain disorders.
They can now lead fulfilled lives and contribute to society
because of medical research and treatment that has occurred
over that past three decades.
``It is vitally important that we erase the stigma that
surrounds mental illness.''
I appreciate your consideration of this matter and
appreciate a positive response.
Sincerely,
Pete V. Domenici,
U.S. Senator.
____

Stand Against Universal Studio's Remake of the Film ``Psycho''

Universal Studios is starting this week to remake the 1960
film ``Psycho,'' called a classic because of its master film
maker Alfred Hitchcock.
However, NAMI members and friends know--and need to share
with the film makers of 1998--that the myths and
misconceptions of this film, and the title itself, simply
refuel the damaging and pervasive stigma that already
envelopes the lives of people with mental illness.
NAMI is out to Bust Stigma wherever it exists. Each of us
must help by letting the owner of Universal Studios know that
stereotyping persons with mental illness in ``Psycho'' is as
unacceptable and offensive as stereotyping race, religion,
ethnicity or any other physical illness.
Research shows that persons with mental illness do not
commit violent acts when they are under treatment and taking
their prescribed medications.
Send your letters to: Mr. Edgar Bronfman, Jr., President &
CEO, The Seagram Company Ltd., 375 Park Avenue, New York, NY
10152.
Flood Mr. Bronfman's office with your letters! Write yours
today and get your friends at home to do the same!!!
____

Board Statement: Remaking of the Film ``Psycho'', July 1998

Whereas, NAMI, the Nation's Voice on Mental Illness, works
to provide education, advocacy, and support for all those
affected by serious brain disorders, such as schizophrenia,
bipolar disorder (manic depression), major depression,
obsessive compulsive disorder, or panic disorder;
And whereas, the 1990's, known as the ``Decade of the
Brain,'' has shown through advances in scientific research
and varied treatment options that mental illnesses are no-
fault brain disorders that can be effectively diagnosed and
treated;
And whereas, it has been documented that individuals with
brain disorders who are in treatment and responsibly managing
their illness are no more prone to violence than those in the
general population;
And whereas, NAMI, ever working to combat the pervasive
stigma surrounding mental illness, finds images in the mass
media that negatively influence the public's perception of
serious mental illness, such as those portrayed in the 1960
Alfred Hitchcock film ``Psycho'', to be unfounded, hurtful,
and demeaning to NAMI's 185,000 members; be it
Resolved, That, although NAMI recognizes Alfred Hitchcock
as one of the film industry's most respected, innovative, and
influential craftsmen, preeminent for his work in the
``thriller'' genre and for often focusing on the
psychological motivations and underpinnings of his
characters;
NAMI believes that Alfred Hitchcock's acknowledged classic
``Psycho'' was based on outdated, stigmatizing notions of
family culpability and inherent violent tendencies in those
with mental illness;
And therefore NAMI registers its strongest objection to a
remake of the film ``Psycho'' as planned by Universal Studios
wherein individuals with serious mental illnesses are
portrayed inaccurately and alluded to disparagingly.

Mr. DOMENICI. About 3 weeks after I sent my letter, on October 29 I
received a response, not from Mr. Bronfman, but from one of his
lawyers. I ask unanimous consent this letter of October 29, 1998, be
printed in the Record at this time.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Universal,

Universal City, CA, October 29, 1998.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: Edgar Bronfman, Jr. forwarded to me
your October 5, 1998 letter regarding the film ``Psycho.'' He
asked that we carefully consider the issues that you raised.
As you know, ``Psycho'' is a remake of Alfred Hitchcock's
1960 film--a work that is widely regarded as a ``classic.''
the cultural, historic and aesthetic significance of the film
was recognized by the Librarian of Congress when he selected
it for inclusion in the National Film Registry.
The film that Universal Pictures will be releasing later
this year is as true to the original as any ``remake'' in the
history of our industry. While it is updated for today's
audience in that it is filmed in color and uses modern
special effects, it follows the original dialogue and images
almost scene-by-scene.
Universal's Motion Picture Group has given the issues that
you raised a good deal of thought. We believe it is
significant that the film does not trivialize the issues that
you raised or in any way ridicule or belittle those who
suffer from mental illnesses. Importantly, the marketing
campaign for the film tracks the storyline and does not
attempt to undermine the important progress that society has
made toward better understanding mental illness.
The art of storytelling, by its very nature, can involve
subject matter that some may find disturbing or
uncomfortable. We believe that preambles such as the one you
suggest cannot, as a practical matter, be used to address the
concerns that may present themselves to some members of the
audience.
My colleagues and I at the studio would be glad to meet
with representatives from the mental health community. We
believe that such a meeting would help us better understand
the issues that you raise and heighten our awareness of the
progress that has occurred in the field. Because we might
find ourselves working on films that address mental health
issues in the future, we would welcome the opportunity to
enhance our sensitivity to and understanding of the subject
matter. We have found similar meetings with other outside
groups to be worthwhile and productive in the past.
Respectfully yours,
Karen Randall,
Senior Vice President & General Counsel.

Mr. DOMENICI. To put it in polite terms, the lawyer suggested that
maybe those of us concerned about mental illness could meet with
Universal Studio lawyers to talk things through, sort of a therapy
session for those too sensitive to the world. But the lawyer was clear,
Universal Studios was not going to add any language that the Alliance
for the Mentally Ill had asked of them and suggested. After all, the
movie is a classic, they said, and critics have said so. In short, the
message was, you are being a little sensitive, but do not disturb the
creative genius that is at work here.
Then I read in recent weeks more accounts of the distinguished Edgar
Bronfman. It seems he was one of the entertainment kings who refused to
attend the White House Conference on Teen Violence and the Media. He
also refused to participate in hearings into teen violence and
marketing of violence to teens that Senator Brownback held on May 4 of
this year. But this time the gentleman found time to pontificate about
those who tried to show leadership and the relationship between the
music and television shows and movies he produces and the violence
affecting our teenagers. He said:

It is unfortunate that the American people get finger
pointing and chest pounding from government officials.

And having delivered himself of such nonsense, Mr. Bronfman departed
to Florida to dedicate a theme park.
I decided to learn more about him. It turns out he inherited a
business from his family--nothing wrong with that. He decided to branch
into the media. He now heads Universal Studios, which recently gave us
the classic, ``The Mummy.'' He should be proud. It turns out that one
of his musicians is Marilyn Manson, winner of the MTV award for the new
best artist of the year. Manson is the author of such classics as
``Irresponsible Hate Anthem,'' which contains the line, ``Let's just
kill everyone and let your God sort them out.'' And then using the
``f'' word.
This was just one song on the Bronfman-produced album, ``Anti-Christ
Superstar.'' I think he should be proud of what he produces.
I say that obviously not meaning it.
Even when thoughtful members of the entertainment industry, like Rob
Reiner and Joel Schumacher call for real, honest review of the guts,
gore, and godlessness Hollywood turns out, the distinguished Bronfman
disagrees. He says that attacking Hollywood for its culture of
degradation is opportunism. He seems to have a very similar view to
that expressed by another Hollywood executive who said the first
amendment ``keeps the Government out of our industry and lets us be
what we want.''
This is more than facile cynicism. It is more than merely mercenary
spirit. This is the cry of those who have thrown aside all notions of
good and evil and who merely want the rest of us to let them be. They
want to sell whatever they can to whoever they can entice and want the
rest of us to let them

[[Page S5569]]

be. After all, who are we? Parents? Grandparents? Public officials?
American citizens? Who are we to criticize them?
These people should look at their deeds and be proud--really proud.
Let me conclude by asking simply this question: What in the world
would our Founding Fathers make of an interpretation of this great
document called the Constitution that claims that the glorification of
rape, dismemberment, violent death is unequivocally and absolutely
protected by freedom of speech?
The result is we are seeing kids imitating art, taking their guns to
school, joining gangs, and committing acts of violence. I suspect the
Founding Fathers would simply have said: Is this the pathetic pass you
people have come to? Shame on you. And we would not have made them
proud.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the amendment? The Senator
from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hatch and the
managers of this bill, I would like to make a few remarks at this time
on the time of Senator Hatch.
Senator Domenici, I thank you very much for your willingness to
become engaged in this issue, to confront some of these problems. I,
like you, do not believe the airways and all this country are
necessarily free for every use piped into our homes, for our children,
when people are not ready to deal with it.
I wonder if you remember the time when the Pope came to Hollywood, 10
or 12 years ago, and met with movie moguls--at least a decade ago I
suppose. I have a vivid recollection of members coming out of that
meeting. He had all the Hollywood titans and moguls there. He talked to
them about the need for them to improve the entertainment they were
putting out. He urged them to do better.
The Hollywood titans came out and they were interviewed on the
television. They said: He made some very good points. We have to
consider that. We have to do better.
I remember Charlton Heston came out at the very end and they said:
Mr. Heston, do you think anything is going to change?
He looked right in the camera and said: They wouldn't change if the
Lord himself spoke to them. They are after ratings and the almighty
dollar.
If we do not have power under the first amendment to constrain some
of this, I think it is quite appropriate that they be taken to task and
they be urged, in the name of decency and humanity, to clean up their
act. If you have to make money, do you have to make it at this low a
level?
I wonder if the Senator has a comment on that.
Mr. DOMENICI. I do. I talked to the Senate a little bit lately about
character education. I am putting a statement in the record regarding
Character Counts, an education program which utilizes six pillars of
character. One of them is responsibility and another is
trustworthiness. We are all excited about this program and hoping our
children will learn responsibility and trustworthiness--meaning don't
tell lies, be responsible for the agreements you make, to the covenants
you have, to the institutions you support.
Isn't it interesting, everybody says we ought to be promoting this
because our children need it. Actually, I do not know how to stop what
I have described about Hollywood tonight. I do not know how we can do
it in law. But sometime or another, somebody has to be responsible.
Somebody has to step up to the bar in the movie industry and say we
ought to challenge those who work in the industry, who produce these
products that are going out to our children and to our people, and see
if we can't turn it in another direction. Do we have to pick the
easiest prey, our children, and produce the easiest film that will make
money? You know they all make money if you load them with this kind of
violence and degradation. Can't the movie industry work on something
better? I think that is the challenge.
I do not have an answer, but maybe a group will be formed and among
them they will grow up. Maybe some board of directors of some
corporation with a mother or a grandmother on the board may for once
ask: What are we putting on television? Can we look at the programs
that we are spending our corporate dollars on and see?
Wouldn't that be something, if every chief executive, instead of
listening only to his advertising man, had a board that wanted to see
what they were buying. Not only by way of advertisements, but also
programs they bought? That might be a nice idea, if people started
doing that, you might hear some mothers and some grandmothers and some
parents speaking out.
Mr. SESSIONS. I think the Senator is correct. We do have authority as
Senators to speak out.
The President spoke out in a radio address just a few days ago,
according to the Washington Post. He broadcast a radio address bluntly
challenging the purveyors of violent movies and video games to accept a
share of the responsibilities for the tragedies, such as the Columbine
High School massacre, based on the evidence that some people become
desensitized and are more prone to emulate what they see on the screen.
However, reading this very same article, when he went out, within
hours of that radio address, and met personally with the titans of
Hollywood, he delivered that message ``with all the force of a down
pillow.''
The Washington Times said he assured the filmmakers that they were
not bad people, as they showered him with $2 million. He assured them
they had no personal responsibility for the Columbine High School
massacre in Littleton, CO. Instead of blaming Hollywood for making
violent films, he said the real blame lies with theaters and video
stores that show them and sell them to minors.
The President told the audience of stars and studio moguls that they
should not blame the gun manufacturers either, but he blamed the
Republican Members of Congress who will not enact his gun control laws.
The President gingerly suggested at the Saturday night fundraiser in
Beverly Hills that sustained exposure to ``indiscriminate environments
can push children into destructive behavior,'' but he added quickly,
the producers, directors, and actors who ponied up $2,500 per couple
are not at fault. ``That doesn't make anybody who makes any movie or
any video game or television program a bad person or personally
responsible with one show with a disastrous outcome. There is no call
for finger pointing here.'' He later went on to note we were going to
work it out as family.
We need to send a clearer message than that. Perhaps his radio
message was a better message. It is unfortunate that when he met with
them face to face, he toned it down an awful lot, apparently. I
suggest, if the Senator will comment, which one does he think those
media moguls are going to believe was his real view, the one he said on
the radio or the one he said to them personally?
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me first respond by saying what I forgot to say
when the Senator from Alabama first stood up. I should have
congratulated him for the excellent job he has done on this bill. He
has been on the floor when I have handled lengthy budget bills and a
lot of amendments. He was there to encourage me. I think we worked
nicely together. He learned some things during the budget resolution.
What a marvelous job the Senator has done under very tough
circumstances. I commend him for that.
Frankly, it seems to me we need every bit of leadership we can get to
assess this issue and be realistic about it. From the President on
down, leaders have to tell the truth. Those people who are involved in
the business of producing movies and films which our young people view,
which we know are more apt to cause them to use guns, are more apt to
cause them to do violent things, they need to acknowledge the truth.
For those in the entertainment industry to say there is no proof that
movies cause violence, what kind of proof do you need? There are
multiple studies that say there is a relationship.
Does the Senator remember when he was growing up that people would
say, ``Well, if you read a good book, it is going to be good for you''?
Doesn't it follow that if you read something that is not good, you are
apt to learn that also? Whoever defines good or bad, that is up to
them. But it is just obvious

[[Page S5570]]

that one cannot see all of this violence and not be adversely affected
by it.
Just starting with that and saying let's all acknowledge that, what
do we do about it? There may be a lot of different things. Certainly I
do not have the prescription, and I did not say I did. But I think we
ought to begin by saying that we should not get this into the minds and
hearts and senses of our young people. We ought to find a way to avoid
it. We ought to find a way to give them better things to view, better
things to hear.
It seems to me the country would be so relieved if some of those
leaders in that industry were to step forth and say: We just formed a
group that is going to try to do that. We don't know how successful it
will be.
They might be shocked. It might be very successful.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will briefly make some comments
concerning the Wellstone-Kennedy amendment and share some thoughts on
this situation with which we are wrestling.
Right across the street on the marble of the U.S. Supreme Court are
the words ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' That is a cornerstone of
American thought. It is a cornerstone of our belief of who we are as a
people. It is critical that we maintain that in our juvenile and adult
court systems, and that in all aspects of our American court system we
recognize that people who come before the court must be treated
equally, regardless of their station, regardless of their race,
regardless of their sex, and regardless of their religion. That is so
basic to who we are as a people.
We have not always been perfect in that. In fact, we have made a
number of errors over the years. Less than an hour ago, I met in my
office with Dr. Glenda Curry, who is the president of Troy State
University in Montgomery. She is completing work on the Rosa Parks
Museum. Rosa Parks was a victim of an unfair system, and when asked to
move to the back of the bus in Montgomery, AL, in the 1950s, she said
no. She refused to move, and she challenged an unjust law and was able
to overturn that.
To say we have never had problems or we do not have problems in the
fairness of law is not accurate. This Nation has made tremendous
progress. We are moving well to eliminating those kinds of things. They
are just not showing that.
I will tell our concerns which are so troubling. Under the previous
legislation, that Senators Wellstone and Kennedy proposed to use again
in this bill, the law required, before a State can receive money, they
have to submit a plan and their plan shall ``address efforts to
reduce''--reduce--``the proportion of juveniles detained or confined in
secure detention facilities, secure correctional facilities, jails, and
lockups who are members of minority groups if such proportion exceeds
the proportion such groups represent in the general population.'' It
says the numbers have to be reduced based on race.
We need to strive to make sure that nobody is incarcerated who is not
guilty of a crime, but we ought not be passing a law requiring the
reduction of the proportion of juveniles confined if it simply does not
meet a perfect numerical percentage.
I believe, as a result of my study of the Supreme Court decision in
Adarand as well as other cases, that this is unconstitutional, and it
is certainly bad policy.
Under the leadership of Senator Hatch, who is a scholar on these
issues and who has held hearings on what to do about quotas and
affirmative action, the Judiciary Committee developed and passed this
legislation with this language, and we changed it slightly. This plan,
which the States have to submit to be eligible for funding shall, ``to
the extent that segments of the juvenile population are shown to be
detained or confined in secure detention facilities, secure
correctional facilities, jails and lockups, to a greater extent than
the proportion of these groups in the general juvenile population,
address prevention efforts designed to reduce such disproportionate
confinement, without requiring the release or the failure to detain any
such individual.''
In other words, this focuses on the problem more directly. It says
that when you have $1 billion of prevention money in this juvenile
justice bill, that prevention money needs to be directed to try to
prevent crime. But it also suggests that that prevention effort ought
to be directed to those kids if they are in a minority population that
exceeds the number in the general population in the juvenile court
system.
So I think this is a reasonable and constitutional provision. I think
it is a right step. I simply and reluctantly must say I have to oppose
this amendment. I just do not believe it can be justified under what I
understand to be a legitimate constitutional law.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of our time if
the other side is. But let me just put an article in the Record. It is
by the Center for Equal Opportunity entitled ``Unconstitutionality of
42 U.S.C Sec. 5633(a)(23).'' It is written by Roger Clegg. I think it
makes an awful lot of sense. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Center for Equal Opportunity, May 5, 1999]

Unconstitutionality of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5633(a)(23)

(Roger Clegg*)

42 U.S.C. sec 5633(a)(23) requires states that wish to
participate in the Formula Grants Program of the Juvenile
Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act to submit a plan that
shall, inter alia, ``address efforts to reduce the proportion
of juveniles detained or confined * * * who are members of
minority groups if such proportion exceeds the proportion
such groups represent in the general population.''
In our view, this provision is not only misguided as a
matter of policy but also unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has made clear that any use of a racial
classification by any government is presumed to be
unconstitutional. It declared in Personnel Administrator of
Massachusetts v. Fenney, 442 U.S. 256, 272 (1979): ``A racial
classification, regardless of its purported motivation, is
presumptively invalid and can be upheld only upon an
extraordinary justification.'' More recently, the Court held
that the Constitution ``requires strict scrutiny of all race-
based action.'' Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S.
200, 222 (1995); see also City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson
Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989).
It cannot be seriously argued that subsection (23) does not
use racial classifications and does not encourage funding
recipients to do so. Juveniles must be classified according
to race in order for subsection (23 to be followed, and
different government actions are contemplated depending on
those classifications. Further, one set of consequences
obtains if minority groups are ``overrpresented'' and another
set of consequences if nonminorities are
``overrepresented.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The racial classification would remain, however, even if
recipients were required to reduce the ``overrepresentation''
of nonminority groups, too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether a racial classification exists, it
is always useful to put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose a
state announced that it would intervene to bring down the
number of white people who were detained or confined whenever
that number was greater than ten percent of the minority
detention and confinement rate. There would be no serious
argument that the state was not using a racial
classification.
Accordingly, the only remaining legal issue is whether
subsection (23)'s racial classification passed ``strict
scrutiny.'' This requires that it be justified by a
``compelling'' interest and that it be ``narrowly tailored''
to that interest.
Strick scrutiny cannot be passed. The only compelling
interest the Supreme Court has recognized in recent years is
the remediation of past discrimination, and it is difficult
to conceive of any other compelling interest here.\2\ But
remedial justification is clearly implausible for subsection
(23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The remedial justification is apparently the basis for
subsection (23). See U.S. Dep't of Justice Office of Juvenile
Justice & Delinquency Prevention, Juvenvile Justice Bulletin
(Sept. 1998), at 1. See also 28 C.F.R. sec. 31.303(j) (1998).
Justice Powell thought that ``diversity'' in higher education
presented a compelling interest, but no other justice joined
his opinion in Regents of the University of California v.
Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), and in any event Justice Powell's
explanation of the importance of diversity was peculiar to
the university context and has no application to prisons. An
argument that, to ensure public confidence in our criminal
justice system, the inmate population must ``look like
America,'' is similar to the argument that Justice Powell
rejected immediately in Bakke, 438 U.S. at 307 (subpart IV-
A). Furthermore, the inmate population has never reflected
society generally insofar as it is younger, more male, and
poorer.
While preventing crime may be a compelling interest,
preventing crime by members of particular races is not, and
so the use of racial classifications serves no compelling
anticrime interest--or, alternatively, the use of race is not
narrowly tailored to that interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the first place, the subjects of the racial
classification here are juveniles, which

[[Page S5571]]

means that they were born in 1982 or later. Thus, they were
not alive during the days of slavery or Jim Crow, let alone
sufferers during them. Moreover, there is no evidence that
all prospective funding recipients have a current or even
recent history of racial discrimination, and there is no
requirement under subsection (23) that only recipients with
such a history are required to use racial classifications.
The Supreme Court has made clear that a particularized
showing of past discrimination in the specific context being
remedied is necessary. See Croson, 488 U.S. at 498-506
(subpart III-B); see also Bakke, 438 U.S. at 307-10 (subpart
IV-B) (opinion of Powell, J.). We note that one study of
recent data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that,
for cases filed in state courts in the seventy-five largest
counties in May 1992, blacks were actually more likely than
whites to be acquitted in jury trials for most felony crimes.
Robert Lerner, ``Acquittal Rates by Race for State
Felonies,'' in Race and the Criminal Justice System (Center
for Equal Opportunity 1996).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A recipient may also be tempted to avoid subsection (23),
or show that it is making progress under it, by treating
minority and nonminority offenders differently--either
releasing more minority offenders than would normally be the
case, or detained and confining more nonminorities. Thus,
subsection (23) may actually encourage discrimination in the
criminal justice system in situations where it was not
occurring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also noteworthy that the federal government is not
administering subsection (23) in a way that requires that the
racial classification being used be aimed at ending
discrimination in the criminal justice system. To the
contrary--if the September 1998 Juvenile Justice Bulletin
(``Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 1997 Update''),
published by the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which administers
subsection (23), is any indication--most subsection (23)
programs are not aimed at the criminal justice system at all,
but are instead aimed at preventing antisocial behavior in
juveniles from ever occurring in the first place. See also 28
C.F.R. sec. 31.303(j)(3) (1998) (Justice Department
regulations require intervention irrespective of cause of
disproportion).
This preemptive approach makes a great deal of sense--and
it underscores why the race-based approach of subsection (23)
itself does not. The criminal justice system is not to blame
for the disproportionate number of offenders from some
minority groups, and the problem of juvenile crime is not
limited to any one racial or ethnic group, even if some
groups may be disproportionately represented among juvenile
offenders. Urging that funding recipients view the problem of
juvenile crime through a racial lens is exactly the wrong
thing to do. Programs for at-risk youth should not be limited
to minorities, as if only blacks and Hispanics commit crimes
and as if it is not equally tragic when a white youth becomes
a criminal.
Indeed, it sets a very dangerous precedent to argue that
the government may target racial and ethnic groups for
special attention if members of those groups are
disproportionately likely to run afoul of the law. Such
precedent could be used to justify, for instance, the use of
racial profiling by the police. We are, therefore, surprised
that the NACCP is urging its members to support subsection
(23). See NACCP, Urgent Action Alert ``Re: Juvenile Crime
Bills'' (Mar. 31, 1999).
*Roger Clegg is vice president and general counsel of the
Center for Equal Opportunity, a Washington, D.C.-based
research and educational organization. Mr. Clegg is a former
Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department's
Civil Rights Division and teaches employment discrimination
law as an adjunct professor at George Mason University School
of Law. He is a graduate of Rice University and Yale Law
School
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if the other side is prepared to yield
back, I am prepared to yield. If not, we will reserve the remainder of
our time.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. There have been statements made on the floor of the
Senate on this question that I want everybody in the country to know
about. I want to have a chance to address these questions. We certainly
will use the rest of our time.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank you and especially thank the
Senator from Minnesota for yielding me the time, but especially for his
tremendous leadership on this issue, as well as Senator Kennedy.
This amendment merely preserves the status quo with respect to the
disproportionate minority confinement core requirement of the juvenile
justice deliquency prevention formula grants.
Disproportionate minority confinement is a serious problem in many of
our States, and has been for quite some time. Just as an example, in
Pennsylvania, studies in the late 1980s showed that while minorities
constituted only 12 percent of the juvenile population, they
represented 27 percent of juveniles arrested and 48 percent of
juveniles charged in court. In 1995, in Ohio, minorities comprised 14
percent of the state's juvenile population, but 30 percent of those
arrested and 43 percent of those placed in secure correctional
institutions.
And currently, nationwide, although African Americans constitute only
15 percent of the U.S. population of juveniles, they account for 26
percent of juvenile arrests, 46 percent of juveniles in secure
corrections facilities, and 52 percent of juveniles transferred to
adult criminal court after judicial hearings.
A study in California showed that minority youths consistently
receive more severe sentences than white youths and are more likely
than white youths to be committed to State institutions for the same
offenses. And here is another disturbing statistic: nationwide, African
American males are 30 times--30 times--more likely to be detained in
State juvenile facilities for drug offenses than white males. In
Baltimore, African American males are roughly 100 times more likely to
be arrested for drug offenses than white males.

These statistics are repeated across the country. I sincerely hope
that this is a problem that everyone in this body is concerned about.
And it is not just unfairness or discrimination in the juvenile system
that should concern us. Because juvenile confinement often is the first
step toward a lifetime of going through a revolving door between prison
and freedom. Confinement has devastating effects on families as well,
and provides tragic role models for even younger children.
We ought to be doing what we can to address these disparities. The
DMC core requirement is not a panacea, but it has been working well in
directing attention and resources at this problem. It does not and I
repeat, it does not--require quotas in detention facilities or direct
the release of any juvenile from custody. It simply requires States to
develop plans to address the problem.
Since 1992, our States have been required to address DMC in their
State plans. Some 40 states have completed the assessment phase and are
implementing plans to try to address whatever problems they have
identified. They are working on creative approaches, programs of
education and vocational training, tutoring, dropout prevention,
truancy intervention, and other efforts to keep at risk children in
school. And States have been developing alternatives to incarceration
for nonserious, nonviolent offenses. All of these things, developed at
the state and local level, are positive efforts to address a serious
social problem. We should be encouraging them, not undermining them by
eliminating this core requirement, as the bill would do.
Mr. President, this is well worth the effort on this floor. Again, I
strongly commend Senators Wellstone and Kennedy for offering this
amendment.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, just before we go forward with this
time, I understand the Senator from California is going to make a
request. For just a moment, before I get started responding, could I
ask unanimous consent that this time not be counted against any of ours
because there may be an interruption here for another amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. Object. Reserving the right to object, we have been
using time. On what subject?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, we would not count this time. I
am trying to be accommodating to Senators over here who may want to
briefly do an amendment, and then let us use our last 10 minutes. I
just want to see----
Mrs. BOXER. Go ahead.
Mr. WELLSTONE. OK. I guess that did not work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, colleagues, 15 percent, ages 10 to 17,
of the kids in this country are black; 26 percent of all juvenile
arrests are black; 32 percent of delinquency referrals to juvenile
court are black; 46 percent of juveniles in public long-term
institutions are black; cases judicially waived to

[[Page S5572]]

criminal court, for 52 percent they are black.
This is a civil rights issue. I cannot believe what I have heard on
the floor of the Senate tonight. We have been told there are more black
kids who are incarcerated because they commit more crimes. We have been
told that these statistics, whether it be for African American or
Latino or Native American or Southeast Asian, they are a reflection of
the number of kids who commit the crimes and who get the justice they
deserve.
We have already recited study after study after study that shows for
the same crime many of these kids get stiffer sentences or many of
these kids wind up incarcerated as opposed to other kids. This is all
about race. I cannot believe that I have heard on the floor of the
Senate an argument that race is not the critical consideration.
When the police are out there in the streets, and we get to which
kids are searched on the streets and which kids are not, you don't
think that has anything to do with race? When we get to the question of
which kids are arrested and which kids are not, you don't think that
has anything to do with race today in America?
When we get to the question of the evaluation of youth by probation
officers, you don't think that has anything to do with race? When we
get to the question of the decision whether to release or detain by a
judge, based upon who has the money and who does not have the money to
put up a bond, you don't think that has anything to do with race,
Senators?
When we get to the question of sentencing, you don't think that has
anything to do with race? You are sleepwalking through history. You are
sleepwalking through history.
This is all about race. This is a civil rights issue and this is a
civil rights vote. Let me just say, when I hear my colleague argue that
this amendment is unconstitutional because it makes a racial
classification, that claim is outrageous. This amendment does not treat
anybody differently on the basis of race, and you know it. It does not
treat anybody differently. The Supreme Court cases cited have nothing
to do with this question. Adarand was about who gets construction
contracts.
You know what this amendment is about? This amendment is about
preventing the majority party--I hope not too many in the majority
party--from repealing the existing protections that we now have in law
that have never been challenged as being unconstitutional that make
sure there is some core requirement that calls upon States, to do what?
To collect the data and to study the problem, and to try and do
something about it.
You are going to vote against this amendment? You go ahead. You go
ahead and vote against this amendment, if that is what you want to do.
I think it would be tragic if we didn't have strong support for this
amendment. This is all about race. This is a civil rights vote. This is
why there is such strong sentiment on behalf of this amendment. This is
why every civil rights organization has been involved in this
amendment. This is why so many of the children's organizations, like
CDF, are involved. We have had the core requirement in our legislation.
It has been there since 1992 or 1993. It calls upon States to study the
question and to try to do better.
And they are doing better. We are making progress. And now you want
to discard this? You want to toss this overboard?
This is all about race. I cannot believe that any Senator in this
Chamber believes that these statistics are a reflection of who commits
the crimes and who deserves to be incarcerated. My God, I cannot
believe it. I cannot believe it.
If you want to turn the clock back on some progress we have made,
some racial progress we have made that is so important to kids, so
important to communities of color, and so important to the Nation, you
will be making a tragic mistake. That is why there were 400 votes for
legislation that embodies the very language that we have in our
amendment in the House of Representatives.
I hope we have bipartisan support for this amendment tonight. I
reserve the remainder of my time, because I want to respond to whatever
else might be said on the floor of the Senate on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. How much time remains for each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 19 minutes 25
seconds. The Senator from Minnesota has 4 minutes 39 seconds.
Mr. HATCH. Let me say a few words.
I think everybody in this body wants to do whatever they can to end
discrimination wherever it is. I haven't heard one shred of information
that proves there is discrimination here. When you prove that, I will
be right there side by side with you. Nor have I heard much of a reason
how you get around the fact that crimes are committed, and it is the
type of crime and the quantities of crime and who is doing it that
makes a difference in our society and why people are locked up.
I think you have to look at the crime. You can't just get out here
and say, well, there is disproportion; therefore, there has to be
something wrong. You have to show what is wrong.
Frankly, I do not think the other side has shown what is wrong here.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. HATCH. Sure.
Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator recall when General McCaffrey testified
before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year and I asked the
general, who was in charge of trying to reduce drug crime in America,
if it were true that of those committing drug crimes in America, 13
percent are African American, and of those incarcerated for committing
drug crimes in America, 67 percent are African American? He said: Yes,
it is true. I don't have an answer.
Now, I say to the chairman of that committee, I don't know if you
were there during that questioning, but if you are looking for an
indication of why Senator Wellstone's amendment is important, that
statistic alone should give the Senator from Utah some pause. I hope he
will consider that we are not going to release anyone who has been
charged with a crime but merely step back and try to make sure the
administration of justice is color-blind in this country and that it is
fair and try to eradicate the statistic which was quoted and verified
by General McCaffrey.
Mr. HATCH. Let me say this again, what are the crimes? What is the
extent of the crimes? How serious are they?

The fact that 13 percent of the offenders are African American and 67
percent of those incarcerated are--I don't see any information here
saying that higher percentage was unjustifiably put in jail. These
percentages don't tell us what the crimes were in the individual cases.
If these individuals committed a crime, then they go to jail. Does that
mean there are a lot of white people getting off? I don't see any
evidence of that, either.
Do you have evidence that minority juveniles are more likely to be
detained for the same crime as white juveniles? I don't think you do.
For example, is there evidence that African Americans who are charged
with possession of crack cocaine are given more severe sentences than
whites for crack cocaine? Is there evidence? I don't know of any.
My point is, I don't think my colleagues on the other side are
arguing that if people commit heinous crimes and they are convicted and
sentenced to jail that they shouldn't be. Now, if there is some
evidence that law enforcement is ignoring white people who commit these
same heinous crimes, then I am with you. I don't know of any evidence
of that.
Statistics are statistics are statistics, but when people go to jail,
it is generally because they have committed crimes.
What is your solution? To let them out of jail? Crack cocaine
distributors? Is your argument that white crack dealers get away with
it because they are smarter or they are protected somehow or other? I
don't think you are making that argument. I can't imagine you would
make that argument. So I don't know why there is a higher percentage,
but I do know that almost without exception--there certainly are some
instances where the law is not applied justly, I am aware of that--but
almost without exception, people who commit these heinous crimes go to
jail for them.

[[Page S5573]]

I don't think you are arguing to let them out of jail. But then,
again, how can you argue, then, that if they are committing the crimes
and are going to jail, that for some reason or other there is some
reason why they are going to jail where others aren't? I don't see the
argument myself. Plus, you are adding racial classifications, mandated
racial classifications in this amendment. To me it is not even a
question of constitutionality. There is no question it is
unconstitutional.
With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Let me retain it for a second and say one other thing. One would
think, listening to my friend from Minnesota, that our bill does
absolutely nothing to deal with this problem. You hear this very
emotional set of arguments as though the Hatch-Biden-Sessions bill does
absolutely nothing about these problems. S. 254, in my opinion, has a
much better provision to solve these problems than the distinguished
Senator from Minnesota.
The bill as written, as before the Senate, requires that prevention
resources be directed to ``segments of the juvenile population'' who
are disproportionately detained. Now, such ``segments of the
population'' could include, for example, certain socioeconomic groups
who are more likely to be at risk. S. 254 directs prevention resources
to such groups who need those resources the most. So we try to do
something about it rather than just cite statistics.
I don't see how you get around the fact that these people are
sentenced and sent to jail because they have committed crimes. Just
because there are statistics that indicate that more than a
proportionate share of the general population is going to jail, I don't
know how in the world you get around the fact that these crimes are
being committed by individuals--individuals who just happen to be of
one race or another. But we do try to address it by directing
prevention resources to such groups who need those resources the most.
I think that is the way to do it.
I will work with my friends on the other side to see that we do
things that make sure those moneys work.
A National Research Council study, published by the National Academy
of Sciences no less, found that:

Few criminologists would argue that the current gap between
African American and white levels of imprisonment is mainly
due to discrimination of sentencing or in any other
decisionmaking process in the criminal justice system.

If the National Academy of Sciences is wrong, show me the evidence.
Just because this disparity exists, liberals throw their hands in the
air and say there must be something wrong, but they can't prove it,
other than to show statistics. I hope they will be with me in saying
that people who are justly sentenced for heinous crimes shouldn't be
let off just because there is a disproportionate sentencing because
more crimes are committed by one group than another. I don't see how
anybody can argue with that point. You know, it must be nice to always
act like you are caring for the little guy, when, in fact, you are not
willing to do what has to be done in order to help resolve these
problems.

Now, 55 percent of this bill is for prevention--55 percent of it. I
don't remember any crime bill in my time here--there may have been one,
but I can't remember it--where we put more money into prevention than
law enforcement and accountability. But we have done it here, and one
reason is to try to solve these problems. If there is a segment of our
population that seems to have certain socioeconomic problems that
literally have caused them to be disproportionately convicted--I don't
even think the word ``disproportionate'' is right--but more convicted
than their racial group's percentage in population group might suggest,
we want to spend more money on prevention for those people. And that is
what this bill does. It doesn't take a lot of sense to recognize that
is a pretty good proposition, and we have it in the bill.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 30 seconds.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in all due respect to my colleague from
Utah, I don't think anybody in the civil rights community all across
this land will be reassured. I will work with you on the language. With
all due respect, some of these arguments about surely you are not for
letting blacks out of jail --of course not. The Senator knows what the
amendment says. The Senator knows it is not about quotas; it is not
about letting anybody out of jail. The Senator knows this is all about
calling on States to study the problem. The Senator knows that. We have
had this core protection since 1993. Why do you think it is the case?
There has been a history for this. It started in 1988. Then we passed
this amendment in 1993. It is based upon all kinds of studies, all
kinds of work, which has provided the empirical evidence, which should
be of no surprise to any Senator here, that we have a problem in our
country of disproportionate minority confinement.
We want to try to understand why minority kids who represent about 33
percent of the population represent about 66 percent of the kids who
are locked up. We want to come to terms with that. Could it have
anything to do with their race, in terms of who gets swept up in the
streets? Could it have anything to do with who actually ends up getting
a good evaluation or not by a probation officer? Could it have anything
to do with who is released or detained by a judge? Could it have
anything to do with who is sentenced and for how long a period of time?
My colleague doesn't think race has anything to do with this. If you
don't think race has anything to do with this, that we don't have any
problem with discrimination in our country, or that States right now
are collecting data and trying to come to terms with this problem,
which is exactly what our amendment says--continue with this good
work--then you should not vote for this amendment. But if you think
this is an issue that deals with race in America, that this is a civil
rights question, and you think it was a good thing that we had this
core protection, this core requirement in our juvenile justice
legislation and it would be a tragic mistake for us to take this
protection out that just calls for States to study the problem and try
to redress the problem, then you should vote for this amendment.

This is the language of the amendment:

Address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and system
improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing
or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the
disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority
groups who come into contact with the juvenile justice
system.

Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, that is what you are
voting on. This is a civil rights vote. The more I hear my colleagues
speak on the floor of the Senate--I think what has been said is
heartfelt, but it is historic. Some Senators don't think there is an
issue with discrimination. There are some Senators who don't think
there is a problem of disproportional sentencing. There are some
Senators who think we should remove this protection. There are some
Senators who want to turn the clock back. But I am telling you, this is
a central issue for the civil rights community in this country and for
child advocacy groups.
I certainly hope we will be able to pass this amendment. If we don't
pass this amendment, this juvenile justice legislation will have taken
a step backward when it comes to justice. I don't think it will be a
piece of legislation that will be worth supporting. I don't think
Senators should support legislation that turns the clock back on the
progress we have made dealing with racial justice. I don't think
Senators should support that, and I think Senators should support this
amendment. This is the civil rights question, the civil rights issue,
and the civil rights vote on this bill. My good friend from Utah
doesn't want to say that. He doesn't want to face up to that reality,
but that is what this vote is all about.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is not a civil rights vote. This is a
vote that is an emotional vote. That is, they cannot show any reasons
why people who commit heinous crimes should not go to jail. They are
saying because there is a disproportionate number of African
Americans--to select one group because that is the one they are talking
about--going to jail for crimes they

[[Page S5574]]

were convicted for, that somehow there is something wrong with that.
Everybody in America knows that people are sentenced to jail because
they have committed crimes. I admit that occasionally there are
injustices in our courts, but they are very rare. When they do occur, I
will decry them as much as my friend from Minnesota.
This is what you call a bleeding heart amendment. They can't show the
facts; they don't have any facts on their side. They are using
statistics. They are ignoring the fact that people are convicted of
these crimes and need to serve time for them, regardless of skin color;
and they are ignoring the fact that we take care of this problem by
providing a disproportionate amount of the prevention funds to help
segments of the population having difficulties because of socioeconomic
difficulties. That is the way to face it and solve the problem. Don't
just complain about the problem. What is the solution? Is it that these
people should not serve their time? Should they not be convicted when
they sell drugs to our kids? Everybody knows that it happens.
It is nice to talk about civil rights. The fact of the matter is that
nobody is more concerned about civil rights than I am. If anyone can
show me where there is prejudice, if they can show me where these
people are not justly convicted, that is another matter. I will be
right there marching with them. But they can't and they know it.

Mr. President, I am going to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Alabama, and then I will yield back the remainder of our
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his
leadership. He raises a good question about statistics and how they can
be misleading. I had, of course, served as attorney general of Alabama,
and I have a brief here that was submitted on statistics involving
whites and blacks on death row in Alabama. Now, 52 percent of those on
death row in Alabama are white; 46 percent are black. But that
percentage of the black population is substantially higher on death row
than in the State. But the study goes on to show that the percentage of
homicides committed in Alabama by blacks was 71 percent; yet, they
represented only 46 percent of the people on death row.
So I don't know what any of those numbers mean. I am not sure they
are very beneficial to anybody. But if you look at it one way, it looks
like it is unfair. If you look at it another way, it looks like it is
not unfair. So the Senator is correct that we need to have proof of
individual wrongs instead of passing a law that is going to require the
reduction of people in prison based on a statistical study.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes.
Mr. HATCH. How much does the other side have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Zero.
Mr. HATCH. I yield back the remainder of my time, and we can yield to
the Senator from Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Amendment No. 365

(Purpose: To discourage the promotion of violence in motion pictures
and television productions)

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) proposes an
amendment numbered 365.

Mr. McCONNELL. 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. . PROHIBITION ON PROMOTING VIOLENCE ON FEDERAL
PROPERTY.

(a) General Rule.--A Federal department or agency that--
(1) considers a request from an individual or entity for
the use of any property, facility, equipment, or personnel of
the department or agency, or for any other cooperation from
the department or agency, to film a motion picture or
television production for commercial purposes; and
(2) makes a determination as to whether granting a request
described in paragraph (1) is consistent with--
(A) United States policy;
(B) the mission or interest of the department or agency; or
(C) the public interest;
shall not grant such a request without considering whether
such motion picture or television production glorifies or
endorses wanton and gratuitous violence.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to--
(1) any bona fide newsreel or news television production;
or
(2) any public service announcement.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, my understanding is I have 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask the Chair to notify me when I have 3 minutes
left.
Mr. President, the amendment that is now pending would require that
when granting permits necessary for filming a movie or a TV show on
Federal property, or with Federal equipment, the relevant agency's
approval criteria now would include a consideration of whether the film
glorifies or endorses wanton and gratuitous violence. The message is
simple: The Federal Government will not allow Hollywood to promote
excessive and wanton violence in our house.
America's children are exposed to incessant and endless hours of
violent movies and television productions each year. Exposure to this
violence desensitizes our children to brutality and killing and gives
them ``glamorous'' murderous acts to emulate. This exposure is like
pouring gasoline on fire.
Yes, the children who commit terrible acts of violence must have a
number of deep and troubling problems. However, the glorified wanton
violence depicted in movies and on TV is fuel that Hollywood is dousing
on those children and their smoldering internal problems. This is not a
revelation. Indeed, a 1996 American Medical Association Study concluded
that, ``The link between media violence and real life violence has been
proven by science time and time again.''
Most people know, intuitively, that there is a strong link between
media violence and real life. Why is it that no one in Hollywood seems
to care? Are they the only ones who are oblivious to this phenomenon?
Why is there no shame about the violent junk they are making and
MARKETING to our kids? Why do we hear Hollywood give speech after
speech after speech on every fad-driven cause under the sun, and yet
rarely ever do we hear them mention reforming themselves and refraining
from marketing violence to our children.
Let's take a look at some of the media violence that our children are
exposed to.
First, let's go to the movies.
Now, I'm told that Leonardo DiCaprio and Keanu Reeves are two of the
biggest teen idols out there today. These photographs are both from
recent hit movies--``The Basketball Diaries'' and ``The Matrix''.
Thanks to the occupant of the Chair, Senator Brownback, the
Republican Senators had an opportunity to see some of the scenes from
``Basketball Diaries'' recently. That is one of the scenes from it here
on my left.
The ``Matrix,'' featuring Keanu Reeves, is here on my right.
You can see from these photographs that Hollywood is taking the
biggest teen idols and creating these glamorous, powerful, violent
images to send out to our young people. These are role models for
children.
As you can see here, in ``Basketball Diaries,'' teen idol DiCaprio is
wearing a long, black trenchcoat and packing a shotgun. In this movie,
DiCaprio's character has a fantasy of walking into his high school
classroom and opening fire on his schoolmates and his teacher.
Thanks to the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, we had an
opportunity to see this scene from that film. I think we would all
agree--those of us who saw it--it literally turns your stomach.
These violent images became reality in the community of Paducah,
Kentucky, barely 17 months ago. In a Paducah high school, the DiCaprio
Dream was played out in real life. I'd like to read for my colleagues
an excerpt from a Newsweek article about ``Basketball Diaries'' and the
senseless tragedy in Paducah.

``The Basketball Diaries'' may not have been 14-year-old
Michael Carneal's favorite

[[Page S5575]]

movie. But one scene in particular stayed with the awkward
Paducah, Ky., freshman: a young character's narcotic-tinged
dream of striding into his school, pulling a shotgun from a
black leather coat and opening fire. The real-life scene in
the bloodied halls of Heath High School last Monday was a
long way from Hollywood. Unlike handsome actor Leonardo
DiCaprio's dramatic entrance in 1995's ``Diaries,'' skinny,
bespectacled Michael bummed a ride to school that day from
his 17-year-old sister, Kelly. Instead of cinematically
kicking down a classroom door, Michael quietly followed Kelly
into the school through the band room, where he told a
curious teacher that the four guns bound together with duct
tape and wrapped in an old blanket were ``a poster for my
science project.'' Loitering in the hall, Michael waited for
a prayer group of 35 students to lift their bowed heads and
say ``Amen.'' He then took a fifth gun, a semiautomatic .22,
from his backpack and fired off 12 shots, killing three
students and wounding five. Before the police arrived,
Carneal would tell a teacher, `it was like I was in a dream.'

Looking back at Paducah, and now Littleton--and looking at these
Hollywood images of teen idols--can leave no doubts. Hollywood violence
DOES influence our children, in the worst way.
Let me tell you about this other hit movie--``The Matrix.'' The image
of this character is strikingly similar to that over here of Mr.
DiCaprio. Let me read to you how an article in the Washington Post
described watching the Matrix.

The sold-out theatre was filled with younger teens, despite
the R rating, and at times I felt as if I were watching a
dramatization of the killings that had just occurred in
Littleton, Colorado.
In one scene, protagonists played by Keanu Reaves and
Carrie-Anne Moss arrive at an office building where their
adversaries are holed up. Dressed in black leather coats, the
pair sprays the lobby with automatic weapons fire. The scene
is a gorgeously choreographed ballet of mass killing, a
triumph of Hollywood's ability to represent graphic violence.
As bullets riddle a dozen twitching bodies, spent shell
casings cascade downward in slow motion. The victims of this
orgy of killing are police officers.
I have heard some in Hollywood say that these violent movies are for
adults--not for our impressionable children. Those comments simply are
not credible. The reality is that Hollywood markets many such movies to
teenagers. For proof, one need only to look as far as the hit Teen
Movie--``Scream.'' In this movie young, beautiful high school students
slay, stab and butcher each other and their teachers for two non-stop
hours. ``The movie builds to a finale in which one of the killers
announces that he and his accomplice started off by murdering strangers
but then realized it was a lot more fun to kill their friends.'' Where
is the Shame, Hollywood?
Mr. President, if the sights and sounds of Hollywood were not enough
for you, let me take you to the next level: the gutter of the new
millennium--violent videogames. This is a dimension where our children
are not limited to be mere watchers. Rather, in videogames they are
participants--active participants. America's children can descend as
low as a twisted, demented videogame will take them.
I think these games have been best-described by Retired Lieutenant
Colonel David Grossman, a former professor of psychology at West Point
who now teaches a course to green berets on the psychology of killing.
He calls them ``Murder Simulators.'' These are the ``games" our
children are playing.
In the videogame ``Postal'' the goal is straightforward: kill as many
townfolk as possible without being killed yourself. The maker of this
game boasts, ``Chilling realism as victims actually beg for mercy,
scream for their lives and bodies pile up on the street.'' That game
maker certainly has no shame.
I want to share with you some fascinating excerpts from a recent ``60
Minutes'' episode with Retired Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman, the
former West Point professor I mentioned earlier. They discussed the
``skills'' these games are teaching our children.

Colonel Grossman. The same basic mechanisms that we use,
step by step, to make killing a conditioned response in our
soldiers, are being done in the games that the kids go and
play.

Mr. President, let me tell you what Colonel Grossman had to say about
Paducah, Kentucky and Michael Carneal.

Colonel Grossman. Michael Carneal, a 14-year-old boy, has
never fired a pistol before in his life. His total experience
was countless, thousands and thousands of rounds in the video
games. When Michael Carneal opened fire; he fired eight
shots. . . . [H]e got eight hits on eight different kids.
Five of them were head shots. The other three were upper
torso. Now, the F.B.I. says in the average engagement, the
average officer hits with less than one bullet in five.

Grossman concluded:

Grossman. Here's what's fascinating about this crime. . . .
He held that gun and he fired one shot at every target. Now,
that is not natural. [A]nybody that's ever been in combat
will tell you that the natural thing is to fire at a target
until it drops. But the video games train you--if you're
very, very, very good, what you'll do is you'll fire one
shot--don't even wait for the target to drop--you don't have
time--go to the next, and the next. And the video games give
bonus effects for head shots.

Mr. President, I understand that the Motion Picture Association has
been lobbying heavily against this amendment. I want to make sure
everybody understands what this amendment really does. It is quite
mild.

The problems evidenced by these video games and movies are
complicated and complex. We are not going to solve them overnight. I do
believe it is time that Hollywood take more responsibility. We need to
send the message to Hollywood: Don't bombard our children with
glamorous portrayals of gratuitous and wanton violence.
Under the first amendment, we cannot and we should not seek to deny
the right of free speech to anyone. However, as the Senate, we can
encourage Hollywood to take responsible steps to protect our children.
We can make sure the Federal Government does not costar with Hollywood
in any movies that glorify or endorse wanton and gratuitous violence.
The Federal Government already currently grants permits to Hollywood,
allowing them to film on Federal property or allowing them to borrow
Federal equipment such as jeeps or weapons to use in these films. Many
government agencies and departments currently decide whether or not to
cooperate with a film or TV production based on the nature and message
of the proposed production.
For example, DOD decides whether to grant Federal filming privileges
based on whether a production ``appear[s] to condone or endorse
activities . . . [that] are contrary to U.S. Government policy.''
In other words, ``Top Gun'' is OK, but ``GI Jane'' is not. The
military rolled out the red carpet for ``Top Gun'' while ``GI Jane''
had the door shut in her face.
When deciding whether to cooperate with a movie, NASA determines
whether the ``story is reasonably plausible, does not advocate or
glorify unlawful acts, . . . or present as factual history things which
did not take place.''
The Coast Guard looks at whether, among other things, the Coast
Guard's cooperation ``is in the public interest.'' Let me quote to you
from 14 United States Code Section 659, where Congress has mandated in
federal statute that the Coast Guard cannot provide facilities or
assistance to film producers unless it determines ``that it is
appropriate, and that it will not interfere with Coast Guard
missions.''
The point is the Federal Government is already engaged in a clearance
process when a motion picture seeks to be made on Federal property. We
are not adding requirements that are not already there, with one
exception. In this amendment where Federal agencies are already engaged
in a subjective clearance process, either through statute or through
policy, we add to it this standard: Promoting and endorsing or
glorifying violence.
Clearly, this is not infringing on the movie industry's first
amendment rights. They can simply go out and make their movies
somewhere else. What we are saying here, if we are going to use our
property, Federal property, and the agency already has a subjective
clearance process, gratuitous, wanton and gratuitous violence needs to
be added as a factor.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as necessary out
of the time we have available.
I listened to my good friend from Kentucky, and he is my good friend.
We have been together on more issues than we have been apart.
I note one thing: As I recall, in reading the reviews of the movie
``Matrix''

[[Page S5576]]

it was filmed in Australia, so this amendment, I assume,
notwithstanding the graphic picture with Keanu Reeves, would not be
covered?

Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Vermont that particular movie
was not made on Federal property. I am sure my friend from Vermont
would not be arguing that it ought to have been made on Federal
property.
Mr. LEAHY. I am not one who is particularly interested in violent
movies. I have been to too many crime scenes, too many murder and
shooting scenes in a prior public life to do it.
Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I feel very strongly that this amendment
should not pass.
I wanted to add to what Senator Leahy has said. As far as I know,
none of the movies or programs he talks about, and certainly none of
the games--because games are made from computers--were ever made on
Federal property as far as I could tell. I think that is an important
point.
It is interesting that just today, just today, one of the committees
here in the Senate voted out some new rules that would govern the
filming on Federal property. It was voted out of the committee. I think
it is unfortunate we are bringing this up just while we are trying to
resolve all of these questions.
I think it is important to read the amendment. I have it in front of
me, and it uses words that are very subjective, words like ``wanton
violence.'' I looked that up in the dictionary because under this
amendment we are giving Federal bureaucrats who are not trained as
critics of film or critics of television programming the job of
deciding whether there is wanton violence.
One of the meanings of ``wanton'' is excessively luxurious. So,
somebody deciding this could decide to go with that definition. Another
meaning of ``wanton'' is without adequate motive or provocation. These
words carry different meanings for different people. The Senator from
Kentucky has his definition of gratuitous violence, of wanton violence.
The dictionary has another. Who knows what the bureaucrat at the FAA
will decide violence is, when it is up to him to decide whether his
property could be used, or a bureaucrat at the Department of the
Interior?
I got a call from a Republican friend who said: Senator, I hope you
fight this. We couldn't make a western, we couldn't make a war movie.
What about a movie that talks about a family in which there are violent
relationships and these all get resolved in the movie? Some of the
scenes are rough and difficult, but there is a purpose.
I am sure my friend would say that is not gratuitous, but that is his
opinion. It might not be the opinion of the bureaucrat sitting in the
agency or department that he is now charging with becoming a film
critic.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. BOXER. I yield on the Senator's time.
Mr. McCONNELL. I don't have that much time. I ask the Senator if she
thinks the standards that currently apply and are used by DOD and
mandated by statute for the Coast Guard, which are very subjective,
should be repealed?
Mrs. BOXER. I am addressing the Senator's amendment and the Senator's
amendment says any department. It uses the words ``wanton,
gratuitous.'' I think these words are very, very subjective. It is the
reason I didn't vote for Senator Hollings' amendment when he came to
the floor--it was the same idea.
My constituents are concerned this amendment would potentially
prevent war movies, westerns, or stories about abusive relationships
which find peace and harmony in the end from being filmed on Federal
property. It gives bureaucrats in many Federal agencies the authority
to decide what violence is.
I didn't run here for this job to be an art critic. That is why when
we criticize the art world, I think we have to be very careful, because
we are not art critics. Most Members are pretty good at what we do, but
we are not art critics; neither is a bureaucrat over at Interior or FAA
or any of the other departments that will now deal with this.
I say, as a parent and a grandparent, I do not want to give this kind
of power, this kind of job to an elected, let alone an unelected,
person sitting at some Federal agency. I think it is pretty incredible.
I do not know where we go from here, I say to the good Senator.
Why not, if you want to take this to the ultimate extreme, then say
private property cannot be used, private property cannot be used for
this purpose, and tell the people of America how they should use their
private property? Where do you stop? This is a slippery slope.
We all know that every one of us has to look inside ourselves and do
something about this problem of violence. Whether you are a parent or a
grandparent or a Senator, whether you are in the movie business, in the
TV business, whether you are in the video game business, we all have an
obligation--or whether you are a firearms manufacturer. The bottom line
is we all have to do more.
But to then say that bureaucrats in the Federal Government are going
to make these subjective decisions? I want the people at FAA to fly the
planes. I want the people at the Department of the Interior to take
care of the parks. I want the people at the Department of
Transportation to regulate transportation. I do not want to give them
this job of deciding for the people of America what the definition of
``wanton'' is; or ``gratuitous,'' for that matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 1 additional minute, and then I will conclude.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I was involved in this debate once over at the Committee
on Commerce. I will never forget this experience, I say to my friend.
Word came over from a Congressman--because he wanted the Government to
do a rating system, he wanted to give the job to the Government--one
Congressman thought ``Schindler's List'' was obscene. Others thought
``Schindler's List'' was one of the best movies ever made and it would
be important for our children to learn about the Holocaust.
Why do I say this? Because it shows how subjective it is. I do not
want Federal Government employees who are not trained as critics to
become movie critics and TV critics.
I thank my colleague for yielding me this additional time. I yield
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from Vermont
have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEAHY. Wait a minute, Mr. President. I yielded the Senator a
total of 6 minutes, the Senator from California, out of 15 minutes. How
do I have 6 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator used 2 minutes before yielding to
the distinguished Senator from California.
Mr. LEAHY. I see. Fast clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment prohibits any Federal
agency, such as the Marines, Army, Navy, or Air Force, from granting
permission to use Federal property or resources or cooperating if the
motion picture or TV show to be produced ``glorifies or endorses wanton
and gratuitous violence.'' If any portion of the movie uses any Federal
property, the entire movie is subject to Federal scrutiny
Federal agencies, other than the military, would be given these new
censorship powers, too. The Department of Agriculture could determine
if it is on forest lands or rights of way of the Interior Department
and otherwise. Could they have kept ``North By Northwest'' with Cary
Grant off because the visitors center scene at Mount Rushmore was in
it? What about ``Fargo''? What about the Presidio military base in San
Francisco that was used as a setting for the Sean Connery movie, ``The
Presidio''? This amendment is flawed. What glorifies violence is in the
eye of the beholder.
Even movies, like legislation, have last-minute changes. Would you
have to have a Department of Agriculture bureaucrat sitting there all
the way through? Many scenes in the movie ``Top Gun'' would have had to
be carefully monitored during production to

[[Page S5577]]

ensure they did not glorify violence. The naval base that was used was
Miramar in California.
The fight in ``An Officer and a Gentleman'' also might be considered
excessive by some. What about the gratuitous punch by Jimmy Stewart in
``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington''? ``The Treasure of the Sierra Madre,''
uses the vast national forest lands in its filming, even though most of
it was filmed in Mexico. Could part of it be knocked out?
There are only exceptions for news and public service announcements,
but any movie that is a historical depiction of a war would be subject
to agency bureaucrats deciding whether violence was gratuitous or
glorifies violence. Sponsors may say: Let them go somewhere else and do
their filming, let them go to private property or parklands or military
bases. I think that is a shortsighted response. Some may want to use
that property to be authentic.
I am concerned how this is going to work. Do we turn over our
scripts? If you are a movie producer or maker, do you turn over the
script to the Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior,
Department of Defense first and decide whether it is safe? We may not
like all that we see from Hollywood. But I have no confidence in the
decisions the agency censors make. I am perfectly capable of censoring
what I see. I was perfectly capable, when my children were young, to
censor what they saw. But I do not want an official, however well
intentioned, in the Department of Agriculture or the Department of
Defense or the Department of the Interior, to determine what I see.
I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HATCH. I want to thank the Senator from Kentucky for his
amendment. I just want to be clear on one matter, however. It is my
understanding that lands under the BLM, Park Service, and Forest
Service are in no way covered or affected by the amendment because they
do not consider subjective criteria when determining whether to
cooperate or grant permits to a film or TV production. Is that correct?

Mr. McCONNELL. This is correct.
Mr. HATCH. How much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 56 seconds in
opposition to the amendment and 1 minute 47 seconds on the proponents.
Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent to make that 3 minutes on the side
of Senator McConnell and an equivalent amount of extra time on the side
of the minority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEAHY. I didn't hear the request.
Mr. HATCH. I made a unanimous consent request to give Senator
McConnell 3 minutes, which would give him another minute and a half,
and give you an equal amount of time on your side.
Mr. LEAHY. You are asking for an extra minute and a half----
Mr. HATCH. For Senator McConnell.
Mr. LEAHY. And an extra minute and a half for this side?
Mr. HATCH. For you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to respond that the
observations made by the other side have nothing to do with the
amendment, nothing whatsoever to do with the amendment.
Any movie company is free to go make a movie anywhere it wants to in
the country and say anything it wants to and be as depraved as it wants
to be without interference from Government. This amendment is only
related to the use of Federal property.
In many federal agencies and departments there are subjective
standards being used now to approve or deny cooperation with film
production companies. The thing the Senator from Vermont and the
Senator from California are complaining about is already occurring. The
Department of Defense has very subjective standards it applies to
movies now. For example, it did not allow ``GI Jane'' to be made on
Federal property or with DOD assistance. It did not keep the movie from
being made, but the Defense Department did not like it; it had a very
subjective standard. They said go make your movie somewhere else. They
liked ``Top Gun.'' They allowed it to be made. There is a very
subjective standard that applies now.
DOD considers whether a production ``appears to condone or endorse
activities that are contrary to U.S. Government policy.'' That is
clearly very subjective. Factors in NASA's policy include whether the
story is reasonably plausible, does not advocate or glorify unlawful
acts or present as factual history things which did not take place--
that is fairly subjective.
At the Coast Guard, under statute, the Coast Guard does not provide
facilities or assistance to film producers unless the Guard determines
it is ``appropriate''--very subjective--and that it will not interfere
with Coast Guard missions.
Mr. President, a movie company now does not have the inalienable
right or constitutional right to come onto Federal property and do
anything it wants to. All we are saying, to Federal agencies that have
either a policy or a statute giving them the authority to clear these
movies for content--and we've seen that some have them now--that they
simply add to the list of subjective evaluations they already make a
consideration of wanton and gratuitous violence. Surely our colleagues
who have spoken on the other side of this are not arguing we ought to
repeal the current standards because they are very subjective. Maybe
they do not want any standard at all to apply with respect to the use
of Federal property.
With regard to the parks system, they do not currently have
subjective criteria and standard, so this would not apply to them. They
are clearly outside of this.
This is a very narrowly crafted message to Hollywood not to produce
this kind of gratuitous and wanton violence on Federal property with
federal cooperation. It certainly does not take away anybody's
constitutional right to go out and act in as awful a manner as they
want to and put it on film. They just wouldn't be able to do it on
Federal property.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are well aware of what the military
does. The military will permit use--in fact, some suggest even will
help underwrite, indirectly, the costs of a film if it makes the
military look good.
The military has been known in the past to withdraw support, even
classic films, if they suggest the military may have made a mistake
anywhere--Vietnam or anywhere else. We have seen that kind of
censorship.
I understand they are using military areas. I do not necessarily
agree with it. I think they have been very sensitive with that, but
then the military is used to censorship. They do it with the news. They
did it during the gulf war. They did it during Vietnam. I suspect they
are doing it now.
What I am concerned about, though, is when you talk about the vast
forest land and somebody one day in the Department of Agriculture, who
works on, I don't know, dairy price supports, and the next day is going
to be the person to censor what goes in that movie, whether that forest
can be the background or, if it is out west where the Department of the
Interior controls so much land--I can think of movies, shoot 'em ups,
with Ronald Reagan galloping by the sites in areas controlled by the
Department of the Interior. It might have been declined because
somebody did not like him. Maybe somebody who normally does fishing
permits in the Department of the Interior will determine what movies
will be made or what they like or do not like.
We open ourselves to a strange area. Those who are opposed to wanton
violence should do as I do--don't go to those movies. Nothing votes
better than your checkbook. If you do not want your children to go to
them, do not let your children go to them. Stop the checkbook. That is
the way to do it.
Do not put our Department of Agriculture and Department of the
Interior and others into censorship. Do not let them make some of the
mistakes the Department of Defense has made in the past in refusing
permission for something because they are afraid it will show a general
or a colonel or admiral

[[Page S5578]]

making a mistake, because we all know they never do. I can see them
deciding it might be gratuitous violence to show--oh, I don't know--
maybe when their bombs go astray and hit the Chinese Embassy. We know
they never make a mistake like that, but they may say this is
gratuitous violence, so they are not going to allow any help in making
such a movie.
I retain the remainder of my time.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-four seconds.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is interesting, in Hollywood
lobbying efforts, they always scream censorship. This amendment has
nothing to do with censorship. It has to do with the use of Federal
property and federal assistance, which is a privilege, not a right.
The Federal Government, through various departments and agencies,
already has very subjective standards. We are simply adding to those
kinds of standards one more factor--wanton and gratuitous violence. No
movie company in America has a right to use any and all Federal
property and to get federal assistance anyway. We are just adding one
more criterion.
This is a very reasonable amendment. I hope it will be approved by my
colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 17 seconds.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I can think of some ads I see on local TV
at night that are not violent but I find of a personal nature
offensive, some of which are filled with backgrounds of Government
land. Should we start taking those out?
The fact is, we have a lot of Government sites. Do we stop a movie,
for example, that is filmed with somebody driving down Pennsylvania
Avenue because the Department of the Interior, the Justice Department,
and other Government buildings are seen in the background? Do we make
sure there is never any depiction of the Capitol? One of the most
violent things was ``Independence Day'' when a model of the Capitol was
blown up. There may have been exterior shots actually made of the
Capitol prior to that time. Does that go out?
I suggest these because we are getting into a terribly subjective
area, and we are asking people who are trained to do very good things
for our Government, whether it is fishing permits, lands permits, or
agricultural subsidies--they are not trained, nor should they be, in
this Nation especially to be censors.
I know the time of the Senator from Kentucky has expired. I yield
back all my remaining time.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
California is recognized for 10 minutes.

Amendment No. 319

(Purpose: To reduce both juvenile crime and the risk that youth will
become victims of crime and to improve academic and social outcomes for
students by providing productive activities during after school hours)

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 319. It is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an
amendment numbered 319.

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

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
TITLE . AFTER SCHOOL EDUCATION AND ANTI-CRIME ACT.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``After School Education and
Anti-Crime Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to improve academic and social
outcomes for students and reduce both juvenile crime and the
risk that youth will become victims of crime by providing
productive activities during after school hours.

SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Today's youth face far greater social risks than did
their parents and grandparents.
(2) Students spend more of their waking hours alone,
without supervision, companionship, or activity, than the
students spend in school.
(3) Law enforcement statistics show that youth who are ages
12 through 17 are most at risk of committing violent acts and
being victims of violent acts between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.
(4) The consequences of academic failure are more dire in
1999 than ever before.
(5) After school programs have been shown in many States to
help address social problems facing our Nation's youth, such
as drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and gang involvement.
(6) Many of our Nation's governors endorse increasing the
number of after school programs through a Federal/State
partnership.
(7) Over 450 of the Nation's leading police chiefs,
sheriffs, and prosecutors, along with presidents of the
Fraternal Order of Police and the International Union of
Police Associations, which together represent 360,000 police
officers, have called upon public officials to provide after
school programs that offer recreation, academic support, and
community service experience, for school-age children and
teens in the United States.
(8) One of the most important investments that we can make
in our children is to ensure that they have safe and positive
learning environments in the after school hours.

SEC. 4. GOALS.

The goals of this Act are as follows:
(1) To increase the academic success of students.
(2) To promote safe and productive environments for
students in the after school hours.
(3) To provide alternatives to drug, alcohol, tobacco, and
gang activity.
(4) To reduce juvenile crime and the risk that youth will
become victims of crime during after school hours.

SEC. 5. PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION.

Section 10903 of the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8243) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``to Local
Educational Agencies for Schools'' after ``Secretary''; and
(B) by striking ``rural and inner-city public'' and all
that follows through ``or to'' and inserting ``local
educational agencies for the support of public elementary
schools or secondary schools, including middle schools, that
serve communities with substantial needs for expanded
learning opportunities for children and youth in the
communities, to enable the schools to establish or''; and
(C) by striking ``a rural or inner-city community'' and
inserting ``the communities'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``States, among'' and inserting ``States
and among''; and
(B) by striking ``United States,'' and all that follows
through ``a State'' and inserting ``United States''; and
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``3'' and inserting
``5''.

SEC. 6. APPLICATIONS.

Section 10904 of the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8244) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``an elementary or
secondary school or consortium'' and inserting ``a local
educational agency''; and
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``Each such'' and
inserting the following:
``(b) Contents.--Each such''; and
(3) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or consortium'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, including
programs under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.)'' after ``maximized'';
(ii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``students, parents,
teachers, school administrators, local government, including
law enforcement organizations such as Police Athletic and
Activity Leagues,'' after ``agencies,'';
(iii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or consortium'';
and
(iv) in subparagraph (E)--

(I) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``or
consortium''; and
(II) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting a
semicolon; and

(E) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) information demonstrating that the local educational
agency will--
``(A) provide not less than 35 percent of the annual cost
of the activities assisted under the project from sources
other than funds provided under this part, which contribution
may be provided in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated; and
``(B) provide not more than 25 percent of the annual cost
of the activities assisted under the project from funds
provided by the Secretary under other Federal programs that
permit the use of those other funds for activities assisted
under the project; and

[[Page S5579]]

``(5) an assurance that the local educational agency, in
each year of the project, will maintain the agency's fiscal
effort, from non-Federal sources, from the preceding fiscal
year for the activities the local educational agency provides
with funds provided under this part.''.

SEC. 7. USES OF FUNDS.

Section 10905 of the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8245) is amended--
(1) by striking the matter preceding paragraph (1) and
inserting:
``(a) In General.--Grants awarded under this part may be
used to establish or expand community learning centers. The
centers may provide 1 or more of the following activities:'';
(2) in subsection (a)(11) (as redesignated by paragraph
(1)), by inserting ``, and job skills preparation'' after
``placement''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(14) After school programs, that--
``(A) shall include at least 2 of the following--
``(i) mentoring programs;
``(ii) academic assistance;
``(iii) recreational activities; or
``(iv) technology training; and
``(B) may include--
``(i) drug, alcohol, and gang prevention activities;
``(ii) health and nutrition counseling; and
``(iii) job skills preparation activities.
``(b) Limitation.--Not less than \2/3\ of the amount
appropriated under section 10907 for each fiscal year shall
be used for after school programs, as described in paragraph
(14). Such programs may also include activities described in
paragraphs (1) through (13) that offer expanded opportunities
for children or youth.''.

SEC. 8. ADMINISTRATION.

Section 10905 of the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8245) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(c) Administration.--In carrying out the activities
described in subsection (a), a local educational agency or
school shall, to the greatest extent practicable--
``(1) request volunteers from business and academic
communities, and law enforcement organizations, such as
Police Athletic and Activity Leagues, to serve as mentors or
to assist in other ways;
``(2) ensure that youth in the local community participate
in designing the after school activities;
``(3) develop creative methods of conducting outreach to
youth in the community;
``(4) request donations of computer equipment and other
materials and equipment; and
``(5) work with State and local park and recreation
agencies so that activities carried out by the agencies prior
to the date of enactment of this subsection are not
duplicated by activities assisted under this part.

SEC. 9. COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTER DEFINED.

Section 10906 of the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8246) is amended in paragraph (2) by
inserting ``, including law enforcement organizations such as
the Police Athletic and Activity League'' after
``governmental agencies''.

SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 10907 of the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8247) is amended by striking
``$20,000,000 for fiscal year 1995'' and all that follows and
inserting ``$600,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000
through 2004, to carry out this part.''.

SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, take effect
on October 1, 1999.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, my amendment calls for an expansion of afterschool
programs. The purpose of the juvenile justice bill is to cut down on
crime, and the debate has been, how do we do that?
There are many ways of cutting down on juvenile crime. Certainly one
is the gun control amendments which we have been debating and which
have received a lot of attention. Another is tough enforcement, tougher
penalties. We have been doing that. And another is prevention. I
believe this bill is short on prevention. There is not anything in this
bill that specifically talks about afterschool programs.
I share with my colleagues a chart, which is basically from the FBI,
which shows when juvenile crime is committed. One does not need a
degree in chart reading to see what is happening. At 3 o'clock the
crime rate goes up, and it does not go down until the parents start
coming home from work. We know it is very important in that period of
time to look at ways to keep our kids out of trouble. One proven way is
afterschool programs.
Right now, we do have afterschool programs funded by the Federal
Government, but we are falling short. Out of the 2,000 school districts
that applied for afterschool Federal assistance, only 287 applications
were awarded grants because of the lack of funds.
President Clinton understood this. In his budget, he asked us to
authorize $600 million. That is what my amendment does. It authorizes
$600 million. It allows us to accommodate 1.1 million children, many of
whom are waiting on line to get into afterschool programs. These are
mentoring programs, academic assistance, recreational activities, drug-
alcohol prevention programs, et cetera.
The American people understand the importance of afterschool
programs. I want my colleagues to see this. Senator Lautenberg said 89
percent of the people supported closing the gun show loophole. Mr.
President, 92 percent of the people favor afterschool programs. We have
a chance to do what the American people want us to do.
Law enforcement supports our afterschool program, as do over 450
police chiefs, sheriffs, and prosecutors. It is important to look at
this list because they are from all over the country.
Let's see what the Police Activities League says about afterschool
programs. In a letter of endorsement, they write:

Afterschool youth development programs, like those proposed
in your amendment, have been shown to cut juvenile crime
immediately, sometimes by 40 to 75 percent.

I need to say this again. Law enforcement is telling us that
afterschool programs cut violent crime by children down by 40 to 75
percent. Name one other thing we have in this bill that can have such a
dramatic impact immediately on our children.
I saw an interesting letter to the editor in today's Los Angeles
Times. It is from the Republican mayor of that city, Richard Riordan.
He says:

Studies have shown that LA's best--

Which is their afterschool program--

students enjoy school more, show improvement in their grades
and feel safe. The kids do better at school. They do better
in all the various schools across this Nation, because
they have afterschool.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-four seconds.
Mrs. BOXER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. HATCH. Let me just say a few words.
I must object to the amendment of the Senator from California. I
appreciate the necessity of afterschool programs. I am aware that the
21st Century Learning Centers program supports several efforts in my
home State of Utah.
The Senator's amendment, however, increases the program's
authorization from $20 million annually to $600 million annually. That
adds up to $3 billion over 5 years. The entire underlying bill, which
we have been working on for 2 years, only authorizes a little over $1
billion in spending a year--our whole bill.
Again, I express my concerns with attempting to solve a problem by
simply throwing more money at it. This amendment attempts to throw $3
billion at a problem our underlying bill will solve because it is
effectively written and we know what to do with the money. Our
underlying bill will solve many of the problems this amendment by the
distinguished Senator from California addresses, without spending such
an inordinate amount or settled amount on a single program.
Finally, the Labor Committee is undertaking reauthorization of the
ESEA this year. Let that committee do its job in a thoughtful and
reasonable way. That would be the place for the distinguished Senator
to make her case when that comes up, both in the Labor Committee and on
the floor.
I yield such time as he may need to the distinguished chairman of the
Labor Committee.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I agree very strongly with Senator Boxer's goal of increasing the
availability of positive, engaging activities for school-aged children
and youth during the nonschool hours. This is a very important issue
that cannot, and should not, be decided within the context of a floor
amendment on the juvenile justice legislation.
Even without this year's Elementary and Secondary Education Act
reauthorization, I would have reservations about this amendment. But we
do have the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization in
progress, and that is the time when this amendment, or something
similar to it, ought to be considered.

[[Page S5580]]

As the author of the original 21st Century Community Learning Centers
Act, I have an enormous interest in any changes to this legislation,
much less changes as dramatic as those proposed in this amendment.
When Congressman Steve Gunderson and I drafted the 21st Century
Learning Centers legislation, our purpose was to promote the broader
use of school facilities, equipment, and resources. Our largest
investment in education is for buildings and equipment, and in most
communities these resources are closed more than they are open.
By encouraging schools to share their facilities, equipment, and
other resources to meet the broader needs of the community, these
centers can expand educational and social service opportunities for
everyone in the community.
Until 2 years ago, the Clinton administration failed to support the
21st Century Community Learning Centers, even to the point of
repeatedly requesting that funds for the program appropriated by
Congress be rescinded.
Then, last year, the administration, through the competitive grants
process, substantially changed the focus and indeed, the very nature,
of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program. Overnight, this
initiative to expand the use of existing facilities became an
afterschool program, almost to the exclusion of the multi-purpose
community centers which were envisioned when I wrote the legislation.
This dramatic change in direction for the 21st Century Community
Learning Centers program raises questions which must be answered before
we can consider such a huge expansion of the program. We will be doing
that during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, which is now being considered in the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. We need to address questions
such as: Can the legislation still serve the purposes for which it was
originally intended, with the current, overwhelming focus on providing
afterschool programs? If it is to be an afterschool program, are there
changes needed in the legislation to make it more effective?
If this program is to serve primarily as an afterschool program,
where do community organizations such as the Boys and Girls Clubs,
YMCAs, fit in? Public schools currently provide less than one-third of
the afterschool care, with other community groups providing most of the
care.
The current grant program clearly demonstrates that schools are, by
and large, failing to coordinate their afterschool services with those
of other care providers in the community. And the Boxer amendment does
nothing but perpetuate that situation. The amendment by Senator Boxer
proposes changes that will eviscerate the act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time in opposition to the amendment has
expired.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you, I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the 1992 Carnegie Corporation report, ``A
Matter of Time,'' called for a major national investment in after-
school programs for youth. It said, ``Risk can be transformed into
opportunity for our youth by turning their non-school hours into the
time of their lives.''
But, we have not done enough to give children the kind of
opportunities they need after school. Just ask children if this is
true.
Amy, age 14, said ``Sometimes there are so many things you can't do.
I can't have company or leave the house. If I talk on the phone, I
can't let anyone know I'm here alone. But I really think they've
figured it out, you know.''
Cindy, age 16, said, ``We need someone to listen to us--really take
it in. I don't have anybody to talk to, so when I have a problem
inside, I just have to deal with it myself. I wish there would be more
adults that ask questions because that shows that they care and want to
know more.''
Each day, 5 million children, many as young as 8 or 9 years old, are
left home alone after school. Children unsupervised are more likely to
be involved in anti-social activities and destructive patterns of
behavior.
We also know that juvenile delinquent crime peaks in the hours
between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. A recent study of gang crimes by juvenviles
in Orange County, California, shows that 60 percent of all juvenile
gang crimes occur on school days and peak immediately after school
dismissal.
We need to do all we can to encourage communities to develop
activities that will engage children and keep them off the streets,
away from drugs, and out of trouble.
Crime survivors, law enforcement representatives, and prosecutors
have joined together in calling for a substantial federal investment in
after-school activities. Over 450 of the nation's leading police
chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, and leaders of local fraternal orders of
police, which represent over 360,000 police officers, have called upon
public officials to provide more after-school programs for school-age
children.
Clearly, financial assistance is needed for such activities in states
across the country. Too often, parents cannot afford the thousands of
dollars a year required to pay for after-school care, if it exists at
all. In Massachusetts, 4,000 eligible children are on waiting lists for
after-school care, and tens of thousands more have parents who have
given up on getting help. Nationwide, half a million eligible children
are on waiting lists for federal child care subsidies. The need for
increased opportunities is obvious and this amendment helps to meet it.
Senator Boxer's plan will triple the funds for the 21st Century
Community Learning Center initative so that more than 1 million
children each year will have access to safe and constructive after-
school activities. It also strengthens the current program by including
mentoring, academic assistance, and anti-drug, anti-alcohol, and anti-
gang activities as allowable uses of the funds.
Additional federal support is essential for communities across the
country. This year, the initiative was funded at $200 million. Over
2,000 applicants from across the country submitted proposals to the
U.S. Department of Education for that assistance--but only 184 new
grants could be funded. We must do more to meet the high demand for
after-school programs across the country.
Communities are working hard to provide these after-school activities
for children--but they can't do it alone. They want Uncle Sam to be a
strong partner in the effort.
Boston's 2:00-to-6:00 After-School Initiative was created in 1998 to
expand and enhance quality after-school programs across the city. It
has already succeeded in increasing the number of school-based after-
school programs by nearly 50 percent. A total of 43 programs now serve
over 2,000 students. This year, Mayor Menino has pledged to open 20
more school-based programs. Boston and communities like it throughout
the country deserve more assistance in meeting these needs.
Federal support under the 21st Century Community Learning Centers
program is helping to meet these needs. Last year, Boston received
$305,000 to help the Lewis Middle School and the Tobin Community Middle
School in Roxbury, and the Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School in
Dorchester to create after-school programs for children.
Springfield received $315,000 to expand their ``Time Out for
Communities'' initiative that is helping the Springfield Public Schools
to provide after-school programs to 15,000 students, in conjunction
with the Springfield Libraries and Museums, the YMCA, Springfield
College, and other organizations in the community.
Worcester received $3.6 million over 3 years to support ten community
centers that will serve 4,000 students and 5,000 community members. The
Worcester after-school program, called the ``Community Learning Centers
for Worcester's Children of Promise,'' will provide a wide range of
services, including academic support to help students meet state
academic standards; drug and violence prevention programs; information
on family health; day care for school-age children; tutoring and
mentoring; access to technology for students and their families; summer
activities; and adult education.
But much more needs to be done in Massachusetts and across the
country, if we are going to keep children safe and help them succeed in
school.
We know that after-school programs work. In Waco, Texas, students
participating in the Lighted Schools program

[[Page S5581]]

have demonstrated improvement in school attendance and decreases in
juvenile delinquent behavior over the course of the school year.
Juvenile crimes have dropped citywide by approximately 10 percent since
the program began.
The Baltimore City Police Department saw a 44 percent drop in the
risk of children becoming victims of crime after opening an after-
school program in a high-crime area. A study of the Goodnow Police
Athletic League center in Northeast Baltimore found that juvenile
arrests dropped by 10 percent, the number of armed robberies dropped
from 14 to 7, assaults with handguns were eliminated, and other
assaults decreased from 32 to 20 from 1995 to 1998.
In addition to improved youth behavior and safety, quality after-
school programs also lead to better academic achievement by students.
At the Beech Street School in Manchester, New Hampshire, the after-
school program has improved reading and math scores of students. In
reading, the percentage of students scoring at or above the basic level
increased from 4 percent in 1994 to one-third in 1997. In math, the
percentage of students scoring at the basic level increased from 29
percent to 60 percent. In addition, Manchester saved an estimated
$73,000 over three years because students participating in the after-
school program avoided being retained in grade or being placed in
special education.

One student in the Manchester program said, ``I used to hate math. It
was stupid. But when we started using geometry and trigonometry to
measure the trees and collect our data, I got pretty excited. Now I'm
trying harder in school.''
In Georgia, over 70 percent of students, parents, and teachers agreed
that children received helpful tutoring through The 3:00 Project, a
statewide network of after-school programs. Over 60 percent of
students, parents, and teachers agreed that children completed more of
their homework and the homework was better prepared because of their
participation in the program.
One 7th-grade student from Georgia said, ``I just used to hang out
after-school before coming to The 3:00 Project. Now I have something to
do and my school work has improved!''
In 1996, over half of the students who attended Chicago's summer
program raised their test scores enough to proceed in high school.
As Mayor Daley of Chicago said, ``Instead of locking youth up, we
need to unlock their potential. We need to bring them back to their
community and provide the guidance and support they need.''
We should do all we can to improve and expand after-school
opportunities--the nation's children deserve no less.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given an
additional minute to the 44 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friends.
Frankly, I am kind of surprised to see my friends on the Republican
side disagree so strongly with law enforcement in this country. There
is a reason we put this on the juvenile justice bill. It is because we
know that kids get into trouble after school. You do not need a degree
in criminology, psychology, or any other ``ology'' to understand that
is what is happening.
When I held crime meetings, town meetings, all throughout the State
of California, the one thing I can tell you the law enforcement people
told me--and that is why the National Sheriffs Association supports our
amendment--Senator, when we get them, it is too late. When we get them,
it is too late. Prevent the crime first.
It goes to the next chart.
Three o'clock, that is when it happens, folks. They get out of
school; they have no place to go; they get in trouble. I am stunned to
see the Senator from Vermont once again opposing this. This isn't a new
program; it is an expansion of the program that was started by
President Clinton. And guess what, I say to my friend. They can only
fund a minuscule proportion of the applications from the school
districts coming from all over the country.
What we would do in this amendment is allow those applications to be
funded. This is nothing new. This is nothing extraordinary. It is
expanding this program--the same program --to meet the incredible need.
I agree with law enforcement on this one: Keep our kids busy and
happy after school. We will see that crime rate go down.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the amendment.
Mr. CHAFEE. Let's vote.
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.

Amendment No. 364

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, am I correct, the first vote is the
Wellstone amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the first amendment that will be voted
on.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for
the yeas and nays, and I request at the same time that the following
two votes be 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Can I ask one question: Do we have a minute each, or
are we not doing that?
Mr. HATCH. We have been debating all night. We will be glad to have 2
minutes before each amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I just wanted to know. I prefer to have 1 minute to
summarize.
Mr. HATCH. Let me defer my motion to table and go for 2 minutes
equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. This amendment simply maintains the current core
protections in current law. It requires States to study and assess the
problem of disproportionate minority confinement. It does not require
quotas. It is not unconstitutional. It does not require States and
localities to release those in confinement.
This amendment is about fairness. It is about equal justice under the
law. This is a civil rights vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I think we have more than adequately answered the
arguments made by the distinguished presenter of this amendment. We
yield back the remainder of our time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the first vote be 15
minutes and that the succeeding two votes be 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table amendment No. 364. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 130 Leg.]

YEAS--52

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

NAYS--48

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu

[[Page S5582]]

Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 365

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). On the McConnell amendment,
there is 1 minute on each side.
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the amendment we are about to vote on
is very narrowly drafted to add one additional factor to those Federal
agencies that have subjective standards they apply prior to allowing
the shooting of a movie on Federal property.
The subject of the amendment is the making of movies on Federal
property and with federal assistance. There are at least three federal
entities--the Defense Department, NASA, and the Coast Guard--that
currently have quite subjective standards which they apply to the movie
industry when asked for permission to make a movie on Federal property
or with their cooperation and assistance.
All this amendment does is add one more factor--one, wanton and
gratuitous violence--to those standards. Bear in mind this amendment
has no first amendment implications at all. Any movie company that
wants to make a movie and do anything and say anything and depict
anything they want to can continue to do that. They just won't do it on
Federal property.
This is a mild amendment that sends a message to Hollywood.
I hope my colleagues will support it.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the problem with this, of course, is that
nobody, when they start out on a movie, knows exactly what form their
movie is going to be in in the end. Basically what you are saying is
somebody in the Department of Agriculture--for example, if you want to
do something on the eastern forest or have eastern forest in the
background--some bureaucrat in the Department of Agriculture has to
determine, before you even start filming the movie, what the final
edited copy of the movie will look like at the end before the decision
can be made. That person at the Department of Agriculture might do
dairy price supports one day and Block Buster Steven Spielberg movies
the next day.
I understand what my friend from Kentucky wants to do. But the best
way to censor violence in movies is don't go to violent movies. But
don't ask somebody at the Department of the Interior who does fishing
permits, for example, to determine whether a national forest can be
used as a background somewhere in a movie that has not yet been made.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to the amendment. This will be a 10-minute vote. On this
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 131 Leg.]

YEAS--66

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Edwards
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kyl
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Thomas
Thurmond
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--34

Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Boxer
Cleland
Daschle
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Hagel
Hollings
Inouye
Kerrey
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stevens
Thompson
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
The amendment (No. 365) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. ROBB. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 319

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is the Boxer amendment.
There are 2 minutes equally divided.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, all we do in this amendment is authorize
the amount of money we need to fill the need of all those local school
districts which have applied for afterschool programs. We know that at
3 o'clock--this is from the FBI--the crime rate goes up and it does not
go down until the parents come home from work. We know that afterschool
programs will prevent crime.
We also know the reason all these various law enforcement agencies
support this is that this is the way to stop crime from happening in
the first place.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we hope to cut down juvenile crime. What
better way to do it than to listen to law enforcement, including the
Police Athletic Leagues and the National Sheriffs Association, and so
many police chiefs who tell us: Senators, prevention is the name of the
game. Once the kids get into the system, we cannot turn them around.
If we will vote for this, we will authorize the appropriate amount of
money the local school districts are telling us meets the needs of 1.2
million children. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. This adds $3 billion to programs we already covered in our
prevention programs and does it in a way that has more Federal
intrusion.
I move to table the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table amendment No. 319.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced, yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 132 Leg.]

YEAS--53

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
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)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--47

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
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. ASHCROFT. 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. LOTT. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request I would
like to propound. First, obviously, we have had the last vote for the
night. I thank the managers of the bill for their diligent efforts. I
thank Senator Reid for his efforts, and Senator Ashcroft, and Senator
Frist, and Senator Harkin, and Senator Lautenberg, who

[[Page S5583]]

have all been willing to at least make concessions so that we can make
progress. Senator Daschle and I appreciate that. The consent we will
ask would provide for two amendments to be brought up in the morning,
and it would be the Gordon Smith/Jeffords amendment, followed by the
Lautenberg amendment, with a vote on both of those at 10:30. The
pending business is still the Harkin amendment, but we would intend at
that time to go to the supplemental bill. We are going to try to get a
2-hour time agreement on that. When that is over, we will be back where
we stood with the Frist-Ashcroft amendment. That summarizes the
agreement.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the
Gordon Smith/Jeffords amendment there be 60 minutes for debate, equally
divided in the usual form on the Gordon Smith amendment and amendment
No. 362, the Lautenberg amendment, to run concurrently beginning at
9:30 a.m. Thursday, and all other provisions of the consent agreement
of May 14 remain in place and the amendment be laid down tonight prior
to the close of Senate business.
I further ask consent that the vote occur on the Gordon Smith-
Jeffords amendment just prior to the vote on amendment 362, under the
same time restraints and provisions as provided above.
I further ask that the Senate resume amendment No. 355 immediately
following the disposition of amendment No. 362.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall
not object. That is with the understanding that the Senator from Iowa
is represented under the same circumstances as when we broke off, is
that correct?
Mr. LOTT. He still would have priority recognition under the
agreement and under the procedures anyway, but also under the agreement
that was included. Both sides of this issue don't want to lose their
positions. But this will allow us to do these two amendments and to do
the supplemental, and then that will be the pending issue. We know we
have to find a way to get to a conclusion.
I want to emphasize now that we will do the supplemental after those
first 2 votes.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object. Mr. Leader, would it be
possible for the unanimous consent request to be amended to reflect
that 15 minutes of the time on the Smith amendment be controlled by
Senator Schumer, that he take 5 minutes of the 15 minutes, and then the
remaining 10 minutes go to Senator Lautenberg?
Mr. LOTT. I think I got lost. Is it just a division of how the time
would go on your side?
Mr. REID. Yes. One of our Members wanted to control 15 minutes. He is
going to use 5 minutes of it and give the rest to Senator Lautenberg.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I amend that UC request to that effect,
based on the assurance of the intent given by the distinguished
Democratic whip. If it turns out that it is somehow or another not
fair, we will revisit that tomorrow. I change the UC to include that
request.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object, and I don't intend to
object, I want to indicate that this is about the fourth time we have
displaced this amendment, which I have been working on in conjunction
with Senator Frist. This amendment has been the pending business since
last Friday. This is not a novel amendment.
I just want to indicate that I intend to get a vote on this
amendment. Votes have been taken on amendments on both sides. The right
way to resolve any dispute on this amendment is to vote on it. I have
been ready to vote on this amendment for quite some time. I think
everyone on both sides of the aisle knows what the amendment is about.
I would just indicate that when this amendment comes back up I will
persist in expecting the same courtesy that this body has accorded all
other amendments to be accorded to this amendment, and I will work hard
to make sure we have an opportunity to vote on it.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I again express my appreciation to Senator
Ashcroft for his willingness to agree to this unanimous consent
tonight. He is right. He, Senator Frist, and Senator Harkin have agreed
to be put it aside. I think it will be the fourth time we wouldn't have
been able to get this agreement without their cooperation. I understand
their determination on both sides of the issue. I appreciate the fact
they were willing to agree to this.
Did we get an agreement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 366

(Purpose: To reverse provisions relating to pawn and other
gun transactions)
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of
Senators Smith of Oregon and Jeffords.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), for Mr. Smith of
Oregon, and Mr. Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 366.
At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . PROVISIONS RELATING TO PAWN AND OTHER GUN
TRANSACTIONS.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
repeal of paragraph (1) and amendment of paragraph (2) made
by subsection (c) with the heading ``Provision Relating to
Pawn and Other Transactions'' of section 4 of the title with
the heading ``General Firearms Provisions'' shall be null and
void.
(b) Compliance.--Except as to the State and local planning
and zoning requirements for a licensed premises as provided
in subparagraph (D), a special licensee shall be subject to
all the provisions of this chapter applicable to dealers,
including, but not limited to, the performance of an instant
background check.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

____________________