[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 16, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H4364-H4469]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            CONSEQUENCES FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). Pursuant to House Resolution 209 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 1501.

                              {time}  1218


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1501) to provide grants to ensure increased accountability for 
juvenile offenders, with Mr. Thornberry in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning in strong support of H.R. 1501, the 
Consequences of Juvenile Offenders Act of 1999. On a day when there may 
be more than occasional partisanship, I think it is important to note 
that the base text for our deliberations today and the base text for 
what we will probably be considering tomorrow and maybe even the next 
day is truly bipartisan.
  Indeed, all the members of the Subcommittee on Crime, Republican and 
Democrat alike, are original cosponsors of this bill, as are the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), the chairman and the ranking member of the full Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is the outcome of years of field 
hearings, committee hearings and earlier legislative efforts. It 
reflects the input of countless men and women who are daily in the 
trenches of juvenile justice around the country; the juvenile court 
judges, probation officers, prosecutors, police officers and educators 
who have the tremendous challenge of trying to make juvenile justice a 
reality by redirecting the lives of troubled youngsters into productive 
paths.
  Perhaps most importantly, this legislation responds directly and in a 
positive common sense way to the central question that we are all 
grappling with today. What can we do about youth and violence? How can 
we, as legislators, contribute to safer, healthier communities for our 
kids and our families?
  Our youth are America's finest resource. We have an obligation to 
protect this valuable national treasure. As a Congress, we may disagree 
on how to accomplish this objective. However, we are all focused on one 
thing. We must protect our young people.
  Mr. Chairman, the tragic events at Columbine High School on April 20 
have left us all asking tough questions, looking for real answers. The 
senseless suicidal rampage by those two teenagers leading to the brutal 
deaths of 12 of their classmates and one teacher cast a fearful shadow 
over our country.
  As a father of three sons, one of them a high school graduate only 
three weeks ago, my wife and I have known the weighty concerns of 
school violence and, sadly, I think we all know that the determined 
acts of individuals on a massacre and suicide mission are rarely 
preventable through even the best of laws.
  We have now learned that these two teenagers felt rejection by their 
peers, were filled with hatred and had been planning their violent 
massacre and suicide for a year. It seems to me that the key to 
preventing such tragedies is to foster and strengthen those values and 
convictions that make even contemplating such madness inconceivable.
  Yes, our Nation's laws do play a part in fostering such values, but I 
think the role our laws play in all of this pales in comparison to the 
combined roles of family, churches, civic institutions and the media. 
These are what truly shape the character of our youth.
  This very important point was eloquently made at the Subcommittee on 
Crime hearing last month by Darrell Scott, whose daughter Rachel was

[[Page H4365]]

killed in the Columbine shooting and whose son Craig was wounded there.
  Mr. Scott said, and I quote, no amount of gun laws can stop somebody 
who spends months planning this type of massacre.
  As we begin consideration of measures to better protect our children 
on the school grounds, playgrounds and the streets of America, and to 
stop the violent youth movement that seems to be going on in this 
country, we need to put our endeavors and the tragedy of Columbine in 
perspective. The vast majority of our teenagers are healthy, bright 
kids who have been instilled with basic values and in our great, free 
Nation will have the opportunity to have a good education and seek to 
achieve their highest aspirations.
  There are an alarming and growing number of disturbed and often 
rejected and isolated youth who are turning to violence, which is not 
only self-destructive but puts at risk all of our children. Our job is 
to understand the causes of this youth violence, and while recognizing 
their limits use our laws in a constructive manner to help our families 
and communities identify and redirect these disturbed teenagers before 
they engage in some violent and tragic act.
  Mr. Chairman, since the tragedy at Columbine, many have focused 
almost exclusively on restricting teenagers' access to guns and gun 
control. I share virtually everyone's belief that no child should have 
access to a gun. No doubt, some of our gun laws are too lax and 
loopholes need to be closed, and we will properly address these matters 
in the next day or two.
  It is also true that gun laws already on the books have not been 
adequately enforced by the Justice Department, but youth violence is 
about a whole lot more than gun issues and we do a disservice to the 
American public and our children if we fail to recognize and address 
the more fundamental underlying causes of teenage violence.
  Lack of proper parental attention, lack of discipline and 
overcrowding in our schools, exposure to repetitive, extreme violence 
on television, in the movies, in video games and over the Internet, and 
a broken juvenile justice system are among the root causes of this 
epidemic of juvenile violence.
  Of all of these, the one that by legislation we can have the most 
impact on is repairing our Nation's broken juvenile justice system, 
which is the subject of the base text of H.R. 1501; and yet all of the 
debate, since Littleton, in all of this time, this bipartisan product 
which sociologists and expert after expert have told us is one of the 
most crucial and important steps that we can take to protect America's 
children, has gone virtually unnoticed.
  In most of our urban and suburban communities today first-time 
teenage vandalism goes unpunished. Police who catch kids slashing 
tires, key scratching cars or spray painting graffiti on warehouse 
walls often do not even take these kids before juvenile authorities 
because they do not expect that they will receive any 
meaningful punishment. This is so because our juvenile courts around 
the Nation are overworked and understaffed. There simply are not enough 
juvenile judges, probationary officers, diversion programs and 
detention facilities.

  Most of our juvenile courts are focused principally on repeat 
offenders and the very bad. As a result, the kids do not get the 
messages that there are any consequences for their criminal acts. These 
kids do not get disciplined at home or in the school or in the juvenile 
justice system.
  Juvenile judges, probation officers, police officers, educators and 
sociologists have all told the Subcommittee on Crime again and again 
that kids who receive little or no consequences for their misbehavior 
are far more likely candidates for teenage violence as they get older.
  H.R. 1501 addresses this problem. It establishes a grant program over 
3 years to provide much needed resources to State and local juvenile 
justice systems to help them do more to focus on the youthful first-
time offender. It goes to the States based upon their population and 
their rate of juvenile crime. They can use this money any way they see 
fit to improve their juvenile justice systems, including hiring more 
judges or probation officers or creating more diversion programs or 
building more juvenile detention facilities, or providing more safety 
measures in schools.
  It ties these additional resources to graduated sanctions, an 
approach that seeks to ensure meaningful proportional consequences for 
juvenile wrongdoing, starting with the first offense and intensifying 
with each subsequent, more serious offense. Each State's funding would 
be based on its juvenile population.
  I want to make this point very clearly. There is only one condition 
that States must meet in order to receive the funds under this program, 
and that is to establish a system of graduating sanctions. The system 
must ensure that sanctions are imposed on juvenile offenders for the 
very first offense, starting with the first misdemeanor, and that 
sanctions escalate in intensity with each subsequent, more serious 
delinquent offense.
  Common sense and research both make it clear that ensuring early 
appropriate sanctions for wrongdoing is the best way to direct 
youngsters away from a life of crime and into a life of productive 
citizenship.
  At the same time, the bill calls for graduated sanctions. It provides 
flexibility. It ensures that a court's disposition is tailored to the 
individual juvenile. It allows for the imposition of graduated 
sanctions to be discretionary. That is, a State or locality can still 
qualify even if its system of graduated sanctions allows juvenile 
courts to opt out. The bill simply provides that when there are such 
opt-outs a record must be sent at the end of the year explaining why a 
sanction was not imposed. This is working well in certain States and 
localities and is not an undue burden.
  The juvenile justice systems of the Nation are principally a State 
responsibility. The Federal Government cannot begin to adequately fund 
these long neglected programs, but we can provide the seed money in the 
incentive grants in H.R. 1501 that will hopefully stimulate all 50 
States to repair their broken juvenile justice systems. There is 
nothing more important to addressing the question of child safety and 
youth violence that we can do today than to pass this bill.

                              {time}  1230

  I am convinced that whatever else we do in the next couple of days, 
it will pale in comparison to the significance of enacting this base 
bipartisan bill that was drafted long before Littleton.
  Holding youth accountable for their acts, giving them consequences, 
is the best prevention possible that we as legislators can enact to 
stop the flood of youth violence and restore a safe environment for our 
children in our schools, on the playgrounds, and on our streets.
  Mr. Chairman, meaningful juvenile justice reform is within our reach. 
Our young people deserve nothing less.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply disappointed to see the 
abandonment of bipartisanship with reference to the juvenile justice 
legislation, that we abandon the orderly process to pursue legislation 
by ambush, and abandon our commitment to the American people, and 
follow instead the lead of special interests.
  Now, how do we know the Republican majority has played politics with 
juvenile justice? They now advocate policies that, just weeks ago, they 
even acknowledged lack merit. In March, the Subcommittee on Crime 
chairman stated, ``Taking consequences seriously is not a call for 
locking all juveniles up, nor does it imply the housing of juveniles, 
even violent hardened juveniles, with adults. I for one am opposed to 
such commingling.''
  Yet, today, the majority is pushing legislation which tries more 
children as adults, houses more juveniles as adults, imposes a whole 
slew of new mandatory minimum penalties, and, yes, the death penalty 
that Republicans shunned only a month ago and which clearly will not 
work.
  What is really extraordinary about these proposals is just how 
meaningless they are. There are fewer than 150 prosecutions in the 
Federal system each

[[Page H4366]]

year, and such changes are likely to affect only a small percentage of 
these cases.
  So these proposals do not represent serious attempts at legislation. 
Rather, they are a transparent attempt to legislate by sound bite and 
kill a bill that they themselves only recently agreed was the best 
approach to juvenile justice.
  Housing juveniles in adult prison facilities means more kids likely 
to commit suicide, to be murdered, physically or sexually abused, than 
their counterparts in juvenile facilities. As a matter of fact, 
children in adult jails or prison have been shown to be 5 times more 
likely to be assaulted and 8 times more likely to commit suicide than 
children in juvenile facilities.
  So the repeated studies of prosecuting juveniles as adults indicate 
that rather than serving as a deterrent to juvenile crime, prosecuting 
more juveniles as adults merely leads to greater and more serious 
recidivism.
  If we are truly interested in juvenile justice reform, we must begin 
by rejecting unprincipled amendments allowed by the rule that would cut 
the heart out of this bill and stick to the principles of H.R. 1501. 
This was the bill produced by a bipartisan process, unanimously 
approved by the Subcommittee on Crime.
  In the wake of the recent school tragedies in Littleton, Colorado, 
Conyers, Georgia, and other places, the American people now deserve and 
expect reform. We cannot and should not allow false arguments about 
getting tough on crime and prosecuting juveniles as adults to prevent 
us from achieving these important goals.
  Let us carefully review and reject most of these amendments that will 
send us further backwards instead of moving us forward as the American 
people would wish.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, if I might, I want to make sure it is very clear that 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), despite his criticism and 
concern about pending amendments, he does and has all along supported 
this underlying bill, H.R. 1501, that is out here right now, unamended. 
Am I not correct?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, he is 
absolutely correct. We support H.R. 1501. But we have never had 
hearings on any of the other accompanying amendments.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just wanted to make 
the point again that we start today with a very bipartisan product that 
Democrats, Republicans alike, support on juvenile justice.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just think it is sort of ironic that the very ones 
that wanted us to come straight from the Senate with a bill to the 
floor with no consideration are now complaining because there was not 
enough consideration.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the truth will make us free if 
we admit what the truth is. Every once in a while, I read something or 
hear something that blows away all that smoke that clouds a particular 
issue. A letter written by a Mr. Addison Dawson to the San Angelo 
Standard-Times is just such a statement. In fact, after I make this 
statement, I do not think anybody else needs to speak. We just need to 
vote.
  The following is Mr. Dawson's letter, which Paul Harvey read on his 
radio show: ``For the life of me, I can't understand what could have 
gone wrong in Littleton, Colorado. If only the parents had kept their 
children away from the guns, we wouldn't have had such a tragedy. Yeah, 
it must have been the guns.
  ``It couldn't have been because half our children are being raised in 
broken homes. It couldn't have been because our children get to spend 
an average of 30 seconds in meaningful conversation with their parents 
each day.
  ``After all, we give our children quality time. It couldn't have been 
because we treat our children as pets and our pets as children.
  ``It couldn't have been because we place our children in day care 
centers where they learn their socialization skills among their peers 
under the law of the jungle, while employees who have no vested 
interest in the children look on and make sure that no blood is 
spilled.
  It couldn't have been because we allow our children to watch, on 
average, 7 hours of television a day filled with the glorification of 
sex and violence that isn't even fit for adult consumption.
  ``It couldn't have been because we allow (or even encourage) our 
children to enter into virtual worlds in which, to win the game, one 
must kill as many opponents as possible in the most sadistic way 
possible.
  ``It couldn't have been because we have sterilized and contracepted 
our families down to sizes so small that the children we do have are so 
spoiled with material things that they come to equate the receiving of 
the material with love.
  ``It couldn't have been because our children, who historically have 
been seen as a blessing from God, are now being viewed as either a 
mistake created when contraception fails or inconveniences that parents 
try to raise in their spare time. It couldn't have been because we give 
2-year prison sentences to teenagers who kill their newborns.
  ``It couldn't have been because our school systems teach the children 
that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of 
some primordial soup of mud.
  ``It couldn't have been because we teach our children that there are 
no laws of morality that transcend us, that everything is relative and 
that actions do not have consequences. What the heck, the President 
gets away with it.
  ``Nah, it must have been the guns.''
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the senior member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this has been a hard bill 
to follow because the majority has been kind of playing a legislative 
shell game. We started with this bill and that bill, and this bill 
became part of that bill, and that bill went into that bill, and this 
amendment was pulled out to be offered by a Member who might have a 
little political difficulty.
  So I am not familiar with everything that is in here. But after 
listening to the majority whip, I have to read it more closely, because 
I may have missed the part in which we ban the teaching of evolution.
  I know we have had a lot of discussion of what was causing the 
problems here, but I just heard the majority whip say it was Charles 
Darwin's fault. It is apparently evolution. It is teaching children 
that they are the products of evolution that is the cause of this.
  So I will have to watch more carefully for the amendments when we get 
the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority 
whip, correcting the teaching of evolution.
  I have to say, as I listened to him, I have not heard such an angry 
denunciation of the American people since SDS used to pick at me 30 
years ago. I guess there is a degree of anti-Americanism here that I 
had not anticipated. It is the American people's fault. They are 
involved in family planning. They are teaching evolution. They are 
doing all these things.
  Plus, I guess somebody ought to arise to defend the States. The 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) said the States' juvenile justice 
is broken down. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is mad at the 
States. The poor States. I guess the States rights movement we should 
officially inter today.
  What we have today is an announcement. Hey, States, you do not know 
to handle your local criminal business. We, the all-knowing Congress, 
will take care of it. So we will abolish the teaching of evolution, and 
we will diminish States rights, and we will solve the problem.
  I guess I wished they had stopped at that, though, because I am now 
looking at the amendment that has been made in order by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the committee, and I must say 
I am impressed by the gentleman's discretion. I have not seen him here 
all morning. I am not surprised that he does not want to be associated 
with all of this.
  But the gentleman's amendment, I was going to ask, Mr. Chairman, if 
we

[[Page H4367]]

could have the debate on the Hyde amendment after 10 o'clock tonight. I 
know we are going to be in late. As I read this amendment, I do not 
think it is a fit subject to be discussing when children are listening. 
There are some graphic physical descriptions here of the human body 
that I do not know that we will want to talk about.
  I must say, I think if anybody simply read this bill on the floor of 
the House during family viewing hours, if it were not for our 
constitutional immunity of which we have really heard, he or she could 
be in trouble. But I have some problems.
  It does say that one cannot show, for instance, and it includes 
sculpture. One cannot show sculpture of the breast below the top of the 
nipple. I have seen some statues which I think do that. Now, it says 
one cannot show them to a minor. So I guess we are going to start 
having 17 or over only into sculpture gardens.
  One cannot show other physical parts. I suppose old enough statues to 
have parts broken off may be okay. But intact statues are probably 
going to be a problem. We are discriminating against modern sculptures 
because one can only show these kids a statue that has fallen apart.
  It says one cannot show to someone under 17 a narrative description 
of sexual activity. I guess Mr. Starr may be in trouble. I do not know 
about his prosecutorial immunity. But as I read the Hyde amendment, we 
will have to stop selling the Starr report.
  Now, it does say it is okay to sell it if it has serious literary, 
artistic, political, or scientific value. I guess in the case of the 
Starr report, people thought it was going to have some political value 
for their side. It turned out not to have any.
  But if someone under 17 read that because of his or her prurient, 
shameful, or morbid interest, so now we are outlawing shameful 
interest, it is not shown. I mean, this is really very, very serious.
  The problem is this, the original version of this sweeping censorship 
was introduced on June 8. No unit of the House Committee on the 
Judiciary has been able to vote on it, to amend it, to study it. We 
now, 8 days later, have a new version. I think it is about the third 
version.
  We are no longer going to mandate that every seller of recorded music 
in America give out copies of the lyrics. Congress is only going to 
recommend this to every retailer in America in our infinite wisdom and 
disregard for local autonomy.

                              {time}  1245

  I do not think we understand this fully. This is a broad assault on 
the first amendment. We cannot show in here, for instance, physical 
contact with a person's clothed buttocks. So all those pats of 
congratulations in athletic contests I guess we will have to avert the 
cameras for. Now, maybe that is not true, but there is nothing in here 
that says it is not.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the political bind the other side is in, 
but to use the first amendment to get out of it on 8 days notice is 
very inappropriate.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I also want to thank the chairman for working with me in this 
last year and including the Schoolyard Safety Act in the outlines of 
this bill.
  After the shooting in Springfield, Oregon, the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio) and I teamed up to introduce this legislation, the 
Schoolyard Safety Act, which provides a 24-hour holding period for 
students who bring guns to school.
  In my State, these students are automatically expelled, but the 
Schoolyard Safety Act would also require that they be detained. This 
holding period is incredibly important. It provides for the protection 
and the safety of both our children in the classroom and relatives at 
home who might be targets of the student's anger, as happened in the 
Springfield, Oregon, shooting. It also provides an intervention for 
those juveniles who bring a gun to school but who may need mental 
health treatment or counseling.
  Yesterday, I had a visit from some very special women in my district. 
They belong to a group called Mothers Against Violence in America. 
There was a young woman and her mother in this group. The young woman, 
Rachel, was shot at Garfield High School in Seattle, Washington. The 
other mothers who came to my office had lost sons or daughters in 
school shootings, including one mother whose son was killed in the 
school shooting in Moses Lake, Washington. And these women are the 
reason that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and I introduced 
the Schoolyard Safety Act and why I worked so hard to get this 24-hour 
holding provision into the juvenile justice bill.
  In addition to this effort at the Federal level, the State of 
Washington recently passed a new law requiring a 24-hour holding period 
for young people who bring guns on to school grounds. I simply in this 
colloquy, Mr. Chairman, want to thank the chairman and clarify this new 
Washington State law will be consistent with the provisions that are 
included in this bill.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DUNN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly say that they are 
consistent. The gentlewoman has done admirable service in providing the 
base legislation of what she has just described, and that under the 
various purposes that a State or local community is allowed to use the 
grant money in 1501 to improve the juvenile justice system, those 
purposes would include those which she has described in her 
legislation. They would be included particularly under the 13th 
provision in the present bill.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those assurances.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Barcia).
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, my colleague from 
Michigan and the ranking member, for yielding me this time.
  I am pleased to see the level of interest in juvenile justice on this 
floor today. I strongly support these efforts to address the increasing 
problems of youth violence. With an estimated 1500 gangs and 120,000 
gang members, juvenile crime is a genuine concern and it is critical 
that the Congress address this issue.
  For a number of years, we have supported providing funds to the Boys 
and Girls Clubs of America, which have been so instrumental in keeping 
kids off the streets and out of trouble. Since 1995, $95 million has 
been provided by Congress to help expand the program to reach as many 
children as possible. And I am proud to say that much of this money 
came about because we in the Congress fought for it. We did put our 
money where our mouth is.
  I would like to especially thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and members 
of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary of the 
Committee on Appropriations who not only supported these funds but 
fought to increase the amount we provide to this incredibly successful 
program.
  As a result of our support, and through the dedicated efforts of 
Robbie Calloway, Senior Vice President for the Boys and Girls Clubs of 
America, four new clubs have opened each week for the past 3 years, and 
an additional 200,000 young people were served each year.
  Certainly we all know that young people need meaningful and caring 
guidance. They need to find outlets that help insulate them from 
inappropriate peer pressure, while at the same time work to change the 
culture that results in that inappropriate peer pressure. Programs like 
the Boys and Girls Clubs have made a difference, and we can do much 
more if we help them.
  Some of my colleagues have worked with me on this issue in the past, 
and I welcome all of those others who join us today in a constructive 
effort to be sure that our young people have the right opportunities to 
be productive individuals.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rogan), a member of the committee.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Crime for yielding this time to me.

[[Page H4368]]

  Mr. Chairman, the halls of Congress are hallowed. The men and women 
who preceded us left a legislative heritage for the ages: landmark 
civil rights legislation, education reform bills, declarations of war 
and of peace. Often these bills opened doors paving the way for great 
change in our country. Today, we come together knowing that our work on 
juvenile justice may well save lives in the future, but it regrettably 
cannot change the outcome of recent tragedies in our Nation's schools.
  While the wounds inflicted in Littleton and Conyers still leave us 
reeling, we can do something now. We can join together with schools, 
churches, parents and students to work to prevent similar tragedies 
from ever again occurring. As we move forward this morning, I echo the 
sentiments of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, who 
yesterday reminded us that our legislative focus must be to protect our 
Nation's students now and in the future.
  Young people today are required to work harder and learn faster. They 
grapple with more than we ever did at their age, yet they still make 
time for their faith, their families and their neighborhoods. The 
isolated tragic headlines aside, young people give us hope. Today, 
Congress is called upon to act in their name.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to join with the distinguished chairman of 
the full Committee on the Judiciary, and the distinguished chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Crime to support this important legislation.
  H.R. 1501 will attack the problem of youth violence at the source. 
This bill will send the resources of the Federal Government directly to 
State and local officials and bypass unnecessary bureaucracies. This 
legislation will empower local officials to hire more prosecutors, more 
counselors and more intervention experts. It will provide for 
additional law enforcement training, drug rehabilitation programs, and 
innovative school safety programs. This legislation will also provide 
resources for correctional facilities.
  Mr. Chairman, for 10 years I was a prosecutor and a judge in Los 
Angeles County. I saw more often than I prefer to recall the effects of 
violence in the home, in the schools and on our streets. It is right to 
punish criminals swiftly and severely to send a message that this 
violence will not be tolerated. But we must not stop there.
  We must attack youth violence from all fronts. One of the best ways 
we can do this is at the local level. ``Band-Aid'' Federal bureaucratic 
policies are worth little when violence infects a local community. H.R. 
1501 gives local experts the tools to ensure safe schools and safe 
communities.
  Communities are working together to beat the problem of drugs and 
gangs and violence. I have seen local programs that give me hope, from 
the Hillsides Home in Pasadena to the after-school programs at the 
Burbank YMCA in my district. Neighborhoods are teaming with schools and 
teachers who work with students to ensure that they appreciate the 
effects of antisocial behavior before it escalates into tragedy. This 
proposed legislation empowers these programs and will give State and 
local programs new weapons in their violence prevention arsenals.
  Mr. Chairman, the Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act received 
broad bipartisan support in committee and is supported by families 
across this country. I support it as a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, as a Member of Congress, but most importantly I support it 
as the father of two young children. I look forward to seeing this bill 
make its way to the President's desk. I urge my colleagues to join us 
today to support this landmark legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the subcommittee, who is 
the coauthor of the underlying bill, H.R. 1501.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that 1501 was 
actually cosponsored by all of the members of the subcommittee, both 
Democratic and Republican, and it came through a deliberative process.
  We had hearings and discussions about what needed to be done to 
reduce juvenile crime. We had hearings, and in one hearing judges and 
advocates and researchers pointed out that graduated sanctions would be 
very helpful to judges in helping with the reducing of juvenile crime.
  What they said was that many judges are relegated to a choice between 
incarceration and probation with very little in between, and what they 
needed were other services and punishments that could be 
individualized. In the bill it says that drug rehabilitation and 
counseling and community services and other punishments could be used 
and funded through this bill, and that the punishment or additional 
services had to be individualized for the particular child. That is the 
bill. That is what went through the regular order of hearings and 
subcommittee markup, and it was unanimously adopted.
  Now look at where we are. We are considering additional amendments 
that did not go through the regular process. And the reason they could 
not have made it through the regular process is they could not have 
withstood scrutiny.
  Look at the idea that we are going to try more juveniles as adults. 
That is in one of the amendments. It ignores the studies. We have many 
studies that show that the adult time that they would get in adult 
court would actually be shorter than the juvenile time. All of the 
studies show that the crime rate will go up if we treat for juveniles 
as adults. We could not have gone through a regular process with that, 
because it would have been defeated in the committee. But if we are out 
here just slinging sound bites at each other, then obviously there is a 
chance of getting that provision through.
  Like mandatory minimums. We could not get that through a regular 
process because we would have to defend against the studies, like the 
RAND study that showed that mandatory minimums are a waste of the 
taxpayers' money. There is a lot we can do with the taxpayers' money 
other than mandatory minimums if our goal is to reduce crime. Also, 
that attacks the very foundation of what we heard in subcommittee, and 
that is that the punishment must be individualized to the particular 
child. Mandatory minimum is a one-size-fits-all. This is what everybody 
gets regardless of the particular needs.
  Then we add on to that all the constitutional amendments posing as 
amendments to a bill that have significant speech and religious 
implications. None of those received deliberation.
  We ought not consider this kind of legislation; sound bites going 
back and forth without any deliberation. We started out and ought to go 
back to the original bill, 1501, and after that the bipartisan bill 
that was reported out of the education subcommittee, 1150, and stick 
with those rather than this process that is totally out of control.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on 
each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has 10 
minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 
15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 
the past chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), our ranking member, and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) for the tremendous work they did in the Committee 
on the Judiciary on H.R. 1501 to really put forth before this House a 
real bill to deal with the problems of young people and the juvenile 
justice system.
  Unfortunately, it is now all threatened because there is some attempt 
to try and divert people's attention away from the gun safety issue and 
to literally take this piece of legislation and pile on it everybody's 
wild thoughts about every issue that they have been concerned about, I 
guess, all of their lives.
  We have people who would destroy the Constitution by piling on here 
all kinds of amendments that will undermine our first amendment rights. 
We have people who have decided they are going to take this bill and 
force the Ten Commandments to be posted somewhere. We have every kind 
of thought in over 40 amendments piled on top of this bill that will 
simply destroy the bill.

[[Page H4369]]

                              {time}  1300

  The American public and families want some assistance. They want some 
help. We can do a better job of crime prevention. And we do not need to 
do it with these kinds of outrageous amendments, nor do we need to talk 
about locking up young people and killing them with mandatory minimum 
sentencing. I think we are better public policymakers than that and we 
can do a better job.
  I think the New York Times got it right when it said, ``Republican 
mischief on gun control.'' What they basically describe is how they 
have undermined the system of this House and how they have confused 
everybody, divided these bills, taken a good bill and destroyed it, and 
they are attempting to do the work of the NRA with a second bill where 
they will water down what was done on the Senate side.
  This is outrageous. We should not have to put up with it. We should 
not destroy the work of the committee that was done in order to have a 
good juvenile justice bill. And we need to stop it right now. We need 
to stop it. We need to take the juvenile justice bill that was heard in 
committee and hear it and pass it out without all of these amendments, 
and then we need to deal with the gun safety legislation coming from 
the Senate side and vote it up or down.
  I am absolutely outraged by the idea that mandatory minimum 
sentencing for 13- or 14-year-olds in this bill would create not only 
new Federal crimes but simply take away the discretion of judges, lock 
up kids 14 years old, put them in the Federal system, create more 
people in our prisons, and do nothing to reduce crime.
  We know what mandatory minimum sentencing is doing. It is simply 
filling up the prisons and throwing away America's youth. We can do 
better than this. This is outrageous. Please do not let them get away 
with this.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to 
focus on what we are trying to do here on behalf of America's children.
  So many of us have gathered around these issues in our capacity as 
members of the Committee on the Judiciary, members of organizations 
that promote children's issues. I work with Members who are interested 
in children's issues on a national level, Members of Congress who have 
joined together in the Congressional Children's Caucus.
  Just a week ago, many of us spent time with Mrs. Tipper Gore, with 
individuals from around this Nation, in the first ever in the history 
of this Nation's White House Conference on Mental Health. I co-chaired 
the meeting section that dealt with children's mental health.
  It was clear there by experts from around the Nation that there were 
other ways to address the concerns of our troubled youth throughout 
this country. I was gratified that, even before that conference and the 
wisdom of Mrs. Gore, the excellence of that conference, the focus on 
children, the deliberation around children and providing resources to 
listen to children, as was told to many of us who engaged our young 
people in our districts, went to the schools, that we had to do 
something other than locking children up.
  We know the tragedy of Eric Harris and his associate and the tragedy 
of Columbine. But we also know the tragedy of killing young people in 
our urban centers for years and years. And clearly, we find out that 
trying juveniles as adults will suggest not a decrease in crime but an 
increase in crime. It endangers kids. It federalizes State juvenile 
offenses.
  When we went through the committee process, it was very clear that 
the myriad of studies and witnesses on H.R. 1501 told us that locking 
up juveniles in Federal penitentiaries was not the way to solve the 
problem. They are subject to rape and abuse. It is tragic.
  I thought that we had a meeting of the minds that would focus us on 
prevention programs like athletics and mentoring programs, job 
training, community-based activities such as the Fifth Ward Enrichment 
Program that takes children out of inner-city Houston and gives them an 
opportunity, inasmuch as they will be traveling to Africa this summer, 
giving them an incentive to be something else.
  I thought that we had focused ourselves on mental health resources, 
guidance counselors, school nurses, and individuals who are available 
to listen to children, hot lines. I thought that we could work on the 
study by the Surgeon General to determine whether or not our children 
are torpedoed with violent entertainment and so we could come up with 
reliable solutions. I thought that we would understand, as we had done 
before, that prisons, Federal prisons, and juveniles do not work.
  Unfortunately, we have an amendment offered by the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Crime, with whom I have worked and who I have respect 
for, that takes all of our opportunity to solve these problems, deal 
with violence and guns, and particularly this 1501, away from us. It 
locks up our juveniles. It throws away the key. And it does not focus 
us on rehabilitation and preventive programs.
  I rise here today to speak in support of the Juvenile Justice bill, 
H.R. 1501, the Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act of 1999. This 
bill was a bipartisan effort in the Judiciary Committee. I am a 
cosponsor of this bill, which passed unanimously out of the 
Subcommittee on Crime.
  H.R. 1501 offers a balanced approach that encompasses both punishment 
and prevention of juvenile offenders. We must enact stiff penalties for 
repeat violent offenders, but we must not forget the needs of other 
youth who can be rehabilitated through means other than punishment.
  I am a strong supporter of prevention programs for young people who 
are risk. I believe that these programs--after school athletics, 
mentoring programs, job training, community-based activities and mental 
health services are vital to keeping children away from crime.
  There is strong evidence to support that prevention programs work. 
Athletic programs prepare young people for success in life through 
encouraging teamwork, leadership and personal development. Mentoring 
programs pair young people with adults who work to encourage 
individuals to develop to their fullest potential.
  Job training programs instill responsibility and encourage a strong 
work ethic. Community-based activities encourage respect for others and 
the local environment.
  Each of these prevention methods provide alternatives to criminal 
activity. If young people are taught to respect themselves and their 
communities, they are less likely to get involved in violent behavior.
  I am particularly interested in providing more mental health services 
for children. Mental health programs that screen, detect and treat 
disorders are crucial to preventing children from ending up in the 
juvenile justice system. Almost 60% of teenagers in juvenile detention 
have behavioral, mental or emotional disorders.
  It is estimated that two-thirds of all young people are not getting 
the mental health treatment they need. There are 13.7 million or 20% of 
America's children with diagnosable mental or emotional disorder. These 
disorders range from attention deficit disorder and depression to 
bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.
  We also need to put mental health professionals in the schools--
counselors, psychologists and social workers that can help recognize 
the needs before it is too late. I am currently working on a bill that 
will place mental health services in the schools. By making these 
services available in the schools, we can spot mental health issues in 
children early before we have escalated incidents in the schools.
  Each of these methods of prevention provides alternatives to simply 
warehousing juveniles in prison. Again, we clearly want to send a 
message to America that we want to develop productive, responsible 
citizens. Young people who commit violent crime must be punished, but 
we must do our part to make crime unattractive.
  Given the recent violent incidences in Littleton, Colorado and 
Conyers, Georgia, the time could not be more urgent for this Congress 
to pass this legislation.
  This debate should be centered on how we can save our children from 
violence and from committing violent acts. This legislation is a first 
step in that direction.
  This first step gives us the chance to offer some solutions for 
preventing crime. It also enables us to articulate punishments for 
violent offenders. But, alone this bill is not enough. We also need to 
adopt provisions that will address the issue of guns in the hands of 
our children and the effect of our popular culture.
  I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. As I stated 
earlier, I was an original

[[Page H4370]]

cosponsor of this legislation in the Subcommittee on Crime. It is 
unfortunate that we were unable to present this bill through the proper 
Committee channels, namely through a markup.
  However, we must use this opportunity to pass meaningful Juvenile 
Justice legislation. We cannot afford to waste this opportunity. If we 
do, it could be a matter of life and death for our children.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), a distinguished member of the committee.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time. I want to express my deep appreciation to him for his 
leadership on this very, very important issue.
  Before I go into the substance of the legislation, I want to respond 
first of all to the gentlewoman from California who put out the idea 
that, under this legislation, there is going to be mandatory minimums 
for 13- and 14-year-olds that are going to go to prison. And the 
gentlewoman from Texas raised, basically, the same argument that we 
cannot lock up juveniles.
  And, of course, that is not in the base bill that we are speaking of 
today, but it will be offered later on in an amendment. But that 
amendment, which the chairman certainly can address more appropriately 
than me, it requires before there is any prosecution of a juvenile in 
the Federal system that the Attorney General of the United States has 
to approve that.
  I believe, whether it is Attorney General Janet Reno or another 
attorney general, that they would use their discretion very carefully 
so that, in the normal case where we have got a delinquent juvenile, 
that they are going to be handled in the juvenile court system, as they 
always have been.
  So I think we have to be careful in this debate not to go down that 
path of fear of just putting out that we are going to be locking up 
juveniles, because that is not the design of this.
  We are getting ahead of ourselves in this debate. We need to come 
back to the accountability block grant proposal that is in H.R. 1501. 
There are going to be a number of amendments that are going to be 
offered down the road. In fact, I had my staff put together the whole 
stack of them. It is going to be a fair debate. The Democrats offered 
amendments. The Republicans offered amendments.
  The will of this House will work, just like we did in campaign 
finance reform, when there were over 200 amendments offered. I believe 
that is how democracy works, and we will be able to work that through 
the will of this House with what I believe will be a very good product. 
If people do not like an amendment, they get to vote against it. If it 
is something that is good, they get to vote for it.
  Now let us come back to what is very, very important; and that is 
what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has prepared for us in 
this bill, the juvenile accountability block grant proposal.
  First of all, it deals with the serious problem of violent juvenile 
crime. It gives the flexibility to the States to address this issue. It 
gives resources to them. We all want to deal with the problem of 
violence, as we saw in Columbine High School in Colorado.
  One of the problems, I think, about that difficult circumstance of 
the probation officer who had these young people to deal with who were 
errant, who were a problem and they ultimately resorted to violence, if 
that person perhaps had had more resources, less of a caseload, perhaps 
he could have done more.
  What this bill does is to provide $1.5 billion in grant money so the 
States can apply for that money. They can apply what works in their 
jurisdiction. It gives them creativity. It gives them flexibility. It 
gives them resources so they can deal with the juveniles, not by 
sending them to prison, locking them up, but by having accountability 
in the juvenile court system. And accountability is important.
  I went to a county, Washington County, Arkansas, and talked to the 
juvenile delinquents who were actually incarcerated there; and it was 
clear to me in talking to them that what caught their attention was 
whenever they knew they could not manipulate the system anymore. And 
so, whenever they are held accountable, it makes a difference and they 
start getting their lives straightened out.
  I look at this bill that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) 
has authored and it says that one criteria for getting this grant money 
is that we have a system of graduated sanctions. And I read the bill 
and it says that the States should ensure that the sanctions are 
imposed on juvenile offenders for every offence. That is right, that 
sanctions escalate in intensity with each subsequent, more serious 
delinquent or criminal offence.
  That is the way it should be. When we deal with our teenagers, we 
have one offence. If they do it again, it is a stronger offence. And 
that is exactly what this block grant program will encourage the States 
to do. It is a terrific start to dealing with the culture of violence, 
the difficulty that our teenagers face day in and day out. But again, 
it does give them the flexibility in each State to address the programs 
as they see fit.
  If my colleagues look in Arkansas, it dramatizes the seriousness of 
this problem. In 1998, almost 10 percent of all criminal arrests in 
Arkansas were juveniles. But what is even more frightening, when we 
compare that 10 percent of all arrests for juveniles, 24 percent of the 
arrests for violent crime, including murder, rape and aggravated 
assault, were juveniles. Twenty-four percent of violent crime in my 
State was committed by juveniles.
  And for that reason, this bill, this block grant program, gives 
Arkansas, gives New York, the authority to tailor the programs, to have 
the resources to address this. This is a staggering problem that needs 
to be addressed, and this legislation will do this.
  I will later on offer an amendment that will provide restorative 
justice programs for these juveniles, and I ask my colleagues to 
consider this as well.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1501. I cosponsored this 
legislation because I believe that the grant programs it contains will 
be effective in helping our States and local governments combat 
juvenile crime. It adds the money necessary for antidrug, youth gang 
and youth violence programs. It provides more money for youth probation 
officers and prosecutors, more money for drug courts and gun courts, 
and more money for valuable after-school programs.
  But, unfortunately, there are those in this body who would try to 
amend this bill with poison pill amendments that should be, at the very 
least, debated and voted on separately from our juvenile justice bill.
  I do applaud what my chairman, the gentleman from Illinois Mr. Hyde), 
is trying to do by offering amendment number 112. I respect the 
gentleman from Illinois Mr. Hyde) greatly. Unfortunately, that bill 
goes too far in trying to protect our children from explicit sexual or 
violent material.
  On the whole, it does some good things. But its cure is so extreme as 
to practically kill the patient. It does not strike the common-sense 
balance between protections for our children and retaining our 
constitutional liberties. It is so broad as to be unconstitutional and 
unenforceable.
  We cannot ban parents from singing ``Rockabye Baby'' because it 
contains the image of a child falling out of a tree. Nor can we ban 
books like Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn because they contain some 
levels of violence.
  No, I do believe that there is too much violence, cruelty, and sadism 
in our culture; and I do believe that it occurs too frequently on 
television, in movies, in video games, and even in the lyrics of songs 
on the radio.
  But parents have to get involved and do their jobs to monitor what 
our kids watch on television and how long they can watch television, to 
keep children out of movies that they are not old enough to see in the 
first place, to keep them from renting R-rated or PG-13-rated movies if 
they are not old enough, to install smut-blocking censoring devices on 
their own home computers, and to keep guns out of their own children's 
hands.

[[Page H4371]]

  Yes, we must get the parents involved as one key element in 
addressing youth violence, as well as keeping guns out of the kids' 
hands. We can protect our children without outlawing everything from 
nursery rhymes to classic books and movies.
  The juvenile justice bill that I cosponsored did so many wonderful 
and important things. It was adopted in a bipartisan fashion by 
Democrats and Republicans.
  Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues are now about to impose 
poison pill amendments on a bipartisan juvenile justice bill for some 
ideological reason or perhaps some other good-faith reason. But it is 
the wrong thing to do.
  Let us debate these other amendments separately and pass a clean, 
bipartisan juvenile justice bill.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Fowler), the vice-chairman of the Republican Conference.
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, as we discuss our competing solutions to 
this serious problem of violence in our society, we must remember what 
is truly important: our children.
  It is our children who are at ground zero of this epidemic of 
violence. As a mother, I cannot think of anything more frightening than 
just that image.

                              {time}  1315

  We must consider the consequences for their future. There are too 
many negative forces acting on our children and our families today.
  Years ago the words and actions that we see so casually used today in 
music, television, movies and everyday conversation would have 
horrified this Nation. As Senator Daniel Moynihan noted in a 1993 
article, we have defined deviancy down. The easy answer, of course, is 
to focus solely on weapons, but easy answers are rarely the complete 
solution. We must look at the entire picture, which clearly includes 
examining these negative influences and discovering a way to eliminate 
or counteract them while enforcing the concept of right and wrong and 
holding people responsible for their actions.
  Let us remove politics from the equation and focus on our children 
and on instilling responsibility while counteracting these negative 
influences.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for 
introducing this excellent bill which will provide critical resources 
to our States to assist in their efforts to combat juvenile crime.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I think today is really a sad day. It is 
a sad day for this institution, and it is a sad day for America.
  In 1 year firearms killed not a single child in Japan, 19 in Britain, 
57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada and 5,285 in the United 
States. We had an opportunity to do something about that. The gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) had introduced an amendment, an 
amendment which would have initiated and authorized the funding and the 
resources for the development of technology which would have created 
and designed a firearm which could not have been discharged by anyone 
other than the owner, by anyone other than the owner.
  Now out of that more than 5,000 children that are killed every year 
in this Nation by firearms, 1,800 of them, 1800 children, our children, 
are killed either accidentally or by self-inflicted wounds, and we, the 
majority in this Congress, the Committee on Rules, could not find it, 
did not have the political will to make that amendment in order, and 
yet we see amendment after amendment, such as mandatory sentences which 
have again and again proved ineffective in terms of deterring crime and 
reducing violence in the United States, but we could not find it in 
this institution to save 1,800 children a year who die as a result of 
self-inflicted wounds because of accidental shootings. We could not do 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, it says something about the priorities of this 
institution.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to my colleagues, 
and I do not think they will disagree with what I am going to say. The 
majority of people in our jails today, most of them is drug related.
  First of all, I want to thank my colleagues, including the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), that when my own son was involved with it, 
many of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle in the Judiciary 
came forward and offered to help, and I cannot tell my colleagues what 
that meant. And I do support strong minimum mandatories, the gentleman 
spoke a minute ago, even though it is on my own son, and I hope that it 
is the most important thing that has ever happened and life threatening 
in his life, and I think it will make a change, talking to him, and I 
do not think he will ever do it again.
  But when we are talking about gun legislation, there are things that 
are reasonable. I made a statement once that I used to fly an F-14. It 
would put out 3,000 rounds a minute. In a half a second I could 
disintegrate this building, with a half-a-second burst, and I was 
trusted with that. I have never killed anybody outside of war, never 
robbed a bank, never shot anybody, and I want to protect the rights of 
people like myself that lawfully want to own a handgun.
  I went to Mr. Schumer's district, and I understand why he hates guns. 
They have all the projects, and they shoot each other, and they do 
drugs, and they kill each other, and that is bad. But the answer is not 
just to be negative, but to look and see what is reasonable.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for having 
yielded this time to me.
  I rise in opposition to the McCollum amendment to H.R. 1501. I think 
this amendment undermines the bipartisan consensus reached on this 
bill, a bill that was cosponsored by every single member of the 
Subcommittee on Crime and reported unanimously to the full committee 
where unfortunately we never considered this bill. Can my colleagues 
imagine the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime meets, all 
the Members cosponsor a bill, report it out unanimously, and we cannot 
get a vote in the full committee. It is kind of puzzling why this would 
happen, but rather than leave this very good piece of juvenile justice 
legislation alone, the Republicans have taken the opportunity to 
introduce poison pill amendments to guarantee its defeat, and I must 
admit that I find this strategy frustrating. If the bill was good 
enough 8 months ago when it was first drafted by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), 
then why is it suddenly not good enough now? Why do we need to ruin a 
good bipartisan bill that includes the right amount of prevention 
dollars for the States while not attaching too many conditions to the 
States' use of that money? In a momentary fit of bipartisanship did the 
Republicans forget to include all of their mean-spirited, 
counterproductive, juvenile justice measures now that they want to add 
to the bill?
  First, this bill transfers too many juveniles to adult court even 
though studies have shown that transferring juveniles to adult court 
can increase juvenile crime. Now a 1996 study in Florida found that 
youth transferred to adult prisons re-offended approximately 30 percent 
more frequently than youth who stayed in the juvenile justice system. 
So if the goal is to move more juveniles to adult prisons and it is to 
target violent offenders, then studies prove that this has not worked. 
More juveniles are transferred for nonviolent offenses than for violent 
offenses, and that is exactly the wrong outcome. If we can see that at 
least some of the nonviolent juvenile offenders can be rehabilitated, 
then placing more of them in adult prisons is standing logic on its 
head.
  In addition, holding juveniles in adult facilities is dangerous. 
Children in adult facilities are five times more likely to be sexually 
assaulted, twice as likely to be beaten by staff and 50 percent more 
likely to be attacked with a weapon and eight times more

[[Page H4372]]

likely to commit suicide than juveniles in a juvenile facility.
  There are too many examples of horrible results by locking up kids 
with adults, but I will provide just one example. Seventeen-year-old 
Christopher Peterman was held in an adult jail in Boise, Idaho, for 
failing to pay $73 in traffic fine. For over 14 days he was tortured 
and finally murdered by other prisoners, a death penalty for $73 in 
traffic tickets.
  We can do better than this, we have got to treat kids appropriately. 
This amendment should be defeated.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are truly interested in juvenile justice reform, 
we must begin by rejecting the amendments that have been stuck on to 
the very fine principles contained in H.R. 1501, a bipartisan bill that 
came out of the Subcommittee on Crime, and I remind the gentleman, the 
chairman of the committee, and I praise this bill, this is a measure 
that has been very carefully vetted, but all of the other amendments 
that have been approved, some 44, have never been in the Committee on 
the Judiciary. In other words, the Committee on Rules has become the 
original committee of jurisdiction for a juvenile justice bill, and for 
that reason those amendments must be rejected.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time 
that I have remaining.
  We have had quite a debate here on the general debate today on 1501. 
Many of the topics brought up were about amendments rather than about 
the base bill. We have heard a number of myths, including one I just 
heard then, that somehow this legislation or subsequent amendment will 
involve incarcerating juveniles with adults. No amendment I know of 
that I am going to offer, has anything to do with, would do that, and 
certainly this base bill does not touch that subject.
  I come back to the fact that whatever else is discussed out here, the 
single most important thing we are going to be doing in my judgment 
with respect to protecting our children, the safety of our children on 
the streets and the schools and the playgrounds of this Nation and to 
prevent violence by youth, is the underlying proposition in 1501, the 
bill we are considering, that is bipartisan, that everybody supports, 
that all the experts say we should pass, and that is the grant program 
to the States to help them improve broken juvenile justice systems. 
They need the money for more probation officers, judges, diversion 
programs and so forth. They do not have it. And because they do not 
have those judges and probation officers in diversion programs we have 
got a lot of problems. We do not have kids that are receiving any kind 
of consequence or accountability for the most minor of crimes that they 
used to always receive some punishment for.
  This bill will say to the States here is money to hire more of these 
judges, et cetera, if you just agree to one thing, and that is to 
punish from the very first misdemeanor crime every juvenile in this 
country, and if they agree in your state to do that and to institute a 
system of graduated sanctions where we intensify for the more serious 
offense then you can have the money to improve the system. That is what 
everybody says will send a message of consequences to kids so they do 
not start down the path of believing that when they do something bad 
nothing is going to happen because the experts say when they get to 
believing that, then it is going to lead on to violent crime later very 
frequently and that is the root cause and one of the most significant 
root causes of violent crime in the Nation.
  So 1501, the underlying bill we are debating today, getting little 
attention because of all the other discussions after Littleton about 
guns and everything else, is by all experts I have talked to as 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and heard from over the past few 
most, the single most important thing we can do to help our kids, to 
make sure there is child safety and to make sure that we prevent 
violent youth crime in the future. So I strongly urge the adoption of 
this bill, and I look forward to debating the amendments as they come 
out here.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I share the strong concerns of all my 
colleagues about the rise in youth violence, as evidenced by the 
tragedy at Columbine High School recently.
  I am also concerned, however, that our reaction to such tragedies be 
appropriate and measured. It seems to me that many of the amendments 
that we are considering today border on a knee-jerk reaction, designed 
more for political appeal than solid law-making.
  A number of these amendments fall within the jurisdiction of my 
committee but unfortunately have not had the benefit of the normal 
committee process and procedures. For instance, I have concerns that 
the Franks/Pickering amendment, which deals with Internet filtering for 
schools and libraries, is being dealt with outside the jurisdiction of 
the Commerce Committee. The committee has been conducting aggressive 
oversight of this program, known as the E-rate program, and we intend 
to continue that oversight. The committee has also been involved in 
myriad issues related to the growth and development of the Internet and 
electronic commerce. I anticipate that the committee will be addressing 
this issue of protecting children online later this Congress, with the 
goal of creating sound, sensible, and rational policy that protects 
children while recognizing the vast potential of the Internet in aiding 
education.
  Similarly, an amendment to be offered by Mr. Wamp would grant the FTC 
expansive new authority to approve or establish labeling standards for 
all audio and video products. There may be constitutional problems with 
this amendment--problems that would have been eliminated, I am sure, if 
the legislation had proceeded under regular order.
  In addition to the filtering and labeling amendments, a number of 
amendments were made in order that call for studies and commissions on 
a variety of society's ills. None of these ideas has passed through my 
committee, which has the expertise to determine whether Federal tax 
dollars should be put to use for these purposes.
  As this legislation goes to conference with the other body, I will 
insist that my committee be appointed conferees on provisions within 
its jurisdiction. In conference, I will seek to ensure that the 
Congress not only responds to the public call for action, but also 
crafts sound public policy as well.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, today's problem of juvenile crime is so 
complex that it defies easy solutions. However, in the drive to 
increase public safety and reduce juvenile crime, several of the 
amendments offered to this piece of legislation have lost sight, not 
only of the complexity of the juvenile crime problem, but also the 
success of existing local enforcement agencies and community 
initiatives in keeping juveniles out of gangs and crime free.
  There are numerous policy choices that we could implement to combat 
juvenile crime and delinquency if Congress chooses to provide funds and 
help. We must continue to focus on early intervention and prevention 
programs rather than ``get tough'' punitive measures that do little to 
reduce crime or address its root causes. Our primary goal should be a 
proactive approach rather than reactionary measures.
  Given the alarming rate of crime and the disproportionate amount 
committed by juveniles, punitive provisions and ``get tough'' 
provisions are widely attractive and politically appealing. Yet, such 
``get tough'' measures fail to deliver the results promised by their 
proponents. Evidence points out that trials of juveniles as adults 
actually result in repeat criminal behavior and activities. For 
example, states with higher rates of transferring children to adult 
court do not have lower rates of juvenile homicide. Finally, children 
in adult institutions are five times more likely to be sexually 
assaulted, twice as likely to be beaten by staff, and 50 percent more 
likely to be attacked with a weapon that children in a juvenile 
facility. Treating more children as adults in the criminal justice 
system does not move us any closer to our common goal--it does not 
create safer communities. The consequence of such action is surely not 
positive.
  I think that Members on both sides of the aisle should agree with the 
common facts; that when it comes to addressing the unique public safety 
concerns of our districts, the programs and responses must be built on 
the unique situations within our community. Different problems and 
populations require specific solutions. Prescribing inflexible federal 
solutions does not resolve issues that are specific problems of state 
or local jurisdictions. Local governments need more flexibility, not 
more federal mandates which imply the same solution for every 
jurisdiction. Federally imposed strategies which limit the ability of 
local governments to respond to community needs, ensure that the war on 
crime is not fought with the efficiency or effectiveness that is 
necessary to reduce the incidence of crime and attain the safe 
environment our constituents seek.
  I will continue to support legislation that recognizes that states 
and localities are taking the lead in implementing innovative solutions 
to local crime problems, and provides for cost

[[Page H4373]]

effective and proven initiatives. Such legislation would enable local 
governments to accomplish what the federal government has limited 
ability to do--reduce the rate and incidence of juvenile crime.
  The one thing that the federal government can do is assist state and 
local governments in any way possible to make sure their solutions are 
achievable, with programs that put police on the street and take the 
guns off the street. I believe we have an obligation to do all that is 
possible to make our communities safe. This includes helping to get 
guns off the streets and out of the hands of juveniles and criminals. 
It is unfortunate that events such as the tragedy in Colorado had to 
occur in order to spur congressional action, however the availability 
of assault weapons used by the students to inflict this violence and 
death upon this community and many others must be curtailed.
  With the combined efforts of federal, state, and local governments we 
can successfully combat juvenile delinquency and crime.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for 
the amendment offered by Representative Stupak and Representative Wise 
to H.R. 1501, ``Child Safety and Protection Act.'' This important 
amendment builds on legislation which I introduced, H.R. 1898, which 
would authorize a national hotline for reporting school violence.
  While I offered my bill as an amendment to H.R. 1501, it was not made 
in order. Therefore, I would like to express my strong support for this 
amendment. This important initiative will provide tremendous support to 
our states by authorizing them to develop and operate confidential 
toll-free telephone hotlines. These hotlines will operate 24 hours a 
day, seven days a week in order to provide students, school officials 
and others the ability to report specific threats of imminent school 
violence or other suspicious or criminal conduct by juveniles. These 
reports would be directed to the state or local authorities to be 
addressed. Mr. Speaker, with the recent school shootings we must do 
everything we an to provide our states the tools they need to handle 
school violence. The amendment offered my colleagues from Michigan 
takes an important step toward not only addressing violence in our 
schools, but preventing it. By giving students a direct line to report 
violence we have the opportunity to intervene before an act of violence 
occurs in our communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the best way to confront violence in our 
schools is to commit the resources we have available at the federal 
level to our states and local communities. There is no more important 
issue at stake than the welfare of our children. One way we can ensure 
their safety is to provide states with tools to confront violence in 
schools. This hotline is important because it builds on existing 
programs and calls for partnerships between state and local units of 
government.
  While it is unfortunate that I was not able to offer my amendment, I 
am grateful that this important program was adopted as part of H.R. 
1501.
  Education is the key to a productive future for our children. We need 
to make sure our schools are safe so that our children have the skills 
they need to succeed in the competitive global economy of the 21st 
century, and I believe that this initiative will move us toward this 
goal.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, today's children face more obstacles and 
danger than ever before. Often children are singled out by adult 
predators because they are weak and unable to defend themselves. We owe 
it to our children to do all we can to protect them.
  That is why I strongly support the Cunningham amendment, which will 
amend federal sentencing guidelines to increase the penalties for those 
violent offenders who commit crimes against children. Additionally, the 
amendment will help local law enforcement to catch and convict 
criminals by authorizing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to assist 
local and state authorities in murder investigations involving 
children. Matthew's Law, named after a little boy who was brutally 
murdered in California, sends a strong message to those who prey on 
innocent children. It sends a message that we will not tolerate crimes 
of violence against children and predators who prey on those innocent 
victims deserve severe punishment.
  In combination with the truth in sentencing resolutions that have 
passed this House, this amendment will keep violent offenders away from 
our children. It makes our streets safer. It makes our neighborhoods 
safer and most importantly, it makes our children safer.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, all American children have the right to 
receive a quality education in a safe learning environment. Teachers 
and principals should be given the tools needed to provide their 
students with that quality education and safe learning environment. 
Unfortunately, federal regulations are standing in the way of allowing 
education officials in our communities from doing just that.
  Under current discipline provisions in the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a special-needs student who is in 
possession of a weapon at school may only be suspended for up to 10 
days or be placed in an alternative education setting for up to 45 
days. If the student's behavior is determined to be a direct result of 
his or her disability, the student could return to school immediately.
  Over the past year and a half, I have been meeting with school 
administrators, principals, and teachers throughout Iowa's 2nd District 
to discuss this problem. Time and time again, they have told me how 
difficult it is to provide a safe learning environment for their 
students because of the two separate discipline codes they must live 
under--one for the main-stream students and one for the special-needs 
students. Together, we worked to write the Freedom to Learn Act which 
is very similar to this amendment we are discussing.
  For instance, if my son, Mark, who is a main-stream student, were to 
bring a gun into school he could be expelled from school immediately. 
If my daughter, Sarah, who is a special-needs student, were to bring a 
gun into school she could either be suspended for a short time or 
return back to her classroom. But at home, there is only one set of 
rules for both of my children. If Sarah and Mark get into a fight, they 
both receive the same punishment. What I am trying to teach my kids at 
home is being contradicted with how they are treated at school. A two-
track discipline system does not work at home--and it does not work at 
school either.
  I offer this amendment with my colleagues because it will allow state 
and local education officials to establish uniform discipline policies 
that will apply to all students who bring weapons to school. This 
amendment will give school officials the freedom to protect the safety 
of every student in their charge without interference from the federal 
government.
  We must amend the burdensome, bureaucratic control over our local 
school agencies. We must allow school officials to establish 
disciplinary procedures and consequences that would best meet their 
individual needs. And, most importantly, we must provide all students 
with the right to learn in a safe education environment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 1501 is as follows:

                               H.R. 1501

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Consequences for Juvenile 
     Offenders Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Part R of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.) 
     is amended to read as follows:

             ``PART R--JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANTS

     ``SEC. 1801. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) In General.--The Attorney General is authorized to 
     provide grants to States, for use by States and units of 
     local government, and in certain cases directly to specially 
     qualified units.
       ``(b) Authorized Activities.--Amounts paid to a State or a 
     unit of local government under this part shall be used by the 
     State or unit of local government for the purpose of 
     strengthening the juvenile justice system, which includes--
       ``(1) developing, implementing, and administering graduated 
     sanctions for juvenile offenders;
       ``(2) building, expanding, renovating, or operating 
     temporary or permanent juvenile correction, detention, or 
     community corrections facilities;
       ``(3) hiring juvenile court judges, probation officers, and 
     court-appointed defenders and special advocates, and funding 
     pretrial services for juvenile offenders, to promote the 
     effective and expeditious administration of the juvenile 
     justice system;
       ``(4) hiring additional prosecutors, so that more cases 
     involving violent juvenile offenders can be prosecuted and 
     case backlogs reduced;
       ``(5) providing funding to enable prosecutors to address 
     drug, gang, and youth violence problems more effectively and 
     for technology, equipment, and training to assist prosecutors 
     in identifying and expediting the prosecution of violent 
     juvenile offenders;
       ``(6) establishing and maintaining training programs for 
     law enforcement and other court personnel with respect to 
     preventing and controlling juvenile crime;
       ``(7) establishing juvenile gun courts for the prosecution 
     and adjudication of juvenile firearms offenders;
       ``(8) establishing drug court programs for juvenile 
     offenders that provide continuing judicial supervision over 
     juvenile offenders with substance abuse problems and the 
     integrated administration of other sanctions and services for 
     such offenders;
       ``(9) establishing and maintaining a system of juvenile 
     records designed to promote public safety;

[[Page H4374]]

       ``(10) establishing and maintaining interagency 
     information-sharing programs that enable the juvenile and 
     criminal justice system, schools, and social services 
     agencies to make more informed decisions regarding the early 
     identification, control, supervision, and treatment of 
     juveniles who repeatedly commit serious delinquent or 
     criminal acts;
       ``(11) establishing and maintaining accountability-based 
     programs designed to reduce recidivism among juveniles who 
     are referred by law enforcement personnel or agencies.
       ``(12) establishing and maintaining programs to conduct 
     risk and need assessments of juvenile offenders that 
     facilitate the effective early intervention and the provision 
     of comprehensive services, including mental health screening 
     and treatment and substance abuse testing and treatment to 
     such offenders; and
       ``(13) establishing and maintaining accountability-based 
     programs that are designed to enhance school safety.

     ``SEC. 1802. GRANT ELIGIBILITY.

       ``(a) State Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this section, a State shall submit to the Attorney 
     General an application at such time, in such form, and 
     containing such assurances and information as the Attorney 
     General may require by rule, including assurances that the 
     State and any unit of local government to which the State 
     provides funding under section 1803(b), has in effect (or 
     shall have in effect, not later than 1 year after the date 
     that the State submits such application) laws, or has 
     implemented (or shall implement, not later than 1 year after 
     the date that the State submits such application) policies 
     and programs, that provide for a system of graduated 
     sanctions described in subsection (c).
       ``(b) Local Eligibility.--
       ``(1) Subgrant eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a 
     subgrant, a unit of local government, other than a specially 
     qualified unit, shall provide such assurances to the State as 
     the State shall require, that, to the maximum extent 
     applicable, the unit of local government has in effect (or 
     shall have in effect, not later than 1 year after the date 
     that the unit submits such application) laws, or has 
     implemented (or shall implement, not later than 1 year after 
     the date that the unit submits such application) policies and 
     programs, that provide for a system of graduated sanctions 
     described in subsection (c).
       ``(2) Special rule.--The requirements of paragraph (1) 
     shall apply to a specially qualified unit that receives funds 
     from the Attorney General under section 1803(e), except that 
     information that is otherwise required to be submitted to the 
     State shall be submitted to the Attorney General.
       ``(c) Graduated Sanctions.--A system of graduated 
     sanctions, which may be discretionary as provided in 
     subsection (d), shall ensure, at a minimum, that--
       ``(1) sanctions are imposed on juvenile offenders for every 
     offense;
       ``(2) sanctions escalate in intensity with each subsequent, 
     more serious delinquent or criminal offense;
       ``(3) there is sufficient flexibility to allow for 
     individualized sanctions and services suited to the 
     individual juvenile offender; and
       ``(4) appropriate consideration is given to public safety 
     and victims of crime.
       ``(d) Discretionary Use of Sanctions.--
       ``(1) Voluntary participation.--A State or unit of local 
     government may be eligible to receive a grant under this part 
     if--
       ``(A) its system of graduated sanctions is discretionary; 
     and
       ``(B) it demonstrates that it has promoted the use of a 
     system of graduated sanctions by taking steps to encourage 
     implementation of such a system by juvenile courts.
       ``(2) Reporting requirement if graduated sanctions not 
     used.--
       ``(A) Juvenile courts.--A State or unit of local government 
     in which the imposition of graduated sanctions is 
     discretionary shall require each juvenile court within its 
     jurisdiction--
       ``(i) which has not implemented a system of graduated 
     sanctions, to submit an annual report that explains why such 
     court did not implement graduated sanctions; and
       ``(ii) which has implemented a system of graduated 
     sanctions but has not imposed graduated sanctions in 1 or 
     more specific cases, to submit an annual report that explains 
     why such court did not impose graduated sanctions in each 
     such case.
       ``(B) Units of local government.--Each unit of local 
     government, other than a specially qualified unit, that has 1 
     or more juvenile courts that use a discretionary system of 
     graduated sanctions shall collect the information reported 
     under subparagraph (A) for submission to the State each year.
       ``(C) States.--Each State and specially qualified unit that 
     has 1 or more juvenile courts that use a discretionary system 
     of graduated sanctions shall collect the information reported 
     under subparagraph (A) for submission to the Attorney General 
     each year. A State shall also collect and submit to the 
     Attorney General the information collected under subparagraph 
     (B).
       ``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) The term `discretionary' means that a system of 
     graduated sanctions is not required to be imposed by each and 
     every juvenile court in a State or unit of local government.
       ``(2) The term `sanctions' means tangible, proportional 
     consequences that hold the juvenile offender accountable for 
     the offense committed. A sanction may include counseling, 
     restitution, community service, a fine, supervised probation, 
     or confinement.

     ``SEC. 1803. ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) State Allocation.--
       ``(1) In general.--In accordance with regulations 
     promulgated pursuant to this part and except as provided in 
     paragraph (3), the Attorney General shall allocate--
       ``(A) 0.25 percent for each State; and
       ``(B) of the total funds remaining after the allocation 
     under subparagraph (A), to each State, an amount which bears 
     the same ratio to the amount of remaining funds described in 
     this subparagraph as the population of people under the age 
     of 18 living in such State for the most recent calendar year 
     in which such data is available bears to the population of 
     people under the age of 18 of all the States for such fiscal 
     year.
       ``(2) Prohibition.--No funds allocated to a State under 
     this subsection or received by a State for distribution under 
     subsection (b) may be distributed by the Attorney General or 
     by the State involved for any program other than a program 
     contained in an approved application.
       ``(3) Increase for state reserve.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), if a State 
     demonstrates and certifies to the Attorney General that the 
     State's law enforcement expenditures in the fiscal year 
     preceding the date in which an application is submitted under 
     this part is more than 25 percent of the aggregate amount of 
     law enforcement expenditures by the State and its eligible 
     units of local government, the percentage referred to in 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall equal the percentage determined by 
     dividing the State's law enforcement expenditures by such 
     aggregate.
       ``(B) Law enforcement expenditures over 50 percent.--If the 
     law enforcement expenditures of a State exceed 50 percent of 
     the aggregate amount described in subparagraph (A), the 
     Attorney General shall consult with as many units of local 
     government in such State as practicable regarding the State's 
     proposed uses of funds.
       ``(b) Local Distribution.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (a)(3), 
     each State which receives funds under subsection (a)(1) in a 
     fiscal year shall distribute not less than 75 percent of such 
     amounts received among units of local government, for the 
     purposes specified in section 1801. In making such 
     distribution the State shall allocate to such units of local 
     government an amount which bears the same ratio to the 
     aggregate amount of such funds as--
       ``(A) the sum of--
       ``(i) the product of--

       ``(I) three-quarters; multiplied by
       ``(II) the average law enforcement expenditure for such 
     unit of local government for the 3 most recent calendar years 
     for which such data is available; plus

       ``(ii) the product of--

       ``(I) one-quarter; multiplied by
       ``(II) the average annual number of part 1 violent crimes 
     in such unit of local government for the 3 most recent 
     calendar years for which such data is available, bears to--

       ``(B) the sum of the products determined under subparagraph 
     (A) for all such units of local government in the State.
       ``(2) Expenditures.--The allocation any unit of local 
     government shall receive under paragraph (1) for a payment 
     period shall not exceed 100 percent of law enforcement 
     expenditures of the unit for such payment period.
       ``(3) Reallocation.--The amount of any unit of local 
     government's allocation that is not available to such unit by 
     operation of paragraph (2) shall be available to other units 
     of local government that are not affected by such operation 
     in accordance with this subsection.
       ``(c) Unavailability of Data for Units of Local 
     Government.--If the State has reason to believe that the 
     reported rate of part 1 violent crimes or law enforcement 
     expenditures for a unit of local government is insufficient 
     or inaccurate, the State shall--
       ``(1) investigate the methodology used by the unit to 
     determine the accuracy of the submitted data; and
       ``(2) if necessary, use the best available comparable data 
     regarding the number of violent crimes or law enforcement 
     expenditures for the relevant years for the unit of local 
     government.
       ``(d) Local Government With Allocations Less Than $5,000.--
     If under this section a unit of local government is allocated 
     less than $5,000 for a payment period, the amount allotted 
     shall be expended by the State on services to units of local 
     government whose allotment is less than such amount in a 
     manner consistent with this part.
       ``(e) Direct Grants to Specially Qualified Units.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a State does not qualify or apply for 
     funds reserved for allocation under subsection (a) by the 
     application deadline established by the Attorney General, the 
     Attorney General shall reserve not more than 75 percent of 
     the allocation that the State would have received under 
     subsection (a) for such fiscal year to provide grants to 
     specially qualified units which meet the requirements for 
     funding under section 1802.
       ``(2) Award basis.--In addition to the qualification 
     requirements for direct grants for specially qualified units 
     the Attorney General may use the average amount allocated by 
     the States to units of local government as

[[Page H4375]]

     a basis for awarding grants under this section.

     ``SEC. 1804. REGULATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall issue 
     regulations establishing procedures under which a State or 
     unit of local government that receives funds under section 
     1803 is required to provide notice to the Attorney General 
     regarding the proposed use of funds made available under 
     this part.
       ``(b) Advisory Board.--The regulations referred to in 
     subsection (a) shall include a requirement that such eligible 
     State or unit of local government establish and convene an 
     advisory board to review the proposed uses of such funds. The 
     board shall include representation from, if appropriate--
       ``(1) the State or local police department;
       ``(2) the local sheriff's department;
       ``(3) the State or local prosecutor's office;
       ``(4) the State or local juvenile court;
       ``(5) the State or local probation officer;
       ``(6) the State or local educational agency;
       ``(7) a State or local social service agency; and
       ``(8) a nonprofit, religious, or community group.

     ``SEC. 1805. PAYMENT REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Timing of Payments.--The Attorney General shall pay 
     to each State or unit of local government that receives funds 
     under section 1803 that has submitted an application under 
     this part not later than--
       ``(1) 90 days after the date that the amount is available, 
     or
       ``(2) the first day of the payment period if the State has 
     provided the Attorney General with the assurances required by 
     subsection (c),

     whichever is later.
       ``(b) Repayment of Unexpended Amounts.--
       ``(1) Repayment required.--From amounts awarded under this 
     part, a State or specially qualified unit shall repay to the 
     Attorney General, or a unit of local government shall repay 
     to the State by not later than 27 months after receipt of 
     funds from the Attorney General, any amount that is not 
     expended by the State within 2 years after receipt of such 
     funds from the Attorney General.
       ``(2) Penalty for failure to repay.--If the amount required 
     to be repaid is not repaid, the Attorney General shall reduce 
     payment in future payment periods accordingly.
       ``(3) Deposit of amounts repaid.--Amounts received by the 
     Attorney General as repayments under this subsection shall be 
     deposited in a designated fund for future payments to States 
     and specially qualified units.
       ``(c) Administrative Costs.--A State or unit of local 
     government that receives funds under this part may use not 
     more than 5 percent of such funds to pay for administrative 
     costs.
       ``(d) Nonsupplanting Requirement.--Funds made available 
     under this part to States and units of local government shall 
     not be used to supplant State or local funds as the case may 
     be, but shall be used to increase the amount of funds that 
     would, in the absence of funds made available under this 
     part, be made available from State or local sources, as the 
     case may be.
       ``(e) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant 
     received under this part may not exceed 90 percent of the 
     costs of a program or proposal funded under this part.

     ``SEC. 1806. UTILIZATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR.

       ``Funds or a portion of funds allocated under this part may 
     be utilized to contract with private, nonprofit entities, or 
     community-based organizations to carry out the purposes 
     specified under section 1801(a)(2).

     ``SEC. 1807. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--A State or specially qualified unit that 
     receives funds under this part shall--
       ``(1) establish a trust fund in which the government will 
     deposit all payments received under this part;
       ``(2) use amounts in the trust fund (including interest) 
     during a period not to exceed 2 years from the date the first 
     grant payment is made to the State or specially qualified 
     unit;
       ``(3) designate an official of the State or specially 
     qualified unit to submit reports as the Attorney General 
     reasonably requires, in addition to the annual reports 
     required under this part; and
       ``(4) spend the funds only for the purposes under section 
     1801(b).
       ``(b) Title I Provisions.--Except as otherwise provided, 
     the administrative provisions of part H shall apply to this 
     part and for purposes of this section any reference in such 
     provisions to title I shall be deemed to include a reference 
     to this part.

     ``SEC. 1808. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this part:
       ``(1) The term `unit of local government' means--
       ``(A) a county, township, city, or political subdivision of 
     a county, township, or city, that is a unit of local 
     government as determined by the Secretary of Commerce for 
     general statistical purposes; and
       ``(B) the District of Columbia and the recognized governing 
     body of an Indian tribe or Alaskan Native village that 
     carries out substantial governmental duties and powers.
       ``(2) The term `specially qualified unit' means a unit of 
     local government which may receive funds under this part only 
     in accordance with section 1803(e).
       ``(3) The term `State' means any State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, except that American Samoa, Guam, 
     and the Northern Mariana Islands shall be considered as 1 
     State and that, for purposes of section 1803(a), 33 percent 
     of the amounts allocated shall be allocated to American 
     Samoa, 50 percent to Guam, and 17 percent to the Northern 
     Mariana Islands.
       ``(4) The term `juvenile' means an individual who is 17 
     years of age or younger.
       ``(5) The term `law enforcement expenditures' means the 
     expenditures associated with prosecutorial, legal, and 
     judicial services, and corrections as reported to the Bureau 
     of the Census for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year 
     for which a determination is made under this part.
       ``(6) The term `part 1 violent crimes' means murder and 
     nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and 
     aggravated assault as reported to the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation for purposes of the Uniform Crime Reports.

     ``SEC. 1809. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this part--
       ``(1) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(2) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(3) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
       ``(b) Oversight Accountability and Administration.--Not 
     more than 3 percent of the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated under subsection (a), with such amounts to 
     remain available until expended, for each of the fiscal years 
     2000 through 2002 shall be available to the Attorney General 
     for evaluation and research regarding the overall 
     effectiveness and efficiency of the provisions of this part, 
     assuring compliance with the provisions of this part, and for 
     administrative costs to carry out the purposes of this part. 
     The Attorney General shall establish and execute an oversight 
     plan for monitoring the activities of grant recipients.
       ``(c) Funding Source.--Appropriations for activities 
     authorized in this part may be made from the Violent Crime 
     Reduction Trust Fund.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--The table of contents of title I 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to part R and inserting 
     the following:

             ``Part R--Juvenile Accountability Block Grants

``Sec. 1801. Program authorized.
``Sec. 1802. Grant eligibility.
``Sec. 1803. Allocation and distribution of funds.
``Sec. 1804. Regulations.
``Sec. 1805. Payment requirements.
``Sec. 1806. Utilization of private sector.
``Sec. 1807. Administrative provisions.
``Sec. 1808. Definitions.
``Sec. 1809. Authorization of appropriations.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment is in order except those printed in part A 
of House Report 106-186. Except as otherwise specified in House 
Resolution 209, each amendment may be offered only in the order printed 
in part A of the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in 
the report, shall be considered read, debatable for the time specified 
in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the 
report and shall not be subject to a demand for division on the 
question.

                              {time}  1330

  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for 
consideration of any amendment printed in part A of the report out of 
the order printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the Chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary or a designee announces from the floor a 
request to that effect.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule you have just 
outlined for us, I hereby give 1 hour's notice of my request to 
consider the amendment No. 31, the Hyde amendment, out of order, 
immediately after consideration of the McCollum amendment No. 6, and 
any amendments thereto.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in part A of House report 106-186.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H4376]]


       Part A amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Page 3, strike lines 23 and 24, and insert the following:
       ``(9) establishing and maintaining an automated system of 
     records relating to any adjudication of juveniles less than 
     18 years of age who are adjudicated delinquent for conduct 
     that would be a violent crime if committed by an adult, 
     that--
       ``(A) is equivalent to the system of records that would be 
     kept of adults arrested for such conduct, including 
     fingerprint records and photograph records;
       ``(B) provides for submitting such juvenile records to the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation in the same manner as adult 
     criminal records are so submitted;
       ``(C) requires the retention of juvenile records for a 
     period of time that is equal to the period of time for which 
     adult criminal records are retained; and
       ``(D) makes available, on an expedited basis, to law 
     enforcement agencies, to courts, and to school officials who 
     shall be subject to the same standards and penalties that 
     apply under Federal and State law to law enforcement and 
     juvenile justice personnel with respect to handling such 
     records and disclosing information contained in such records;

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.  Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I wish to offer an amendment to this bill that would assist States in 
compiling the records of juveniles and establishing statewide computer 
systems for their records. In addition, States would have the option of 
making these records available to the NCIC at the FBI where they would 
be accessed by law enforcement officials from other States. Similar 
language for such a system of records already exists in the Senate-
passed juvenile justice bill.
  The reason I offer this amendment is a tragic story from my own 
district. A Cleveland police detective, Robert Clark, was killed in 
July 1998 while attempting to arrest a drug dealer. The individual who 
shot Detective Clark had accumulated a considerable criminal record 
between Ohio and Florida. Although he was only 19 years old at the time 
of the shooting, he had been arrested 150 times since the age of 8. 
There had been 62 felony charges laid against him between 1995 and 
1998. However, officials in Ohio were unaware of his criminal 
activities in Florida, and vice versa. In addition, there was an 
outstanding warrant for this individual's arrest in Florida at the time 
of the shooting. Had an automated records system been in place when he 
first appeared before a juvenile court in Ohio, law enforcement 
officials in Ohio would have had access to this extensive criminal 
record in Florida.
  I remain a strong supporter of civil liberties for all citizens. 
Therefore, it is important that access to these records be strictly 
controlled to maintain the privacy rights of every citizen. In 
addition, States should not be mandated to share juvenile records 
information with the FBI. Rather, they would have the option of sharing 
their juvenile records information should they choose.
  My amendment has received the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of 
Police in which they say, ``The ability to share and obtain information 
about criminals' records is crucial to the law enforcement mission. 
This legislation addresses the pressing need for better and more 
efficient recordkeeping on violent juveniles, information that would 
stop crimes and save lives.''
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I will include the above-referenced letter 
for the Record.


                                    Fraternal Order of Police,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 1999.
     Hon. Dennis Kucinich,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Kucinich: I am writing on behalf of the 
     more than 277,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police to 
     advise you of our strong support for your amendment to H.R. 
     1501, the ``Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act of 
     1999.'' Your amendment will enable law enforcement officials 
     to improve record-keeping and record-sharing on juvenile 
     offenders.
       Your bill would enable States to apply for Federal grants 
     to establish, develop, update or upgrade State and local 
     criminal history record systems to include the conviction 
     records of violent juveniles. These grants will assist State 
     and local law enforcement authorities in compiling and 
     computerizing statewide systems with the records of violent 
     juvenile offenders with the option to make this data 
     available to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and law 
     enforcement authorities in other States.
       The ability to share and obtain information about 
     criminals' records is critical to the law enforcement 
     mission. Your legislation addresses the pressing need for 
     better and more efficient recordkeeping on violent 
     juveniles--information which could stop crimes and save 
     lives.
       On 1 July 1998, Detective Robert Clark of the Cleveland 
     Police Department and Correy Major, a 19-year-old from 
     Florida were killed in a gun battle. Major was first arrested 
     at the age of eight. By the time he was killed last July, he 
     had amassed over one hundred and fifty prior incidents with 
     police on his record. Major was arrested on yet another 
     offense the night before he killed Detective Clark, but 
     because law enforcement officers in Cleveland, Ohio were 
     unaware of his extensive criminal record as a juvenile in 
     Florida, he was released from custody. Because Ohio and 
     Florida were unable to share information about this dangerous 
     and violent criminal, only hours later a brave and dedicated 
     officer was dead.
       I commend you for your leadership on this important issue 
     on behalf of the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police. 
     If I can be of any further help, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco through my 
     Washington office at (202) 547-8189.
           Sincerely,
                                              Gilbert G. Gallegos,
                                               National President.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment; however, I 
ask unanimous consent to take the 5 minutes if no Member is opposing 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to support the amendment of the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and take the time to say what it really does 
in my view, which is a very positive thing. It takes one of the 
conditions of use of the money in grant program for these improvements 
of the juvenile justice system, which are very broadly written; there 
are 13 of them in the bill, and it very specifically tailors that one 
use which has to do with having juvenile records available by saying 
that not only do we establish and maintain those juvenile records in 
the case of public safety, but that we have an automated system of 
records that we establish and maintain for juveniles less than 18 years 
of age or who are adjudicated delinquent for conduct that would be a 
violent crime if committed by an adult.
  In other words, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) spells out 
what we are concerned with here and then goes into detail, very similar 
to what was in legislation that I authored in the last Congress on this 
subject matter and did not include in this particular bill, H.R. 1501, 
as a specific provision in that much detail because I thought the 
general language covered it.
  Mr. Chairman, I really believe that the gentleman is doing a service 
to put this specific language in. I think this is a good amendment 
because it does outline these details, and does spell out that which 
the rules would be, and we will not have any questions about it after 
that, I believe.
  So it is again in furtherance of a bipartisan bill that throughout 
this has been that way.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum) for his kind remarks regarding this amendment. 
It seeks to build on the intentions that he had in the last Congress, 
and I certainly appreciate his support and the support of all of my 
colleagues on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in part A of House Report 106-186.


               Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hutchinson

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H4377]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Hutchinson:
       Page 4, after line 21, insert the following:
       (14) establishing and maintaining restorative justice 
     programs.
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``restorative justice program'' means a program that 
     emphasizes the moral accountability of an offender toward the 
     victim and the affected community, and may include community 
     reparations boards, restitution, and mediation between victim 
     and offender,''

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment adds a new category of permissive uses for 
the grant money authorized under the juvenile accountability block 
grants in H.R. 1501. This new authority will allow States and 
localities to use funds in the bill to implement restorative justice 
programs.
  Restorative justice is a concept that incorporates the community, the 
victim, and the offender in the restitution and rehabilitation process. 
Programs in existence today include local community reparation boards, 
offender restitution programs, and victim-offender mediation. This new 
authorized use of funds will provide judges with an important tool to 
hold juveniles accountable for their wrongdoing.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important not only to hold juveniles 
accountable to the State for their wrongdoing, but also to their 
victims. Restitution programs and mediation programs emphasize the 
responsibility of the offender, in this case the juvenile, to those he 
or she has wronged.
  The Senate-passed juvenile crime bill includes similar language, but 
does not define the term ``restorative justice.'' So my amendment 
improves upon the Senate approach by defining restorative justice to 
mean a program that emphasizes the moral accountability of an offender 
toward the victim and the affected community. I might add, Mr. 
Chairman, that the American Bar Association has previously adopted a 
resolution recommending that the government look into these types of 
victim-offender mediation programs in the criminal justice system and 
possibly incorporating them.
  An example of this also would be Marty Price, who mediated a session 
between juvenile offenders who had thrown rocks from an overpass and 
actually caused physical harm, but also some personal injuries. That 
was mediated, the victims participated in it, there was not any 
recidivism. The juveniles learned from that experience, and the victims 
were happy as well. I will not go into all the details of this, but it 
is something that really works.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment. 
However, I would like to yield when it is appropriate to the gentleman 
from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. McCollum).
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
just want to rise in support of this amendment. It establishes a new 
criteria under the uses for the grant monies in this bill. It is the 
14th one. We just talked about amending one of the earlier ones in the 
list of 13. This 14th one is in no way restrictive and actually adds to 
the opportunity for the local authorities and States to be able to 
improve their juvenile justice systems. As the gentleman so eloquently 
explained, it does so by establishing and maintaining restorative 
justice programs, and the gentleman has defined those to mean a program 
that emphasizes the moral accountability of an offender toward the 
victim and the affected community.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is very significant. I think that it is a 
good clarification of the broad-based nature of what we are proposing 
in that there are lot of things, as long as it is within the juvenile 
justice system of a State, that one can use this grant money for. So I 
commend the gentleman for offering it and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman 
from Colorado for yielding me this time. I am not in opposition to the 
amendment that has been offered, but because of the constraints that 
have been presented, it will allow us an opportunity to be able to 
speak in regards to this issue at this time.
  I do support the efforts of the gentleman from Arkansas in trying to 
create this opportunity for restorative justice, and I would look to 
support it.
  But at this time also, on the larger issue, I wanted to point out 
that there are no easy answers to the problems of youth violence. 
Tightening gun laws, providing increased mental health counseling to 
youth and placing renewed emphasis on family values may all be part of 
the solution, but no one of these steps alone will be enough. I think a 
few guiding principles are in order.
  First, increased communication must be a focus. Students need to be 
able to report incidences or rumors that concern them. Education and 
law enforcement officials need to be able to share information about 
troubled or troublesome youth, and parents need to be able to talk to 
their kids and children and friends of teachers and teachers 
themselves.
  Second, we must start thinking and acting like families and 
communities, rather than solely as individuals. I think in some of the 
cases we have lost sight of the common good and we need to regain that. 
Third, we must take prudent steps to ensure that guns are not in the 
hands of our youth. While we must maintain a careful balance, I do 
believe that some modest further regulation may be in order.
  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we need to take increased 
steps to ensure that our youth have the resources to deal with the 
challenges they face. Whether they find strength in their families, in 
their church, or in their teachers or simply in themselves, young 
people need to be able to face the rejection, the volatility and 
pressures that can accompany adolescence.
  Time and again, I have heard from people in my district that the best 
way to deal with juvenile delinquency is to prevent it from happening 
in the first place. The boys and girls club, after school activities, 
sports programs, mentoring and programs like Outward Bound have all 
proven effective in keeping kids out of trouble. They help youth to 
build the skills they need and provide caring, nurtured environments 
for children to spend their time in.
  We have all heard the adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a 
pound of cure, and when it comes to dealing with our youth, I do not 
believe that any phrase could be more true. I commend the committee for 
focusing on prevention in the underlying legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues not to lose that focus as we go through the amendment 
process.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, as I stated, we have no objection to this 
amendment. We thank the gentleman for raising it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), who has been very supportive of this effort.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentlewoman be given 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform the gentleman that under the 
rule, such a request cannot be granted by the Committee of the Whole.
  Does the gentleman seek to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes, I would like to do that, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page H4378]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Oregon is recognized for 1 minute.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
gentleman's amendment.
  This amendment stresses that juveniles must be held accountable for 
their actions and allows communities to engage in innovative and 
nontraditional ways of holding juveniles accountable.
  Too often our juvenile system provides delayed accountability to our 
people by not acting for 2 or 3 months, or by not acting until after a 
person has committed a second or third or even fourth violation.
  Accountability programs have been enormously successful in my 
district in Oregon. In Clackamas County, the local juvenile authorities 
have been working with nonviolent first- and second-time juvenile 
offenders to come up with punishments that do not justify, fit the 
crime, but fit the offender.
  County officials assess and evaluate the offender and work with 
parents, local police, and school officials to come up with proper 
sanctions, treatment, and an immediate consequence to that offense, so 
that the offender understands that there is a connection. As a result, 
juveniles are often required to provide restitution, to meet with their 
victims and provide service to the community.

                              {time}  1345

  Providing these types of immediate sanctions have been so successful 
in my district. This is the kind of program this would fund, and I 
would support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in Part A of House Report 106-186.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Dreier

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Dreier:
       Page 4, line 11, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``, and accountability-based, proactive programs, 
     including anti-gang programs, developed by law enforcement 
     agencies to combat juvenile crime;''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me at the outset say that I am very pleased to be 
joined in offering this amendment with my good friend, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and my good friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn).
  This issue really centers around the question of local control. As we 
confront the issue of violent juvenile crime, it seems to me that it is 
very important for us to do everything we possibly can to empower local 
community-based agencies, particularly sheriffs and police, to fight 
gang crime.
  We all know how these horrible gangs that have been out there have 
been involving themselves in illegal commerce, primarily in the area of 
drug trafficking, and it goes across both State lines and national 
borders.
  This proposal first came to me from Lee Baca, who is the Chairman of 
Los Angeles County. They have spent a great deal of time looking for 
creative, locally-based solutions to what obviously is a very serious 
problem.
  I hope very much my colleagues will join in strong support of this 
effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. McCollum), distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Crime.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me. I want to support this amendment. I compliment the gentleman on 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to assure everybody, from what I understand from 
the discussions and from reading the amendment, the gentleman is adding 
to already existing number 11.1 for the conditions for the use of the 
money, and in that process, all the gentleman is doing is saying if a 
kid comes in contact, a juvenile, with some portion of the system, in 
this case, the law enforcement portion, before the judge ever sees the 
case, and it is one of these anti-gang programs or whatever, they can 
receive some of this money.
  That is part of the system, by definition. I assure the gentleman it 
is.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely right. So 
basically what we are doing is providing another opportunity, a greater 
degree of flexibility, so we can deal with this very pressing problem.
  Again, this came to our attention from the Los Angeles County 
Sheriff's department. In my State, Pasadena, California, has been very 
involved in this. We have, I think, what is a creative, flexible 
solution, or at least a help for a very serious problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), with whom I am pleased to be 
joined as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the honored chairman 
of the Committee on Rules, for yielding time to me.
  I would simply address my colleagues by reminding them of the 
situation we find ourselves in the Sixth Congressional District in 
Arizona, an area in square mileage almost as big as the commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania, a district of many contrasts, part of urban Phoenix, and 
a sprawling rural area in which the counties are actually larger than 
many States on the East Coast.
  While in the past, and as my colleague from California capably 
pointed out, while urban areas we often associate with gang violence 
and the rise of street crime and gang activity, we also see it in the 
rural areas of States like Arizona.
  Just yesterday a young man from Winkelman, Arizona, there on the 
Pinal-Gila county line came to see me. He spoke of incredible 
activities in his rural community, concentrations of gangs, 
concentrations of drug activity. That was followed up with a visit from 
another rural county by a narcotics officer saying the same thing.
  What we are doing in this amendment is allowing local law enforcement 
agencies to use some of the $1.5 billion in Federal assistance that is 
set aside over the next 3 years to help combat juvenile crime.
  As my friend, the distinguished subcommittee chairman from Florida 
just pointed out, this allows a portion of those proceeds to go to 
anti-gang activities which are so essential to combatting youth 
violence, so essential to combatting the scourge of drugs, and so 
essential to rural law enforcement, where we have seen the incredible 
rise of gangs along the interstates now in Arizona, even going into 
what we would consider more pastoral and placid scenes. There crime is 
rising, gang activity is up.
  This amendment allows flexibility, and the underlying principle is 
this: That those closest to the problem, those who have to fight the 
problem, should be given maximum flexibility to do so.
  That is why I am so pleased to join my colleague, the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules and my other colleague, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn), as well in offering this amendment. I urge its 
passage by this body.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) seek to 
control the time in opposition?
  Mr. CONYERS. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee, I certainly 
do not object to the proposed amendment because I think, in fact, 
although the amendment makes clear this is an eligible activity, I 
think that is already clear from the underlying bill.
  We want to do this, the amenders want to do this. Therefore there is 
no harm in saying it still again, that we want this to be an eligible 
activity.

[[Page H4379]]

  However, I do think it is important to put in context what it is we 
are doing here today in the House of Representatives. We have struggled 
on the Committee on the Judiciary with a juvenile justice bill that was 
way too extreme, and due to the efforts of the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking 
member, we came up with a bipartisan bill, H.R. 1501, that all of us 
agree would help in the juvenile justice arena.
  We had hoped in the committee that we would take that bipartisan bill 
that we knew would pass, we knew the President would sign, and added 
the simple gun safety measures that the other body approved prior to 
the recess.
  Instead, what we have here in this process today is that bipartisan 
bill and some innocuous amendments, such as the current one, that I 
believe are being used as cover for the killer amendments that will be 
offered later in the day that will sink the entire measure. I think 
that is a darned shame.
  This is being done as prelude to what I fear will be a very 
unproductive effort tomorrow, unproductive from the point of view of 
those who want gun safety measures, modest ones, commonsense ones such 
as the Senate has passed, but productive for those who wish to kill 
commonsense gun safety measures.
  This amendment is fine, but let us not be fooled by what we are doing 
here today. This entire effort is devised by those who oppose any 
efforts to adopt what the American people want, which is modest, 
moderate, commonsense gun safety measures. I think that is a terrible 
shame, and really, in so doing we will disappoint the legitimate hopes 
of the American people for these modest steps.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is certainly consistent with the 
underlying bill, especially one of the amendments that will be 
presented later, which would incorporate H.R. 1150. The localities 
would do a plan and determine whether or not this particular program 
would fit into their plan, if they have determined they need this kind 
of program.
  It would certainly be eligible under that portion of the bill. It is 
forward-thinking, and I would urge its adoption.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to express my 
appreciation, not only to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for 
accepting the amendment, but to my chief colleague, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  We were very pleased to make the gentleman's amendment in order as we 
proceeded with this rule. I appreciate the gentleman's kindness in 
accepting this very, very balanced amendment that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and 
I are offering.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to let the gentleman from California (Chairman 
Dreier) know that I appreciate the courtesy that he afforded me in 
terms of a substitute on the other bill. Had he not come forward as he 
did, it would have created almost a precedent in the House, that we on 
our side could not bring forward a substitute, and I am happy that the 
rethinking or rereview of that led the gentleman to his unparalleled 
generosity. I want the gentleman to know that I thank him for it.
  I also support the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and his two 
colleagues.
  This amendment, dealing with juvenile accountability, block grants, 
and dealing with a proactive program that really interacts among 
youngsters and gangs developed by law enforcement agencies to combat 
juvenile crime, is clearly on the money. I hope that it will be agreed 
to by all of the membership.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Dreier, for ensuring consideration of this amendment, 
and the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Hayworth, for cosponsoring it.
  As currently written, H.R. 1501 provides $1.5 billion in grants for 
use by states and local governments to strengthen the juvenile justice 
system through a wide variety of programs and initiatives. This 
amendment would ensure that anti-gang programs run by local law-
enforcement agencies are eligible for these grants. Under this 
amendment, federal assistance would be available for proactive 
programs, including anti-gang programs, based on the principle of 
accountability and developed by law enforcement to combat juvenile 
crime. This amendment has been endorsed by the National Sheriffs' 
Association.
  Local anti-gang programs play a critical role in reducing juvenile 
crime in our nation's urban areas. The city of Downey has an excellent 
Gangs Out of Downey program. Los Angeles County, which includes my 
district and the district represented by Mr. Dreier, has more than one 
thousand gangs. Gang-related crime often requires a different law-
enforcement approach compared to other types of crime. Gangs--their 
activities, their internal culture, their way of life--can vary from 
city to city, even from neighborhood to neighborhood, making a 
localized approach critical to any anti-gang effort. Moreover, anti-
gang programs must address the role that gangs play in the lives of 
their members. Many gang members come from broken homes, and their gang 
acts as a surrogate family for them. Anti-gang efforts must be 
proactive in providing alternatives to gang life, in keeping young men 
and women from joining a gang before they get pulled into one. A most 
effective program is the Police Athletic League [PAL]. They have been 
effective throughout the United States.
  The threat that gangs pose to our urban communities--and to the young 
men and women who join them--makes it critical that this bill 
specifically allow funding for anti-gang programs. I urge my colleagues 
to vote for this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  The amendment was agreed to
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in Part A of House Report 106-186.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Capuano

  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Capuano: Page 3, 
     after line 10, insert the following (and redesignate any 
     subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(6) providing funding to prosecutors for the purpose of 
     establishing and maintaining juvenile witness assistance 
     programs;''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this year Jason Sadler, a 14-year-old from my 
district, witnessed an armed robbery. When questioned by the police, he 
did what his mother told him to do. He stood up and he told the truth. 
He identified the perpetrators and he agreed to testify.
  In return for his actions, Jason has received death threats, along 
with the rest of his family, from the perpetrators and their cohorts. 
Because funding for juvenile witness assistance programs must compete 
for priority with the need to hire assistant district attorneys, 
investigators, stenographers, and the like, Jason's mother has been 
forced to remove her son from school for the last 5\1/2\ months and 
place him in hiding.
  For doing the right thing, Jason will have to repeat the eighth 
grade, and for quite a while will have to hide in fear for his life.
  Shortly before Jason's case, in January of this year, another young 
boy, Leroy B.J. Brown from Bridgeport, Connecticut, stepped forth to do 
the right thing in his time, to assist local authorities in prosecuting 
drug dealers.
  Eight-year-old B.J. was scheduled to testify about a shooting that he 
had witnessed, but before he could testify, he and his mother were 
murdered.

[[Page H4380]]

  Both of these kids were good, law-abiding citizens who were willing 
to step forth and do something many adults are not ready to do, stand 
up against crime in their community.
  Our State and local prosecutors should be encouraged to develop 
programs to support such kids when they do the right thing. This 
amendment will do just that, and I hope it is adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) seek 
recognition?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I ask to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) is recognized 
for 5 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose this amendment, I support it. I just 
want to clarify a few things about it.
  First of all, it is a big problem right now in this country, witness 
intimidation. It is a problem not only with juveniles, but across-the-
board. A significant section in my amendment, a larger comprehensive 
amendment I am going to offer in a few minutes, deals with witness 
intimidation, bribery, crossing State lines. It even has a death 
penalty if you murder somebody in a witness intimidation setting under 
those circumstances.

                              {time}  1400

  What the gentleman is offering here perhaps is included in our 
already existing No. 5 provision in our grant program, the underlying 
1501 use provisions; that is, what the States can use the money for. 
But I think it amplifies and makes it very clear that we are not just 
doing what provision No. 5 says; that is, States may do more than 
simply provide funds to enable prosecutors to address drug, gang and 
youth violence problems more effectively, and for the technology, 
equipment and training to assist the prosecutors in identifying and 
expediting the prosecution of violent juvenile offenders, which No. 5 
provides for in the existing bill, but it also will now, with the 
gentleman's amendment that I support, make certain that States can use 
the money to provide funding to prosecutors for the purpose of 
establishing and maintaining juvenile witness assistance programs.
  That might have been interpreted to be included in the one I read 
earlier, No. 5, but it is not clear, as clear as now with this 
amendment. So I think this is a good amendment. We should be helping 
prosecutors protect witnesses in juvenile programs.
  I encourage the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, following the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum), this amendment I think if we had had an opportunity to 
consider it in committee, although we did not have an opportunity but 
had we had an opportunity, I think it certainly would have been 
included because this kind of activity was anticipated to be covered by 
the bill.
  I thank the gentleman for offering it and only wish that we had had 
an opportunity to consider it in committee, but we did not have a full 
committee consideration so the gentleman had to introduce it on the 
floor, and I thank him for that.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed 
in part A of House Report 106-186.


                  Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Wise

  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak) and myself, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Wise:
       Page 4, line 18, strike ``and'' at the end.
       Page 4, line 21, strike the period at the end and insert a 
     semicolon.
       Page 4, after line 21, insert the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
       ``(14) supporting the independent State development and 
     operation of confidential, toll-free telephone hotlines that 
     will operate 7 days per week, 24 hours per day, in order to 
     provide students, school officials, and other individuals 
     with the opportunity to report specific threats of imminent 
     school violence or to report other suspicious or criminal 
     conduct by juveniles to appropriate State and local law 
     enforcement entities for investigation;
       ``(15) ensuring proper State training of personnel who 
     answer and respond to telephone calls to hotlines described 
     in paragraph (14);
       ``(16) assisting in the acquisition of technology necessary 
     to enhance the effectiveness of hotlines described in 
     paragraph (14), including the utilization of Internet web-
     pages or resources;
       ``(17) enhancing State efforts to offer appropriate 
     counseling services to individuals who call a hotline 
     described in paragraph (14) threatening to do harm to 
     themselves or others; and
       ``(18) furthering State efforts to publicize the services 
     offered by the hotlines described in paragraph (14) and to 
     encourage individuals to utilize those services.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Wise) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise).
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Wise) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support my amendment to create new 
school violence hotlines. Both the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Wise) and I have been working on this important amendment to help our 
communities prevent acts of violence at schools. I thank my colleague, 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise) for his efforts and his 
hard work on this and urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Our amendment allows States to create and operate confidential, toll 
free, telephone hotlines that operate 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, 
in order to provide students, parents, school officials and others the 
opportunity to report specific threats of imminent school violence to 
appropriate State and law enforcement entities.
  Our amendment also ensures that the States properly train people to 
answer and respond to telephone calls and assist States in the 
acquisition of technology to administer the hotlines.
  Mr. Chairman, hotlines will provide parents and students an important 
tool in our effort to reduce school violence. As chair of the 
Democratic Crime and Drug Task Force, we have met over the last year 
with school officials and they have detailed to us how these hotlines 
are particularly valuable because they allow students to report 
anonymously, avoiding much of the peer pressure that so often affects 
their behavior.
  No kid wants to be considered a snitch in their school and many times 
potential acts of violence go unreported because of the pressure 
students feel from their peers.
  Additionally and most importantly, students often fail to report 
potential violence because of fear that the weapons or the violence 
that they are to report may be used against them if they are found out 
to be the one who reported to authorities. These hotlines will 
eliminate the pressure and allow kids to come forward without fear of 
retaliation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
amendment. The Senate adopted a similar provision sponsored by Senators 
Robb and Sessions. We can make this easier for our children to report 
potential violent acts at school and we can provide a valuable tool to 
our communities to help reduce school violence.
  I would like to thank my staff, in particular Dave Buchanan, for all 
of his hard work on this.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H4381]]

  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I think it is a good 
amendment. It adds one more provision to this bill that is really a 
complimentary thing with respect to what the funds in the grant program 
for the juvenile justice systems improvement can be used for. In other 
words, there is a very important hotline issue here about schools and 
training folks to be able to use that hotline to report potential 
violence in the school and criminal conduct in the school among 
juveniles, and it strikes me that that is indeed at this point, 
whenever one sees something such as a threat of violence by a teenager 
in a school occurring, at that point in time the juvenile justice 
system is enacted, it is in contact, it is a part of this system at 
that point that we want to see these funds used to improve.
  So it strikes me, again, that this is at the very initial stage of 
where we want the line to be drawn for the money to be used in this 
legislation. That is, when the juvenile justice system first comes into 
play, when that first telephone ring comes about, 911 or through the 
hotline that is established here as a special hotline, to the local 
authorities about something that is going on in a school, I think that 
is extremely important. So I support this amendment and urge its 
adoption to make sure that the use of money in this respect under this 
bill is allowable. I think it is already, but if it is not that 
certainly clarifies it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Wise) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is an excellent amendment. I wanted to 
praise the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for joining the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise) on it. He is one of the Members 
in the Michigan delegation that is standing up to incredible scrutiny 
and he is standing tall as we consider juvenile justice and gun safety 
measures here during the week and into next week. I thought that this 
would be an appropriate place to make that observation.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, as I listened to people across the State at four school 
violence hearings last summer, several good ideas emerged and one of 
them is the creation of a statewide toll free school violence hotline. 
Today the amendment that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and I 
are offering to the juvenile justice bill specifies that the block 
grant funds in this bill can be used to create a hotline and to train 
and support the personnel to operate it.
  This toll free hotline is a place where students and teachers or 
anyone else can call to report suspicious behavior, to make this call 
anonymously, without fear of exposure or retaliation.
  Students have told me that many times they hesitate to alert others 
of potentially violent situations because they are afraid of being 
labeled a snitch or they are afraid of retaliation. This hotline would 
allow authorities to review the information without putting the person 
passing it along in danger. This is going to be vital for many of our 
smaller counties that might not be able to take this on by themselves. 
But check with Harrison County in West Virginia, for instance, or 
Berkeley County or others that have implemented such a hotline to see 
how important they think it is, as other States have done across the 
country.
  We have investigated many ways that one can have such a hotline and 
each State can take its own means, but it is important that we put this 
in the bill so that States know that they can use these block grant 
monies to create a toll free, statewide school violence hotline that 
can protect many of our young people from violence and give them the 
opportunity to report what they consider to be a violent situation.
  When our school doors reopen this fall, with this in the bill, we 
will have made our schools safer, and I appreciate greatly the chairman 
of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee for agreeing 
to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed 
in part A of House Report 106-186.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. McCollum.

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. McCollum:
       Page 1, beginning on line 4, strike ``Consequences for 
     Juvenile Offenders'' and insert ``Child Safety and Youth 
     Violence Prevention''.
       Page 1, after line 5, insert the following:

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

        TITLE I--CONSEQUENCES FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS ACT OF 1999

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Grant program.

                   TITLE II--JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM

Sec. 201. Delinquency proceedings or criminal prosecutions in district 
              courts.
Sec. 202. Custody prior to appearance before judicial officer.
Sec. 203. Technical and conforming amendments to section 5034.
Sec. 204. Detention prior to disposition or sentencing.
Sec. 205. Speedy trial.
Sec. 206. Disposition; availability of increased detention, fines and 
              supervised release for juvenile offenders.
Sec. 207. Juvenile records and fingerprinting.
Sec. 208. Technical amendments of sections 5031 and 5034.
Sec. 209. Clerical amendments to table of sections for chapter 403.

       TITLE III--EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS

Sec. 301. Armed criminal apprehension program.
Sec. 302. Annual reports.
Sec. 303. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 304. Cross-designation of Federal prosecutors.

     TITLE IV--LIMITING JUVENILE ACCESS TO FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES

Sec. 401. Increased penalties for unlawful juvenile possession of 
              firearms.
Sec. 402. Increased penalties and mandatory minimum sentence for 
              unlawful transfer of firearm to juvenile.
Sec. 403. Prohibiting possession of explosives by juveniles and young 
              adults.

     TITLE V--PREVENTING CRIMINAL ACCESS TO FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES

Sec. 501. Criminal prohibition on distribution of certain information 
              relating to explosives, destructive devices, and weapons 
              of mass destruction.
Sec. 502. Requiring thefts from common carriers to be reported.
Sec. 503. Voluntary submission of dealer's records.
Sec. 504. Grant program for juvenile records.

    TITLE VI--PUNISHING AND DETERRING CRIMINAL USE OF FIREARMS AND 
                               EXPLOSIVES

Sec. 601. Mandatory minimum sentence for discharging a firearm in a 
              school zone.
Sec. 602. Apprehension and procedural treatment of armed violent 
              criminals.
Sec. 603. Increased penalties for possessing or transferring stolen 
              firearms.
Sec. 604. Increased mandatory minimum penalties for using a firearm to 
              commit a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime.
Sec. 605. Increased penalties for misrepresented firearms purchase in 
              aid of a serious violent felony.
Sec. 606. Increasing penalties on gun kingpins.
Sec. 607. Serious recordkeeping offenses that aid gun trafficking.
Sec. 608. Termination of firearms dealer's license upon felony 
              conviction.
Sec. 609. Increased penalty for transactions involving firearms with 
              obliterated serial numbers.
Sec. 610. Forfeiture for gun trafficking.
Sec. 611. Increased penalty for firearms conspiracy.
Sec. 612. Gun convictions as predicate crimes for Armed Career Criminal 
              Act.
Sec. 613. Serious juvenile drug trafficking offenses as Armed Career 
              Criminal Act predicates.
Sec. 614. Forfeiture of firearms used in crimes of violence and 
              felonies.
Sec. 615. Separate licenses for gunsmiths.
Sec. 616. Permits and background checks for purchases of explosives.
Sec. 617. Persons prohibited from receiving or possessing explosives.

[[Page H4382]]

   TITLE VII--PUNISHING GANG VIOLENCE AND DRUG TRAFFICKING TO MINORS

Sec. 701. Increased mandatory minimum penalties for using minors to 
              distribute drugs.
Sec. 702. Increased mandatory minimum penalties for distributing drugs 
              to minors.
Sec. 703. Increased mandatory minimum penalties for drug trafficking in 
              or near a school or other protected location.
Sec. 704. Criminal street gangs.
Sec. 705. Increase in offense level for participation in crime as a 
              gang member.
Sec. 706. Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of 
              criminal gangs.
Sec. 707. Gang-related witness intimidation and retaliation.

        TITLE I--CONSEQUENCES FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS ACT OF 1999

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Consequences for Juvenile 
     Offenders Act of 1999''.
       Page 2, line 1, strike ``2'' and insert ``102''.
       Page 4, line 11, strike the period and insert a semicolon.
       Page 6, line 10, strike ``juvenile'' and all that follows 
     through ``every'' on line 11 and insert the following: ``a 
     juvenile offender for each delinquent''.
       Page 6, line 13, strike ``or criminal''.
       Page 16, line 16, strike ``utilized'' and insert the 
     following: ``used by a State or unit of local government that 
     receives a grant under this part''.
       Page 16, line 18, strike ``(a)(2)'' and insert ``(b)''.
       Page 20, strike line 4, and insert the following:
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 1001(a)(16) 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1965 is 
     amended by striking subparagraph (E).
       (2) Table of contents.--The table of contents
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

                   TITLE II--JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM

     SEC. 201. DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS IN 
                   DISTRICT COURTS.

       Section 5032 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 5032. Delinquency proceedings or criminal prosecutions 
       in district courts

       ``(a)(1) A juvenile alleged to have committed an offense 
     against the United States or an act of juvenile delinquency 
     may be surrendered to State or Indian tribal authorities, but 
     if not so surrendered, shall be proceeded against as a 
     juvenile under this subsection or tried as an adult in the 
     circumstances described in subsections (b) and (c).
       ``(2) A juvenile may be proceeded against as a juvenile in 
     a court of the United States under this subsection if--
       ``(A) the alleged offense or act of juvenile delinquency is 
     committed within the special maritime and territorial 
     jurisdiction of the United States and is one for which the 
     maximum authorized term of imprisonment does not exceed 6 
     months; or
       ``(B) the Attorney General, after investigation, certifies 
     to the appropriate United States district court that--
       ``(i) the juvenile court or other appropriate court of a 
     State or Indian tribe does not have jurisdiction or declines 
     to assume jurisdiction over the juvenile with respect to the 
     alleged act of juvenile delinquency, or
       ``(ii) there is a substantial Federal interest in the case 
     or the offense to warrant the exercise of Federal 
     jurisdiction.
       ``(3) If the Attorney General does not so certify or does 
     not have authority to try such juvenile as an adult, such 
     juvenile shall be surrendered to the appropriate legal 
     authorities of such State or tribe.
       ``(4) If a juvenile alleged to have committed an act of 
     juvenile delinquency is proceeded against as a juvenile under 
     this section, any proceedings against the juvenile shall be 
     in an appropriate district court of the United States. For 
     such purposes, the court may be convened at any time and 
     place within the district, and shall be open to the public, 
     except that the court may exclude all or some members of the 
     public, other than a victim unless the victim is a witness in 
     the determination of guilt or innocence, if required by the 
     interests of justice or if other good cause is shown. The 
     Attorney General shall proceed by information or as 
     authorized by section 3401(g) of this title, and no criminal 
     prosecution shall be instituted except as provided in this 
     chapter.
       ``(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a juvenile 
     shall be prosecuted as an adult--
       ``(A) if the juvenile has requested in writing upon advice 
     of counsel to be prosecuted as an adult; or
       ``(B) if the juvenile is alleged to have committed an act 
     after the juvenile attains the age of 14 years which if 
     committed by an adult would be a serious violent felony or a 
     serious drug offense described in section 3559(c) of this 
     title, or a conspiracy or attempt to commit that felony or 
     offense, which is punishable under section 406 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 846), or section 1013 of 
     the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 
     963).
       ``(2) The requirements of paragraph (1) do not apply if the 
     Attorney General certifies to the appropriate United States 
     district court that the interests of public safety are best 
     served by proceeding against the juvenile as a juvenile.
       ``(c)(1) A juvenile may also be prosecuted as an adult if 
     the juvenile is alleged to have committed an act after the 
     juvenile has attained the age of 13 years which if committed 
     by a juvenile after the juvenile attained the age of 14 years 
     would require that the juvenile be prosecuted as an adult 
     under subsection (b), upon approval of the Attorney General.
       ``(2) The Attorney General shall not delegate the authority 
     to give the approval required under paragraph (1) to an 
     officer or employee of the Department of Justice at a level 
     lower than a Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
       ``(3) Such approval shall not be granted, with respect to a 
     juvenile who has not attained the age of 14 and who is 
     subject to the criminal jurisdiction of an Indian tribal 
     government and who is alleged to have committed an act over 
     which, if committed by an adult, there would be Federal 
     jurisdiction based solely on its commission in Indian country 
     (as defined in section 1151), unless the governing body of 
     the tribe having jurisdiction over the place in which the 
     alleged act was committed has before such act notified the 
     Attorney General in writing of its election that prosecution 
     may take place under this subsection.
       ``(4) A juvenile may also be prosecuted as an adult if the 
     juvenile is alleged to have committed an act which is not 
     described in subsection (b)(1)(B) after the juvenile has 
     attained the age of 14 years and which if committed by an 
     adult would be--
       ``(A) a crime of violence (as defined in section 
     3156(a)(4)) that is a felony;
       ``(B) an offense described in section 844(d), (k), or (l), 
     or subsection (a)(4) or (6), (b), (g), (h), (j), (k), or (l) 
     of section 924;
       ``(C) a violation of section 922(o) that is an offense 
     under section 924(a)(2);
       ``(D) a violation of section 5861 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 that is an offense under section 5871 of such 
     Code (26 U.S.C. 5871);
       ``(E) a conspiracy to commit an offense described in any of 
     subparagraphs (A) through (D); or
       ``(F) an offense described in section 401 or 408 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841, 848) or a 
     conspiracy or attempt to commit that offense which is 
     punishable under section 406 of the Controlled Substances Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 846), or an offense punishable under section 409 
     or 419 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 849, 860), 
     or an offense described in section 1002, 1003, 1005, or 1009 
     of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 
     952, 953, 955, or 959), or a conspiracy or attempt to commit 
     that offense which is punishable under section 1013 of the 
     Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 963).
       ``(d) A determination to approve or not to approve, or to 
     institute or not to institute, a prosecution under subsection 
     (b) or (c), and a determination to file or not to file, and 
     the contents of, a certification under subsection (a) or (b) 
     shall not be reviewable in any court.
       ``(e) In a prosecution under subsection (b) or (c), the 
     juvenile may be prosecuted and convicted as an adult for any 
     other offense which is properly joined under the Federal 
     Rules of Criminal Procedure, and may also be convicted of a 
     lesser included offense.
       ``(f) The Attorney General shall annually report to 
     Congress--
       ``(1) the number of juveniles adjudicated delinquent or 
     tried as adults in Federal court;
       ``(2) the race, ethnicity, and gender of those juveniles;
       ``(3) the number of those juveniles who were abused or 
     neglected by their families, to the extent such information 
     is available; and
       ``(4) the number and types of assault crimes, such as rapes 
     and beatings, committed against juveniles while incarcerated 
     in connection with the adjudication or conviction.
       ``(g) As used in this section--
       ``(1) the term `State' includes a State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, any commonwealth, 
     territory, or possession of the United States and, with 
     regard to an act of juvenile delinquency that would have been 
     a misdemeanor if committed by an adult, a federally 
     recognized tribe; and
       ``(2) the term `serious violent felony' has the same 
     meaning given that term in section 3559(c)(2)(F)(i).''.

     SEC. 202. CUSTODY PRIOR TO APPEARANCE BEFORE JUDICIAL 
                   OFFICER.

       Section 5033 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 5033. Custody prior to appearance before judicial 
       officer

       ``(a) Whenever a juvenile is taken into custody, the 
     arresting officer shall immediately advise such juvenile of 
     the juvenile's rights, in language comprehensible to a 
     juvenile. The arresting officer shall promptly take 
     reasonable steps to notify the juvenile's parents, guardian, 
     or custodian of such custody, of the rights of the juvenile, 
     and of the nature of the alleged offense.
       ``(b) The juvenile shall be taken before a judicial officer 
     without unreasonable delay.''.

     SEC. 203. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 
                   5034.

       Section 5034 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The'' each place it appears at the 
     beginning of a paragraph and inserting ``the'';

[[Page H4383]]

       (2) by striking ``If'' at the beginning of the 3rd 
     paragraph and inserting ``if'';
       (3)(A) by designating the 3 paragraphs as paragraphs (1), 
     (2), and (3), respectively; and
       (B) by moving such designated paragraphs 2 ems to the 
     right; and
       (4) by inserting at the beginning of such section before 
     those paragraphs the following:
       ``In a proceeding under section 5032(a)--''.

     SEC. 204. DETENTION PRIOR TO DISPOSITION OR SENTENCING.

       Section 5035 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 5035. Detention prior to disposition or sentencing

       ``(a) A juvenile alleged to be delinquent or a juvenile 
     being prosecuted as an adult, if detained at any time prior 
     to sentencing, shall be detained in such suitable place as 
     the Attorney General may designate. Whenever appropriate, 
     detention shall be in a foster home or community based 
     facility. Preference shall be given to a place located 
     within, or within a reasonable distance of, the district in 
     which the juvenile is being prosecuted.
       ``(b) To the maximum extent feasible, a juvenile prosecuted 
     pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) of section 5032 shall not 
     be detained prior to sentencing in any facility in which the 
     juvenile has regular contact with adult persons convicted of 
     a crime or awaiting trial on criminal charges.
       ``(c) A juvenile who is proceeded against under section 
     5032(a) shall not be detained prior to disposition in any 
     facility in which the juvenile has regular contact with adult 
     persons convicted of a crime or awaiting trial on criminal 
     charges.
       ``(d) Every juvenile who is detained prior to disposition 
     or sentencing shall be provided with reasonable safety and 
     security and with adequate food, heat, light, sanitary 
     facilities, bedding, clothing, recreation, education, and 
     medical care, including necessary psychiatric, psychological, 
     or other care and treatment.''.

     SEC. 205. SPEEDY TRIAL.

       Section 5036 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by--
       (1) striking ``If an alleged delinquent'' and inserting 
     ``If a juvenile proceeded against under section 5032(a)'';
       (2) striking ``thirty'' and inserting ``45''; and
       (3) striking ``the court,'' and all that follows through 
     the end of the section and inserting ``the court. The periods 
     of exclusion under section 3161(h) of this title shall apply 
     to this section.''.

     SEC. 206. DISPOSITION; AVAILABILITY OF INCREASED DETENTION, 
                   FINES AND SUPERVISED RELEASE FOR JUVENILE 
                   OFFENDERS.

       (a) Disposition.--Section 5037 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 5037. Disposition

       ``(a) In a proceeding under section 5032(a), if the court 
     finds a juvenile to be a juvenile delinquent, the court shall 
     hold a hearing concerning the appropriate disposition of the 
     juvenile no later than 40 court days after the finding of 
     juvenile delinquency, unless the court has ordered further 
     study pursuant to subsection (e). A predisposition report 
     shall be prepared by the probation officer who shall promptly 
     provide a copy to the juvenile, the juvenile's counsel, and 
     the attorney for the Government. Victim impact information 
     shall be included in the report, and victims, or in 
     appropriate cases their official representatives, shall be 
     provided the opportunity to make a statement to the court in 
     person or present any information in relation to the 
     disposition. After the dispositional hearing, and after 
     considering the sanctions recommended pursuant to subsection 
     (f), the court shall impose an appropriate sanction, 
     including the ordering of restitution pursuant to section 
     3556 of this title. The court may order the juvenile's 
     parent, guardian, or custodian to be present at the 
     dispositional hearing and the imposition of sanctions and may 
     issue orders directed to such parent, guardian, custodian 
     regarding conduct with respect to the juvenile. With respect 
     to release or detention pending an appeal or a petition for a 
     writ of certiorari after disposition, the court shall proceed 
     pursuant to chapter 207.
       ``(b) The term for which probation may be ordered for a 
     juvenile found to be a juvenile delinquent may not extend 
     beyond the maximum term that would be authorized by section 
     3561(c) if the juvenile had been tried and convicted as an 
     adult. Sections 3563, 3564, and 3565 are applicable to an 
     order placing a juvenile on probation.
       ``(c) The term for which official detention may be ordered 
     for a juvenile found to be a juvenile delinquent may not 
     extend beyond the lesser of--
       ``(1) the maximum term of imprisonment that would be 
     authorized if the juvenile had been tried and convicted as an 
     adult;
       ``(2) ten years; or
       ``(3) the date when the juvenile becomes twenty-six years 
     old.

     Section 3624 is applicable to an order placing a juvenile in 
     detention.
       ``(d) The term for which supervised release may be ordered 
     for a juvenile found to be a juvenile delinquent may not 
     extend beyond 5 years. Subsections (c) through (i) of section 
     3583 apply to an order placing a juvenile on supervised 
     release.
       ``(e) If the court desires more detailed information 
     concerning a juvenile alleged to have committed an act of 
     juvenile delinquency or a juvenile adjudicated delinquent, it 
     may commit the juvenile, after notice and hearing at which 
     the juvenile is represented by counsel, to the custody of the 
     Attorney General for observation and study by an appropriate 
     agency or entity. Such observation and study shall be 
     conducted on an outpatient basis, unless the court determines 
     that inpatient observation and study are necessary to obtain 
     the desired information. In the case of an alleged juvenile 
     delinquent, inpatient study may be ordered only with the 
     consent of the juvenile and the juvenile's attorney. The 
     agency or entity shall make a study of all matters relevant 
     to the alleged or adjudicated delinquent behavior and the 
     court's inquiry. The Attorney General shall submit to the 
     court and the attorneys for the juvenile and the Government 
     the results of the study within 30 days after the commitment 
     of the juvenile, unless the court grants additional time. 
     Time spent in custody under this subsection shall be excluded 
     for purposes of section 5036.
       ``(f)(1) The United States Sentencing Commission, in 
     consultation with the Attorney General, shall develop a list 
     of possible sanctions for juveniles adjudicated delinquent.
       ``(2) Such list shall--
       ``(A) be comprehensive in nature and encompass punishments 
     of varying levels of severity;
       ``(B) include terms of confinement; and
       ``(C) provide punishments that escalate in severity with 
     each additional or subsequent more serious delinquent 
     conduct.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The Sentencing Commission shall 
     develop the list required pursuant to section 5037(f), as 
     amended by subsection (a), not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Conforming Amendment to Adult Sentencing Section.--
     Section 3553 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Limitation on Applicability of Statutory Minimums in 
     Certain Prosecutions of Persons Under the Age of 16.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of a 
     defendant convicted for conduct that occurred before the 
     juvenile attained the age of 16 years, the court shall impose 
     a sentence without regard to any statutory minimum sentence, 
     if the court finds at sentencing, after affording the 
     Government an opportunity to make a recommendation, that the 
     juvenile has not been previously adjudicated delinquent for 
     or convicted of an offense described in section 
     5032(b)(1)(B).''.

     SEC. 207. JUVENILE RECORDS AND FINGERPRINTING.

       Section 5038 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 5038. Juvenile records and fingerprinting

       ``(a)(1) Throughout and upon the completion of the juvenile 
     delinquency proceeding under section 5032(a), the court shall 
     keep a record relating to the arrest and adjudication that 
     is--
       ``(A) equivalent to the record that would be kept of an 
     adult arrest and conviction for such an offense; and
       ``(B) retained for a period of time that is equal to the 
     period of time records are kept for adult convictions.
       ``(2) Such records shall be made available for official 
     purposes, including communications with any victim or, in the 
     case of a deceased victim, such victim's representative, or 
     school officials, and to the public to the same extent as 
     court records regarding the criminal prosecutions of adults 
     are available.
       ``(b) The Attorney General shall establish guidelines for 
     fingerprinting and photographing a juvenile who is the 
     subject of any proceeding authorized under this chapter. Such 
     guidelines shall address the availability of pictures of any 
     juvenile taken into custody but not prosecuted as an adult. 
     Fingerprints and photographs of a juvenile who is prosecuted 
     as an adult shall be made available in the manner applicable 
     to adult offenders.
       ``(c) Whenever a juvenile has been adjudicated delinquent 
     for an act that, if committed by an adult, would be a felony 
     or for a violation of section 924(a)(6), the court shall 
     transmit to the Federal Bureau of Investigation the 
     information concerning the adjudication, including name, date 
     of adjudication, court, offenses, and sentence, along with 
     the notation that the matter was a juvenile adjudication.
       ``(d) In addition to any other authorization under this 
     section for the reporting, retention, disclosure, or 
     availability of records or information, if the law of the 
     State in which a Federal juvenile delinquency proceeding 
     takes place permits or requires the reporting, retention, 
     disclosure, or availability of records or information 
     relating to a juvenile or to a juvenile delinquency 
     proceeding or adjudication in certain circumstances, then 
     such reporting, retention, disclosure, or availability is 
     permitted under this section whenever the same circumstances 
     exist.''.

     SEC. 208. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS OF SECTIONS 5031 AND 5034.

       (a) Elimination of Pronouns.--Sections 5031 and 5034 of 
     title 18, United States Code, are each amended by striking 
     ``his'' each place it appears and inserting ``the 
     juvenile's''.
       (b) Updating of Reference.--Section 5034 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the heading of such section, by striking 
     ``magistrate'' and inserting ``judicial officer''; and
       (2) by striking ``magistrate'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``judicial officer''.

[[Page H4384]]

     SEC. 209. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS TO TABLE OF SECTIONS FOR 
                   CHAPTER 403.

       The heading and the table of sections at the beginning of 
     chapter 403 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

                  ``CHAPTER 403--JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

``Sec.
``5031. Definitions.
``5032. Delinquency proceedings or criminal prosecutions in district 
              courts.
``5033. Custody prior to appearance before judicial officer.
``5034. Duties of judicial officer.
``5035. Detention prior to disposition or sentencing.
``5036. Speedy trial.
``5037. Disposition.
``5038. Juvenile records and fingerprinting.
``5039. Commitment.
``5040. Support.
``5041. Repealed.
``5042. Revocation of probation.''.

       TITLE III--EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS

     SEC. 301. ARMED CRIMINAL APPREHENSION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish 
     in the office of each United States Attorney a program that 
     meets the requirements of subsections (b) and (c). The 
     program shall be known as the ``Armed Criminal Apprehension 
     Program''.
       (b) Program Requirements.--In the office of each United 
     States Attorney, the program established under subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (1) provide for coordination with State and local law 
     enforcement officials in the identification of violations of 
     Federal firearms laws;
       (2) provide for the establishment of agreements with State 
     and local law enforcement officials for the referral to the 
     Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the United 
     States Attorney for prosecution of persons arrested for 
     violations of chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, or 
     section 5861(d) or 5861(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, relating to firearms;
       (3) require that the United States Attorney designate not 
     less than 1 Assistant United States Attorney to prosecute 
     violations of Federal firearms laws;
       (4) provide for the hiring of agents for the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to investigate violations of 
     the provisions referred to in paragraph (2); and
       (5) ensure that each person referred to the United States 
     Attorney under paragraph (2) be charged with a violation of 
     the most serious Federal firearm offense consistent with the 
     act committed.
       (c) Public Education Campaign.--As part of the program, 
     each United States Attorney shall carry out, in cooperation 
     with local civic, community, law enforcement, and religious 
     organizations, an extensive media and public outreach 
     campaign focused in high-crime areas to--
       (1) educate the public about the severity of penalties for 
     violations of Federal firearms laws; and
       (2) encourage law-abiding citizens to report the possession 
     of illegal firearms to authorities.
       (d) Waiver Authority.--
       (1) Request for waiver.--A United States attorney may 
     request the Attorney General to waive the requirements of 
     subsection (b) with respect to the United States attorney.
       (2) Provision of waiver.--The Attorney General may waive 
     the requirements of subsection (b) pursuant to a request made 
     under paragraph (1), in accordance with guidelines which 
     shall be established by the Attorney General. In establishing 
     the guidelines, the Attorney General shall take into 
     consideration the number of assistant United States attorneys 
     in the office of the United States attorney making the 
     request and the level of violent youth crime committed in the 
     district for which the United States attorney is appointed.

     SEC. 302. ANNUAL REPORTS.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, and annually thereafter, the Attorney General shall 
     submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of Senate and House 
     of Representatives a report containing the following 
     information:
       (1) The number of Assistant United States Attorneys 
     deisgnated under the program under section 301 and cross-
     deisgnated under section 304 during the year preceding the 
     year in which the report is submitted in order to prosecute 
     violations of Federal firearms laws in Federal court.
       (2) The number of individuals indicted for such violations 
     during that year by reason of the program.
       (3) The increase or decrease in the number of individuals 
     indicted for such violations during that year by reason of 
     the program when compared with the year preceding that year.
       (4) The number of individuals held without bond in 
     anticipation of prosecution by reason of the program.
       (5) The average length of prison sentence of the 
     individuals convicted of violations of Federal firearms laws 
     by reason of the program.

     SEC. 303. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out the program under section 301 
     $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, of which--
       (1) $40,000,000 shall be used for salaries and expenses of 
     Assistant United States Attorneys and Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco, and Firearms agents; and
       (2) $10,000,000 shall be available for the public relations 
     campaign required by subsection (c) of that section.
       (b) Use of Funds.--
       (1) The Assistant United States Attorneys hired using 
     amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of 
     appropriations in subsection (a) shall prosecute violations 
     of Federal firearms laws in accordance with section 
     301(b)(3).
       (2) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents 
     hired using amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations in subsection (a) shall, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, concentrate their 
     investigations on violations of Federal firearms laws in 
     accordance with section 301(b)(4).
       (3) It is the sense of Congress that amounts made available 
     under this section for the public education campaign required 
     by section 301(c) should, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     be matched with State or local funds or private donations.
       (c) Authorization of Additional Appropriations.--In 
     addition to amounts made available under subsection (a), 
     there is authorized to be appropriated to the Administrative 
     Office of the United States Courts such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this title.

     SEC. 304. CROSS-DESIGNATION OF FEDERAL PROSECUTORS.

       To better assist state and local law enforcement agencies 
     in the investigation and prosecution of firearms offenses, 
     each United States Attorney may cross-designate one or more 
     Assistant United States Attorneys to prosecute firearms 
     offenses under State law that are similar to those listed in 
     section 301(b)(2) in State and local courts.

     TITLE IV--LIMITING JUVENILE ACCESS TO FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES

     SEC. 401. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL JUVENILE 
                   POSSESSION OF FIREARMS.

       Section 924(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4) by striking ``Whoever'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided in paragraph (6) of this subsection, 
     whoever''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
       ``(6)(A) A juvenile who violates section 922(x) shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or 
     both, except--
       ``(i) the juvenile shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, if--
       ``(I) the offense of which the juvenile is charged is a 
     violation of section 922(x); and
       ``(II) the violation was also with the intent to possess 
     the handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition feeding 
     device, or semiautomatic assault weapon giving rise to the 
     violation in a school zone, or knowing that another juvenile 
     intends to possess the handgun, ammunition, large capacity 
     feeding device, or semiautomatic assault weapon giving rise 
     to the violation in a school zone;
       ``(ii) the juvenile shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, if--
       ``(I) the offense of which the juvenile is charged is a 
     violation of section 922(x); and
       ``(II) the violation was also with the intent also to use 
     the handgun, ammunition, large capacity ammunition feeding 
     device, or semiautomatic assault weapon giving rise to the 
     violation in the commission of a violent felony, or knowing 
     that another juvenile intends to use the handgun, ammunition, 
     large capacity ammunition feeding device, or semiautomatic 
     assault weapon giving rise to the violation in the commission 
     of a serious violent felony.
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `serious 
     violent felony' has the meaning given the term in section 
     3559(c)(2)(F).
       ``(C) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, in any 
     case in which a juvenile is prosecuted in a district court of 
     the United States, and the juvenile is subject to penalties 
     under subparagraph (A)(ii), the juvenile shall be subject to 
     the same laws, rules, and proceedings regarding sentencing 
     (including the availability of probation, restitution, fines, 
     forfeiture, imprisonment, and supervised release) that would 
     be applicable in the case of an adult. No juvenile sentenced 
     to a term of imprisonment shall be released from custody 
     simply because the juvenile attains 18 years of age.''.

     SEC. 402. INCREASED PENALTIES AND MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE 
                   FOR UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF FIREARM TO JUVENILE.

       Section 924(a)(6) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     further amended by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 
     subparagraphs (C) and (D), respectively, and by inserting 
     after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) A person other than a juvenile who knowingly violates 
     section 922(x)--
       ``(i) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 5 years, or both;
       ``(ii) if the person violated section 922(x)(1) knowing 
     that a juvenile intended to possess the handgun, ammunition, 
     large capacity ammunition feeding device, or semiautomatic 
     assault weapon giving rise to the violation of section 
     922(x)(1) in a school zone, shall be fined under this title 
     and imprisoned not less than 3 years and not more than 20 
     years; and
       ``(iii) if the person violated section 922(x)(1) knowing 
     that a juvenile intended to use the handgun, ammunition, 
     large capacity ammunition feeding device, or semiautomatic 
     assault weapon giving rise to the violation of

[[Page H4385]]

     section 922(x)(1) in the commission of a serious violent 
     felony, shall be imprisoned not less than 10 years and not 
     more than 20 years and fined under this title.''.

     SEC. 403. PROHIBITING POSSESSION OF EXPLOSIVES BY JUVENILES 
                   AND YOUNG ADULTS.

       Section 842 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(r)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person who has not 
     attained 21 years of age to ship or transport any explosive 
     materials in interstate or foreign commerce or to receive or 
     possess any explosive materials which has been shipped or 
     transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
       ``(2) This subsection shall not apply to commercially 
     manufactured black powder in bulk quantities not to exceed 
     five pounds, and if the person is less than 18 years of age, 
     the person has the prior written consent of the person's 
     parents or guardian who is not prohibited by Federal, State, 
     or local law from possessing explosive materials, and the 
     person has the prior written consent in the person's 
     possession at all times when the black powder is in the 
     possession of the person.''.

     TITLE V--PREVENTING CRIMINAL ACCESS TO FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES

     SEC. 501. CRIMINAL PROHIBITION ON DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN 
                   INFORMATION RELATING TO EXPLOSIVES, DESTRUCTIVE 
                   DEVICES, AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

       (a) Unlawful Conduct.--Section 842 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p)(1) For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `destructive device' has the same meaning as 
     in section 921(a)(4).
       ``(B) The term `explosive' has the same meaning as in 
     section 844(j).
       ``(C) The term `weapon of mass destruction' has the same 
     meaning as in section 2332a(c)(2).
       ``(2) It shall be unlawful for any person--
       ``(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an 
     explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass 
     destruction, or to distribute by any means information 
     pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of 
     an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass 
     destruction, with the intent that the teaching, 
     demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance 
     of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; 
     or
       ``(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or 
     use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of 
     mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any 
     means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the 
     manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or 
     weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends 
     to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in 
     furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime 
     of violence.''.
       (b) Penalties.--Section 844 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``person who violates 
     any of subsections'' and inserting the following: ``person 
     who--
       ``(1) violates any of subsections'';
       (2) by striking the period and inserting ``; and'';
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) violates section 842(p)(2), shall be fined under this 
     title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.''; and
       (4) in subsection (j), by inserting ``and section 842(p),'' 
     after ``this section,''.

     SEC. 502. REQUIRING THEFTS FROM COMMON CARRIERS TO BE 
                   REPORTED.

       (a) Section 922(f) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3)(A) It shall be unlawful for any common or contract 
     carrier to fail to report the theft or loss of a firearm 
     within 48 hours after the theft or loss is discovered. The 
     theft or loss shall be reported to the Secretary and to the 
     appropriate local authorities.
       ``(B) The Secretary may impose a civil fine of not more 
     than $10,000 on any person who knowingly violates 
     subparagraph (A).''.
       (b) Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``(f),'' and inserting ``(f)(1), 
     (f)(2),''.

     SEC. 503. VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION OF DEALER'S RECORDS.

       Section 923(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(4) Where a firearms or ammunition business is 
     discontinued and succeeded by a new licensee, the records 
     required to be kept by this chapter shall appropriately 
     reflect such facts and shall be delivered to the successor. 
     Upon receipt of such records the successor licensee may 
     retain the records of the discontinued business or submit the 
     discontinued business records to the Secretary. Additionally, 
     a licensee while maintaining a firearms business may 
     voluntarily submit the records required to be kept by this 
     chapter to the Secretary if such records are at least 20 
     years old. Where discontinuance of the business is absolute, 
     such records shall be delivered within thirty days after the 
     business is discontinued to the Secretary. Where State law or 
     local ordinance requires the delivery of records to another 
     responsible authority, the Secretary may arrange for the 
     delivery of such records to such other responsible 
     authority.''.

     SEC. 504. GRANT PROGRAM FOR JUVENILE RECORDS.

       (a) Program Authorization.--The Attorney General is 
     authorized to provide grants to States to improve the quality 
     and accessibility of juvenile records and to ensure juvenile 
     records are routinely available for background checks 
     performed in connection with the transfer of a firearm.
       (b) Eligibility.--
       (1) In general.--A State that wishes to receive a grant 
     under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Attorney General that meets the requirements of paragraph 
     (2).
       (2) Assurance.--The application referred to in paragraph 
     (1) shall include an assurance that the State has in place a 
     system of records that ensures that juvenile records are 
     available for background checks performed in connection with 
     the transfer of a firearm, in which such system provides 
     that--
       (A) an adjudication of an act of violent juvenile 
     delinquency as defined in section 921(a)(20)(B) is not 
     expunged or set aside after a juvenile reaches the age of 
     majority; and
       (B) such a juvenile record is available and retained as if 
     it were an adult record.
       (c) Allocation.--Of the total funds appropriated under 
     subsection (e), each State that meets the requirements of 
     subsection (b), shall be allocated an amount which bears the 
     same ratio to the amount of funds so appropriated as the 
     population of individuals under the age of 18 living in such 
     State for the most recent calendar year in which such data is 
     available bears to the population of such individuals of all 
     the States that meet the requirements of subsection (b) for 
     such fiscal year.
       (d) Uses of Funds.--A State that receives a grant award 
     under this section may use such funds to support the 
     administrative record system referred to in subsection 
     (b)(2).
       (e) Authorization of Appropriation.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $25,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2000 and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.

    TITLE VI--PUNISHING AND DETERRING CRIMINAL USE OF FIREARMS AND 
                               EXPLOSIVES

     SEC. 601. MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE FOR DISCHARGING A 
                   FIREARM IN A SCHOOL ZONE.

       Section 924(a)(4) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``922(q) shall be fined'' and inserting 
     ``922(q)(2) shall be fined''; and
       (2) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``Whoever violates section 922(q)(3) with reckless disregard 
     for the safety of another shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, except that if 
     serious bodily injury results, shall be fined under this 
     title, imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both, or if 
     death results and the person has attained 16 years of age but 
     has not attained 18 years of age, shall be fined under this 
     title, sentenced to imprisonment for life or for any term of 
     years, or both, or if death results and the person has 
     attained 18 years of age, shall be fined under this title, 
     sentenced to death or to imprisonment for any term of years 
     or for life, or both. Whoever knowingly violates section 
     922(q)(3) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not 
     less than 10 years and not more than 20 years, or both, 
     except that if serious bodily injury results, shall be fined 
     under this title, imprisoned not less than 15 years and not 
     more than 25 years, or both, or if death results and the 
     person has attained 16 years of age but has not attained 18 
     years of age, shall be fined under this title, sentenced to 
     imprisonment for life, or both, or if death results and the 
     person has attained 18 years of age, shall be fined under 
     this title, sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life, 
     or both.''.

     SEC. 602. APPREHENSION AND PROCEDURAL TREATMENT OF ARMED 
                   VIOLENT CRIMINALS.

       (a) Pretrial Detention For Possession of Firearms or 
     Explosives By Convicted Felons.--Section 3156(a)(4) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (2) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting ``or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) an offense that is a violation of section 842(i) or 
     922(g) (relating to possession of explosives or firearms by 
     convicted felons); and''.
       (b) Firearms Possession By Violent Felons and Serious Drug 
     Offenders.--Section 924(a)(2) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Whoever'' and inserting ``(A) Except as 
     provided in subparagraph (B), any person who''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court 
     shall not grant a probationary sentence for such a violation 
     to a person who has more than 1 previous conviction for a 
     violent felony (as defined in subsection (e)(2)(B)) or a 
     serious drug offense (as defined in subsection (e)(2)(A)), 
     committed under different circumstances.''.

     SEC. 603. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR POSSESSING OR TRANSFERRING 
                   STOLEN FIREARMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 924 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(i), (j),''; and

[[Page H4386]]

       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (i) or (j) of 
     section 922 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not 
     more than 15 years, or both.'';
       (2) in subsection (i)(1), by striking ``10'' and inserting 
     ``15''; and
       (3) in subsection (l), by striking ``10'' and inserting 
     ``15''.
       (b) Sentencing Commission.--The United States Sentencing 
     Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to 
     reflect the amendments made by subsection (a).

     SEC. 604. INCREASED MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES FOR USING A 
                   FIREARM TO COMMIT A CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR DRUG 
                   TRAFFICKING CRIME.

       Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1)(A)--
       (A) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in clause (iii), by striking ``10 years.'' and 
     inserting ``12 years; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) if the firearm is used to injure another person, be 
     sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 
     years.''; and
       (2) in subsection (h), by striking ``imprisoned not more 
     than 10 years'' and inserting ``imprisoned not less than 5 
     years and not more than 10 years''.

     SEC. 605. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR MISREPRESENTED FIREARMS 
                   PURCHASE IN AID OF A SERIOUS VIOLENT FELONY.

       (a) In General.--Section 924(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7)(A) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), whoever knowingly 
     violates section 922(a)(6) for the purpose of selling, 
     delivering, or otherwise transferring a firearm, knowing or 
     having reasonable cause to know that another person will 
     carry or otherwise possess or discharge or otherwise use the 
     firearm in the commission of a serious violent felony, shall 
     be--
       ``(i) fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 
     years, or both; or
       ``(ii) imprisoned not less than 10 and not more than 20 
     years and fined under this title, if the procurement is for a 
     juvenile.
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph--
       ``(i) the term `juvenile' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 922(x); and
       ``(ii) the term `serious violent felony' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 3559(c)(2)(F).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 606. INCREASING PENALTIES ON GUN KINGPINS.

       (a) Increasing the Penalty for Engaging in an Illegal 
     Firearms Business.--Section 924(a)(2) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting ``, or willfully 
     violates section 922(a)(1),'' after ``section 922''.
       (b) Sentencing Guidelines Increase for Certain Violations 
     and Offenses.--Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) 
     of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing 
     Commission shall--
       (1) review and amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to 
     provide an appropriate enhancement for a violation of section 
     922(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code; and
       (2) review and amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to 
     provide additional sentencing increases, as appropriate, for 
     offenses involving more than 50 firearms.

     The Commission shall promulgate the amendments provided for 
     under this subsection as soon as is practicable in accordance 
     with the procedure set forth in section 21(a) of the 
     Sentencing Act of 1987, as though the authority under that 
     Act had not expired.

     SEC. 607. SERIOUS RECORDKEEPING OFFENSES THAT AID GUN 
                   TRAFFICKING.

       Section 924(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the period and inserting ``; but if the 
     violation is in relation to an offense under subsection 
     (a)(6) or (d) of section 922, shall be fined under this 
     title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.''.

     SEC. 608. TERMINATION OF FIREARMS DEALER'S LICENSE UPON 
                   FELONY CONVICTION.

       Section 925(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``until any conviction pursuant to the indictment 
     becomes final'' and inserting ``until the date of any 
     conviction pursuant to the indictment''.

     SEC. 609. INCREASED PENALTY FOR TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING 
                   FIREARMS WITH OBLITERATED SERIAL NUMBERS.

       Section 924(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``(k),''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``(k),'' after ``(j),''.

     SEC. 610. FORFEITURE FOR GUN TRAFFICKING.

       Section 982(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) The court, in imposing a sentence on a person 
     convicted of a gun trafficking offense, as defined in section 
     981(a)(1)(G), or a conspiracy to commit such offense, shall 
     order the person to forfeit to the United States any 
     conveyance used or intended to be used to commit such 
     offense, and any property traceable to such conveyance.''.

     SEC. 611. INCREASED PENALTY FOR FIREARMS CONSPIRACY.

       Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(q) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a 
     person who conspires to commit an offense defined in this 
     chapter shall be subject to the same penalties (other than 
     the penalty of death) as those prescribed for the offense the 
     commission of which is the object of the conspiracy.''.

     SEC. 612. GUN CONVICTIONS AS PREDICATE CRIMES FOR ARMED 
                   CAREER CRIMINAL ACT.

       (a) Section 924(e)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``violent felony or a serious drug offense, 
     or both,'' and inserting ``violent felony, a serious drug 
     offense or a violation of section 922(g)(1), or a combination 
     of such offenses,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``No more than two 
     convictions for violations of section 922(g)(1) shall be 
     considered in determining whether a person has three previous 
     convictions for purposes of this subsection.''.

     SEC. 613. SERIOUS JUVENILE DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENSES AS ARMED 
                   CAREER CRIMINAL ACT PREDICATES.

       Section 924(e)(2)(C) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``or serious drug offense'' after 
     ``violent felony''.

     SEC. 614. FORFEITURE OF FIREARMS USED IN CRIMES OF VIOLENCE 
                   AND FELONIES.

       (a) Criminal Forfeiture.--Section 982(a) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(10) The court, in imposing a sentence on a person 
     convicted of any crime of violence (as defined in section 16 
     of this title) or any felony under Federal law, shall order 
     that the person forfeit to the United States any firearm (as 
     defined in section 921(a)(3) of this title) used or intended 
     to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of the 
     offense.''.
       (b) Disposal of Property.--Section 981(c) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following flush sentence:

     ``Any firearm forfeited pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(H) of 
     this section or section 982(a)(10) of this title shall be 
     disposed of by the seizing agency in accordance with law.''.
       (c) Authority To Forfeit Property Under Section 924(d).--
     Section 924(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Whenever any firearm is subject to forfeiture under 
     this section, the Secretary of the Treasury shall have the 
     authority to seize and forfeit, in accordance with the 
     procedures of the applicable forfeiture statute, any property 
     otherwise forfeitable under the laws of the United States 
     that was involved in or derived from the crime of violence or 
     drug trafficking crime described in subsection (c) in which 
     the forfeited firearm was used or carried.''.
       (d) 120-Day Rule for Administrative Forfeiture.--Section 
     924(d)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding ``administrative'' after ``Any'' in the last sentence.
       (e) Section 3665.--Section 3665 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating the first undesignated paragraph as 
     subsection (a)(1) and the second undesignated paragraph as 
     subsection (a)(2); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) The forfeiture of property under this section, 
     including any seizure and disposition of the property and any 
     related administrative or judicial proceeding, shall be 
     governed by the provisions of section 413 of the 
     Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 
     (21 U.S.C. 853), except for subsection 413(d) which shall not 
     apply to forfeitures under this section.''.

     SEC. 615. SEPARATE LICENSES FOR GUNSMITHS.

       (a) Section 921(a)(11) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(11) The term `dealer' means (A) any person engaged in 
     the business as a firearms dealer, (B) any person engaged in 
     the business as a gunsmith, or (C) any person who is a 
     pawnbroker. The term `licensed dealer' means any dealer who 
     is licensed under the provisions of this chapter.''.
       (b) Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by redesignating paragraphs (12) through (33) as 
     paragraphs (14) through (35), and by inserting after 
     paragraph (11) the following:
       ``(12) The term `firearms dealer' means any person who is 
     engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or 
     retail.
       ``(13) The term `gunsmith' means any person, other than a 
     licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer, 
     who is engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of 
     making or fitting special barrels, stocks or trigger 
     mechanisms to firearms.''.
       (c) Section 923(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) If the applicant is a dealer who is--
       ``(A) a dealer in destructive devices or ammunition for 
     destructive devices, a fee of $1,000 per year;
       ``(B) a dealer in firearms who is not a dealer in 
     destructive devices, a fee of $200 for 3 years, except that 
     the fee for renewal of a valid license shall be $90 for 3 
     years; or
       ``(C) a gunsmith, a fee of $100 for 3 years, except that 
     the fee for renewal of a valid license shall be $50 for 3 
     years.''.

     SEC. 616. PERMITS AND BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PURCHASES OF 
                   EXPLOSIVES.

       (a) Permits for Purchase of Explosives in General.--Section 
     842 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by amending subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection 
     (a)(3) to read as follows:
       ``(A) to transport, ship, cause to be transported, or 
     receive any explosive materials; or

[[Page H4387]]

       ``(B) to distribute explosive materials to any person other 
     than a licensee or permittee.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by adding ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (B) by striking ``; or'' at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking paragraph (3).
       (b) Background Checks.--Section 842 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(q)(1) A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or 
     licensed dealer shall not transfer explosive materials to any 
     other person who is not a licensee under section 843 of this 
     title unless--
       ``(A) before the completion of the transfer, the licensee 
     contacts the national instant criminal background check 
     system established under section 103(d) of the Brady Handgun 
     Violence Prevention Act;
       ``(B)(i) the system provides the licensee with a unique 
     identification number; or
       ``(ii) 5 business days (meaning a day on which State 
     offices are open) have elapsed since the licensee contacted 
     the system, and the system has not notified the licensee that 
     the receipt of explosive materials by such other person would 
     violate subsection (i) of this section;
       ``(C) the transferor has verified the identity of the 
     transferee by examining a valid identification document (as 
     defined in section 1038(d)(1) of this title) of the 
     transferee containing a photograph of the transferee; and
       ``(D) the transferor has examined the permit issued to the 
     transferee pursuant to section 843 of this title and recorded 
     the permit number on the record of the transfer.
       ``(2) If receipt of explosive materials would not violate 
     section 842(i) of this title or State law, the system shall--
       ``(A) assign a unique identification number to the 
     transfer; and
       ``(B) provide the licensee with the number.
       ``(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the transfer of 
     explosive materials between a licensee and another person if 
     on application of the transferor, the Secretary has certified 
     that compliance with paragraph (1)(A) is impracticable 
     because--
       ``(A) the ratio of the number of law enforcement officers 
     of the State in which the transfer is to occur to the number 
     of square miles of land area of the State does not exceed 
     0.0025;
       ``(B) the business premises of the licensee at which the 
     transfer is to occur are extremely remote in relation to the 
     chief law enforcement officer (as defined in section 
     922(s)(8)); and
       ``(C) there is an absence of telecommunications facilities 
     in the geographical area in which the business premises are 
     located.
       ``(4) If the national instant criminal background check 
     system notifies the licensee that the information available 
     to the system does not demonstrate that the receipt of 
     explosive materials by such other person would violate 
     subsection (i) or State law, and the licensee transfers 
     explosive materials to such other person, the licensee shall 
     include in the record of the transfer the unique 
     identification number provided by the system with respect to 
     the transfer.
       ``(5) If the licensee knowingly transfers explosive 
     materials to such other person and knowingly fails to comply 
     with paragraph (1) of this subsection with respect to the 
     transfer, the Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for 
     a hearing, suspend for not more than 6 months or revoke any 
     license issued to the licensee under section 843 and may 
     impose on the licensee a civil fine of not more than $5,000.
       ``(6) Neither a local government nor an employee of the 
     Federal Government or of any State or local government, 
     responsible for providing information to the national instant 
     criminal background check system shall be liable in an action 
     at law for damages--
       ``(A) for failure to prevent the sale or transfer of 
     explosive materials to a person whose receipt or possession 
     of the explosive materials is unlawful under this section; or
       ``(B) for preventing such a sale or transfer to a person 
     who may lawfully receive or possess explosive materials.''.
       (c) Administrative Provisions.--Section 103 of the Brady 
     Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (f), by inserting ``or explosive 
     materials'' after ``firearm''; and
       (2) in subsection (g), by inserting ``or that receipt of 
     explosive materials by a prospective transferee would violate 
     section 842(i) of such title, or State law,'' after ``State 
     law,''.
       (d) Remedy for Erroneous Denial of Explosive Materials.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 40 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 843 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 843A. Remedy for erroneous denial of explosive 
       materials

       ``Any person denied explosive materials pursuant to section 
     842(q)--
       ``(1) due to the provision of erroneous information 
     relating to the person by any State or political subdivision 
     thereof, or by the national instant criminal background check 
     system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun 
     Violence Prevention Act; or
       ``(2) who was not prohibited from receipt of explosive 
     materials pursuant to section 842(i),

     may bring an action against the State or political 
     subdivision responsible for providing the erroneous 
     information, or responsible for denying the transfer, or 
     against the United States, as the case may be, for an order 
     directing that the erroneous information be corrected or that 
     the transfer be approved, as the case may be. In any action 
     under this section, the court, in its discretion, may allow 
     the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee as part of 
     the costs.''.
       (2) Technical amendment.--The section analysis for chapter 
     40 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 843 the following:

``843A. Remedy for erroneous denial of explosive materials.''.

       (e) Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall issue final regulations with respect to the amendments 
     made by subsection (a).
       (2) Notice to states.--On the issuance of regulations 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall notify the States of the regulations so that the States 
     may consider revising their explosives laws.
       (f) Licenses and User Permits.--Section 843(a) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, including fingerprints and a 
     photograph of the applicant'' before the period at the end of 
     the first sentence; and
       (2) by striking the second sentence and inserting, ``Each 
     applicant for a license shall pay for each license a fee 
     established by the Secretary that shall not exceed $300. Each 
     applicant for a permit shall pay for each permit a fee 
     established by the Secretary that shall not exceed $100.''.
       (g) Penalties.--Section 844 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (a) as subsection (a)(1); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a)(1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Any person who violates section 842(q) shall be fined 
     under this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or 
     both.''.
       (h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections 
     (a), (b), (c), (d), and (g) shall take effect 18 months after 
     the date of enactment of the Act.

     SEC. 617. PERSONS PROHIBITED FROM RECEIVING OR POSSESSING 
                   EXPLOSIVES.

       (a) Distribution of Explosives.--Section 842(d) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``or who has been committed to a mental institution;''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) being an alien--
       ``(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
       ``(B) except as provided in subsection (q)(2), has been 
     admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as 
     that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
       ``(8) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under 
     dishonorable conditions;
       ``(9) having been a citizen of the United States, has 
     renounced his citizenship;
       ``(10) is subject to a court order that--
       ``(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person 
     received actual notice, and at which such person had an 
     opportunity to participate;
       ``(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or 
     threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of 
     such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct 
     that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of 
     bodily injury to the partner or child; and
       ``(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a 
     credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate 
     partner or child; or
       ``(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted 
     use, or threatened use of physical force against such 
     intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected 
     to cause bodily injury;
       ``(11) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor 
     crime of domestic violence; or
       ``(12) has been adjudicated delinquent.''.
       (b) Possession of Explosives.--Section 842(i) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or'' at the end; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) who, being an alien--
       ``(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
       ``(B) except as provided in subsection (q)(2), has been 
     admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa (as 
     that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
       ``(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under 
     dishonorable conditions;
       ``(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has 
     renounced his citizenship;
       ``(8) who is subject to a court order that--
       ``(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person 
     received actual notice, and at which such person had an 
     opportunity to participate;
       ``(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or 
     threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of 
     such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct 
     that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of 
     bodily injury to the partner or child; and

[[Page H4388]]

       ``(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a 
     credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate 
     partner or child; or
       ``(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted 
     use, or threatened use of physical force against such 
     intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected 
     to cause bodily injury;
       ``(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor 
     crime of domestic violence; or
       ``(10) who has been adjudicated delinquent.''.
       (c) Definition.--Section 841 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(r)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), `misdemeanor 
     crime of domestic violence' means an offense that--
       ``(A) is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law; and
       ``(B) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of 
     physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, 
     committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian 
     of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a 
     child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has 
     cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, 
     or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or 
     guardian of the victim.
       ``(2)(A) A person shall not be considered to have been 
     convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, 
     unless--
       ``(i) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or 
     knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in 
     the case; and
       ``(ii) in the case of a prosecution for an offense 
     described in this paragraph for which a person was entitled 
     to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was 
     tried--
       ``(I) the case was tried by a jury; or
       ``(II) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the 
     right to have the case tried by jury, by guilty plea or 
     otherwise.
       ``(B) A person shall not be considered to have been 
     convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if 
     the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an 
     offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had 
     civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable 
     jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such 
     an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of 
     civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, 
     transport, possess, or receive firearms.
       ``(s) `Adjudicated delinquent' means an adjudication of 
     delinquency based upon a finding of the commission of an act 
     by a person prior to his or her eighteenth birthday that, if 
     committed by an adult, would be a serious drug offense or 
     violent felony (as defined in section 3559(c)(2) of this 
     title), on or after the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph.''.
       (d) Aliens Admitted Under Nonimmigrant Visas.--Section 842 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(r)(1) For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `alien' has the same meaning as in section 
     101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(3)); and
       ``(B) the term `nonimmigrant visa' has the same meaning as 
     in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)).
       ``(2) Sections (d)(7)(B) and (i)(5)(B) do not apply to any 
     alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States 
     under a nonimmigrant visa, if that alien is a foreign law 
     enforcement officer of a friendly foreign government entering 
     the United States on official law enforcement business.
       ``(3)(A) Any individual who has been admitted to the United 
     States under a nonimmigrant visa may receive a waiver from 
     the requirements of subsection (i)(5)(B), if--
       ``(i) the individual submits to the Attorney General a 
     petition that meets the requirements of subparagraph (C); and
       ``(ii) the Attorney General approves the petition.
       ``(B) Each petition under subparagraph (B) shall--
       ``(i) demonstrate that the petitioner has resided in the 
     United States for a continuous period of not less than 180 
     days before the date on which the petition is submitted under 
     this paragraph; and
       ``(ii) include a written statement from the embassy or 
     consulate of the petitioner, authorizing the petitioner to 
     acquire explosives and certifying that the alien would not, 
     absent the application of subsection (i)(5)(B), otherwise be 
     prohibited from such an acquisition under subsection (i).
       ``(C) The Attorney General shall approve a petition 
     submitted in accordance with this paragraph, if the Attorney 
     General determines that waiving the requirements of 
     subsection (i)(5)(B) with respect to the petitioner--
       ``(i) would be in the interests of justice; and
       ``(ii) would not jeopardize the public safety.''.
       (e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 845 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 
     no person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic 
     violence may ship or transport any explosive materials in 
     interstate or foreign commerce or to receive or possess any 
     explosive materials which have been shipped or transported in 
     interstate or foreign commerce.''.

   TITLE VII--PUNISHING GANG VIOLENCE AND DRUG TRAFFICKING TO MINORS

     SEC. 701. INCREASED MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES FOR USING 
                   MINORS TO DISTRIBUTE DRUGS.

       Section 420 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     861) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``one year'' and 
     inserting ``3 years''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``one year'' and 
     inserting ``5 years''.

     SEC. 702. INCREASED MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES FOR 
                   DISTRIBUTING DRUGS TO MINORS.

       Section 418 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     859) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``one year'' and 
     inserting ``3 years''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``one year'' and 
     inserting ``5 years''.

     SEC. 703. INCREASED MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES FOR DRUG 
                   TRAFFICKING IN OR NEAR A SCHOOL OR OTHER 
                   PROTECTED LOCATION.

       Section 419 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     860) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``one year'' and 
     inserting ``3 years''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``three years'' each 
     place that term appears and inserting ``5 years''.

     SEC. 704. CRIMINAL STREET GANGS.

       (a) In General.--Section 521 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), in the second undesignated 
     paragraph--
       (A) by striking ``5'' and inserting ``3'';
       (B) by inserting ``, whether formal or informal'' after 
     ``or more persons''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or activities'' 
     after ``purposes'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting after ``10 years'' the 
     following: ``and such person shall be subject to the 
     forfeiture prescribed in section 412 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853)'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) that is a violation of section 522 (relating to the 
     recruitment of persons to participate in criminal gang 
     activity);
       ``(4) that is a violation of section 844, 875, or 876 
     (relating to extortion and threats), section 1084 (relating 
     to gambling), section 1955 (relating to gambling), or chapter 
     73 (relating to obstruction of justice);
       ``(5) that is a violation of section 1956 (relating to 
     money laundering), to the extent that the violation of such 
     section is related to a Federal or State offense involving a 
     controlled substance (as that term is defined in section 102 
     of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); or
       ``(6) that is a violation of section 274(a)(1)(A), 277, or 
     278 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1324(a)(1)(A), 1327, or 1328) (relating to alien smuggling); 
     and
       ``(7) a conspiracy, attempt, or solicitation to commit an 
     offense described in paragraphs (1) through (6).''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 3663(c)(4) 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``chapter 46'' and inserting ``section 521, chapter 46,''.

     SEC. 705. INCREASE IN OFFENSE LEVEL FOR PARTICIPATION IN 
                   CRIME AS A GANG MEMBER.

       (a) Definition of Criminal Street Gang.--In this section, 
     the term ``criminal street gang'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 521(a) of title 18, United States Code.
       (b) Amendment of Sentencing Guidelines.--
       (1) In general.--Pursuant to its authority under section 
     994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United States 
     Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal Sentencing 
     Guidelines to provide an appropriate enhancement for any 
     Federal offense described in section 521(c) of title 18, 
     United States Code, if the offense was both committed in 
     connection with, or in furtherance of, the activities of a 
     criminal street gang and the defendant was a member of the 
     criminal street gang at the time of the offense.
       (2) Factors to be considered.--In determining an 
     appropriate enhancement under this section, the United States 
     Sentencing Commission shall give great weight to the 
     seriousness of the offense, the offender's relative position 
     in the criminal gang, and the risk of death or serious bodily 
     injury to any person posed by the offense.
       (c) Construction With Other Guidelines.--The amendment made 
     by subsection (b) shall provide that the increase in the 
     offense level shall be in addition to any other adjustment 
     under chapter 3 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

     SEC. 706. INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN TRAVEL OR TRANSPORTATION IN 
                   AID OF CRIMINAL GANGS.

       (a) Travel Act Amendment.--Section 1952 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1952. Interstate and foreign travel or transportation 
       in aid of racketeering enterprises

       ``(a) Prohibited Conduct and Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--Whoever--
       ``(A) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the 
     mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with 
     intent to--
       ``(i) distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or
       ``(ii) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or 
     facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or 
     carrying on, of any unlawful activity; and

[[Page H4389]]

       ``(B) after travel or use of the mail or any facility in 
     interstate or foreign commerce described in subparagraph (A), 
     performs, attempts to perform, or conspires to perform an act 
     described in clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A);

     shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 
     years, or both.
       ``(2) Crimes of violence.--Whoever--
       ``(A) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the 
     mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with 
     intent to commit any crime of violence to further any 
     unlawful activity; and
       ``(B) after travel or use of the mail or any facility in 
     interstate or foreign commerce described in subparagraph (A), 
     commits, attempts to commit, or conspires to commit any crime 
     of violence to further any unlawful activity;

     shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 
     20 years, or both, and if death results shall be sentenced to 
     death or be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Controlled substance.--The term `controlled 
     substance' has the meaning given that term in section 102(6) 
     of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)).
       ``(2) State.--The term `State' means a State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, 
     territory, or possession of the United States.
       ``(3) Unlawful activity.--The term `unlawful activity' 
     means--
       ``(A) any business enterprise involving gambling, liquor on 
     which the Federal excise tax has not been paid, narcotics or 
     controlled substances, or prostitution offenses in violation 
     of the laws of the State in which the offense is committed or 
     of the United States;
       ``(B) extortion, bribery, arson, burglary if the offense 
     involves property valued at not less than $10,000, assault 
     with a deadly weapon, assault resulting in bodily injury, 
     shooting at an occupied dwelling or motor vehicle, or 
     retaliation against or intimidation of witnesses, victims, 
     jurors, or informants, in violation of the laws of the State 
     in which the offense is committed or of the United States; or
       ``(C) any act that is indictable under section 1956 or 1957 
     of this title or under subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 
     31.''.
       (b) Amendment of Sentencing Guidelines.--
       (1) In general.--Pursuant to its authority under section 
     994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United States 
     Sentencing Commission shall amend chapter 2 of the Federal 
     Sentencing Guidelines to provide an appropriate increase in 
     the offense levels for traveling in interstate or foreign 
     commerce in aid of unlawful activity.
       (2) Unlawful activity defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``unlawful activity'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 1952(b) of title 18, United States Code, as amended 
     by this section.
       (3) Sentencing enhancement for recruitment across state 
     lines.--Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of 
     title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing 
     Commission shall amend the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to 
     provide an appropriate enhancement for a person who, in 
     violating section 522 of title 18, United States Code, 
     recruits, solicits, induces, commands, or causes another 
     person residing in another State to be or to remain a member 
     of a criminal street gang, or crosses a State line with the 
     intent to recruit, solicit, induce, command, or cause another 
     person to be or to remain a member of a criminal street gang.

     SEC. 707. GANG-RELATED WITNESS INTIMIDATION AND RETALIATION.

       (a) Interstate Travel to Engage in Witness Intimidation or 
     Obstruction of Justice.--Section 1952 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (c) and (d), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce 
     with intent by bribery, force, intimidation, or threat, 
     directed against any person, to delay or influence the 
     testimony of or prevent from testifying a witness in a State 
     criminal proceeding or by any such means to cause any person 
     to destroy, alter, or conceal a record, document, or other 
     object, with intent to impair the object's integrity or 
     availability for use in such a proceeding, and thereafter 
     engages or endeavors to engage in such conduct, shall be 
     fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, 
     or both; and if serious bodily injury (as defined in section 
     1365 of this title) results, shall be so fined or imprisoned 
     for not more than 20 years, or both; and if death results, 
     shall be so fined and imprisoned for any term of years or for 
     life, or both, and may be sentenced to death.''.
       (b) Conspiracy Penalty for Obstruction of Justice Offenses 
     Involving Victims, Witnesses, and Informants.--Section 1512 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(j) Whoever conspires to commit any offense defined in 
     this section or section 1513 of this title shall be subject 
     to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the 
     commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.''.
       (c) Witness Relocation Survey and Training Program.--
       (1) Survey.--The Attorney General shall survey all State 
     and selected local witness protection and relocation programs 
     to determine the extent and nature of such programs and the 
     training needs of those programs. Not later than 270 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this section, the Attorney 
     General shall report the results of this survey to Congress.
       (2) Training.--Based on the results of such survey, the 
     Attorney General shall make available to State and local law 
     enforcement agencies training to assist those law enforcement 
     agencies in developing and managing witness protection and 
     relocation programs.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out paragraphs (1) and (2) for 
     fiscal year 2000 not to exceed $500,000.
       (d) Federal-State Coordination and Cooperation Regarding 
     Notification of Interstate Witness Relocation.--
       (1) Attorney general to promote interstate coordination.--
     The Attorney General shall engage in activities, including 
     the establishment of a model Memorandum of Understanding 
     under paragraph (2), which promote coordination among State 
     and local witness interstate relocation programs.
       (2) Model memorandum of understanding.--The Attorney 
     General shall establish a model Memorandum of Understanding 
     for States and localities that engage in interstate witness 
     relocation. Such a model Memorandum of Understanding shall 
     include a requirement that notice be provided to the 
     jurisdiction to which the relocation has been made by the 
     State or local law enforcement agency that relocates a 
     witness to another State who has been arrested for or 
     convicted of a crime of violence as described in section 16 
     of title 18, United States Code.
       (3) Byrne grant assistance.--The Attorney General is 
     authorized to expend up to 10 percent of the total amount 
     appropriated under section 511 of subpart 2 of part E of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 for 
     purposes of making grants pursuant to section 510 of that Act 
     to those jurisdictions that have interstate witness 
     relocation programs and that have substantially followed the 
     model Memorandum of Understanding.
       (4) Guidelines and determination of eligibility.--The 
     Attorney General shall establish guidelines relating to the 
     implementation of paragraph (4) and shall determine, 
     consistent with such guidelines, which jurisdictions are 
     eligible for grants under paragraph (4).
       (d) Byrne Grants.--Section 501(b) of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (25);
       (2) by striking the period at the end paragraph (26) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(27) developing and maintaining witness security and 
     relocation programs, including providing training of 
     personnel in the effective management of such programs.''.
       (e) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``State'' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and 
     any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the 
     United States.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum), and a Member opposed, each will control 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, over the last several weeks there has been a great deal 
of debate about ways to protect our children from violence. We have 
talked about provisions to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and 
that is the right thing to do. We have talked about the influence of 
our culture on kids and how we can encourage responsibility from those 
who have the potential to influence them, and that is the right thing 
to do.
  We have talked about reaching kids early when they make mistakes so 
that they will not fall into a spiral of increasing crime, and that is 
also the right thing to do.
  We must also not lose sight of the fact that there have always been 
and always will be people who ignore the laws. We have to admit that 
there are people in this country whose hate for those around them is so 
overpowering they will commit acts of violence on their neighbors, on 
children, in our schools, even on the houses of worship in their own 
communities. We have to face the fact that there are people whose greed 
for money and power lead them to poison our children with drugs and 
destroy our families through violence.
  We cannot simply allow those who would destroy our communities to do 
so. We must deter them, if we can, by making them aware that there will 
be severe punishment for their crimes, and we have to impose those 
punishments if they commit those crimes. We

[[Page H4390]]

must do this if we are to protect our children and our grandchildren.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer adds provisions to H.R. 1501 to 
ensure that those who violate our laws and endanger our children and 
families will be punished. My amendment will increase the punishment 
for criminals who put guns in the hands of our children and those who 
commit crimes using firearms. It will increase the penalties on 
juveniles who use guns to harm others. It will increase the punishments 
on gang members who commit serious crimes and those who push drugs on 
to our young people, and it will punish those who put explosives into 
the hands of juveniles.
  We have to send a message. If someone intends to harm our children, 
we will punish them and punish them severely.
  Here is what this amendment will do. It will strengthen the present 
Federal juvenile justice system by providing increased protection for 
the community and holding juveniles accountable for their actions.
  I must say at the outset that there are very few children who are 
ever tried in a juvenile setting in the Federal system, but those on 
Indian reservations and elsewhere are, and this particular provision, 
this set of provisions, deal only with that limited Federal role and 
not with the State or the grant program we have been discussing under 
the underlying bill.
  The amendment strengthens the juvenile system that the Federal 
Government deals with by the following: Giving prosecutors rather than 
the courts the discretion to charge a juvenile alleged to have 
committed certain serious felonies as an adult or as a juvenile, which 
is consistent with what most States do; by making fines and supervised 
release which are not presently sentencing options in the Federal 
system available for adjudicated delinquents in addition to probation 
and detention; and by providing that the records of juvenile 
proceedings are public records to the same extent that the records of 
adult criminal proceedings will be public and that such records are to 
be made available for official purposes, including disclosure to 
victims and school officials.
  The second area my amendment deals with will encourage the Justice 
Department to prosecute gun crimes. We have found at hearings recently, 
unfortunately, that many times the Federal Government has not been 
prosecuting the crimes already on the books dealing with guns. I think 
that is very, very sad and it is a very serious problem.
  So this amendment will require the Justice Department to establish a 
program in each United States Attorney's Office where one or more 
Federal prosecutors are designated to prosecute firearms offenses and 
to coordinate with State and local authorities for more effective 
enforcement, and permit U.S. attorneys to use Federal prosecutors to 
prosecute State firearms offenses in State courts.
  The third area that my amendment deals with will help ensure that 
juveniles do not gain access to firearms and explosives illegally. It 
does this by increasing the maximum penalty that may be imposed on 
juveniles who possess a firearm. Also, it increases the maximum penalty 
for illegal possession of a firearm with the intent to take it to a 
school zone or knowing that another juvenile will take it to a school 
zone.
  It increases the maximum penalty that may be imposed on adults who 
illegally transfer firearms to juveniles.

                              {time}  1415

  It provides for a mandatory minimum sentence for an adult who 
illegally transfers a firearm to a juvenile, knowing that a juvenile 
intended to take it to a school zone or commit a serious violent 
felony.
  It enacts a new provision to prohibit any person under 21 from 
sending, receiving, or possessing explosive materials. Under current 
law, the distribution of explosive materials to persons under 21 is 
prohibited, but there is no punishment for the possession of such 
materials for persons under 21.
  The next area this amendment deals with will help deter criminals 
from gaining access to firearms and explosives by prohibiting the 
distribution through the Internet and elsewhere of information relating 
to explosives, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction 
when the person distributing the information knows that the recipient 
intends to use them to harm others; and by requiring common carriers 
like UPS or FedEx or a number of others, or other contract carriers 
such as trucking companies, to report the theft or loss of a firearm it 
is shipping within 48 hours after the theft or loss is discovered.
  Another part of this amendment will help to ensure that criminals are 
held accountable for their use of firearms and explosives and to deter 
others from illegally possessing and using these weapons by increasing 
the penalties for the discharge of a firearm in a school zone and by 
providing for mandatory minimum punishments for the knowing discharge 
of a firearm in a school zone. It increases those punishments if 
physical harm results, and it allows for the death penalty if somebody 
uses a gun to kill in a school zone.
  Secondly, it increases the maximum penalties for transporting stolen 
firearms in interstate commerce and for selling, receiving, and 
possessing stolen firearms.
  It increases the mandatory minimum penalty for discharging a firearm 
during a Federal crime of violence or drug trafficking crime and 
establishes a mandatory minimum penalty if the firearm is used to 
injure another person.
  It increases the maximum punishment for making false statements to a 
licensed dealer in order to illegally obtain a firearm if the purchase 
was to enable another person to carry or possess it in the commission 
of a serious violent felony. It provides for a minimum mandatory 
punishment if the person procuring the firearm did so for a juvenile.
  It prohibits Federal firearm licensees to continue to operate their 
licensed businesses after a felony conviction.
  It increases the penalty for persons who illegally deal in firearms.
  It raises the maximum penalty for knowingly transporting, shipping, 
possessing, or receiving a firearm with an obliterated or altered 
serial number.
  It establishes, for the first time, criminal background checks prior 
to the sale of explosive materials by nonlicensed purchasers by 
licensed dealers.
  These checks, similar to the Brady gun background checks, will reduce 
the availability of explosives to felons.
  This is another instant-check type of system, but this one is 
designed as it should be for explosives and the sale of explosives.
  We all know from the Columbine experience that there were not just 
guns involved there, but there were certainly explosives as well.
  In the last provisions in my amendment, we address further the 
punishment of gang violence and drug trafficking to minors and witness 
intimidation. It will increase, this amendment, the existing mandatory 
minimum penalty that is imposed on adults convicted of using minors to 
distribute drugs.
  It will increase the existing mandatory minimum penalty that must be 
imposed on adults convicted of distributing drugs to minors.
  It will increase the existing mandatory minimum penalty that must be 
imposed on any person convicted of distributing, possessing with the 
intent to distribute, or manufacturing drugs in or within 100 feet of a 
school zone.
  It will increase the punishment in current law for certain crimes if 
they were committed by a person as a part of a criminal street gang and 
adds new crimes for which the increase may be applied; among them, 
crimes involving extortion and threats, gambling, obstruction of 
justice, money laundering, and alien smuggling.
  It addresses the problem of gang-related witness intimidation by 
making it a crime to travel in interstate or foreign commerce with the 
intent to delay or influence the testimony of a witness in a State 
criminal proceeding by bribery, force, intimidation, or threat. It 
allows for the death penalty if a person kills another to keep them 
from testifying in such a setting.
  I think this is extremely important. We have a lot of witness 
intimidation, unfortunately, in this country today, and we do not have 
good law provisions at the Federal level to deal with it.
  We also have in this legislation provisions encouraging a memorandum 
of understanding as sort of a suggested

[[Page H4391]]

format, a model format that States might use for witness protection 
programs among the States to avoid some complications we have seen such 
as existed in my State of Florida recently with respect to it and 
Puerto Rico.
  These are tough provisions, all of them that I have outlined. They 
are intended to be. But the harm that is being done through illegal 
guns, through explosives, and through drugs cannot be ignored. Our 
young people deserve nothing but our fullest efforts to protect our 
children at home, at school, and during play.
  I ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) seek to 
control the time in opposition?
  Mr. SCOTT. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) for 20 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the 
committee.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this proposal by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum), the subcommittee chairman, actually openly 
reneges on his pledge to pursue a substantive bipartisan juvenile 
justice bill.
  He is now, with one amendment, loading this bill, H.R. 1501, up with 
more than two dozen criminal penalties, including the death sentence. 
It is now clear that these provisions were rejected and certainly not 
supported during the orderly subcommittee process that he himself 
chaired.
  I want to bring forward now one part of this that cannot be 
unremarked as we go forward. I want to thank Senator Paul Wellstone and 
David Cole for their assistance.
  Because what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) is doing is 
repealing the Federal law that requires States to identify and improve 
disproportionate incarceration of members of minority groups, a law 
that has been in place since 1992 and has had more than 40 States 
develop programs to reduce minority involvement in the juvenile justice 
system. It is now under attack.
  The resulting Republican juvenile justice bill with this amendment 
would repeal the existing mandate, effectively closing our collective 
eyes to racial disparity in the juvenile justice system. Consider with 
me for one moment, although African American juveniles ages 10 through 
17 are 15 percent of the population, they are 26 percent of the 
arrests, 32 percent of the referrals to juvenile court, 41 percent of 
the juveniles detained in delinquency cases, 46 percent of juveniles in 
correctional institutions, and 52 percent of juveniles transferred to 
adult criminal courts after judicial hearings. In short, African 
American youths start off overrepresented in juvenile justice, and the 
problem gets worse at every step. With this amendment, it will continue 
to proceed in the wrong direction.
  This policy of creating a long-term custody rate for African American 
youth five times the rate of white youth must stop in the House of 
Representatives. I suggest to my colleagues that we do not even address 
the problems but plan to make them far worse.
  In addition, and I will conclude on this note, the McCollum amendment 
requires the implementation of the armed criminal apprehension program, 
similar to the one in Richmond, Virginia that has been described by a 
United States district court judge as expensive, unnecessary, racially 
biased, and a misuse of the Federal court system.
  Now, if we do nothing else here today, I urge that we reject the 
McCollum amendment, which will begin to increase the racial disparity 
of youngsters that are caught up in this process in a huge way, more 
than two dozen criminal penalties. It is the wrong way. It is too much. 
It was not accepted even in his own committee.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers), with all due respect, I understand he disagrees with 
this amendment, but a couple of things he pointed out I do not think 
were quite accurate, and I am sure unintentionally so.
  The subcommittee considered H.R. 1501, but the full committee has 
never considered any of this process, nor did any of the provisions of 
this amendment get considered in this Congress as we brought this bill 
to the floor, as the gentleman knows, the main bill, with all of these 
other provisions to be discussed and debated in amendment process. So 
they have not been rejected by the committee. They just never have been 
brought up or considered.
  Secondly, I believe the gentleman, if he would carefully read my 
amendment, which is a pretty thick thing, I know, would find there is 
no mention in here of the Office of Juvenile Justice's delinquency 
prevention programs where the racial mandate, the racial composition 
mandate exist. We do not touch that in my amendment. I know there is 
concern about that. There may be other provisions in somebody else's 
amendment, but this amendment does not touch that. I just want to be 
sure everybody understands that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on 
both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has 9 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 16 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues were 
listening carefully to the comments that were made by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. McCollum) in support of his proposed amendment.
  What he said is that his proposed amendment would strengthen the 
Federal juvenile justice system. It is that point that I want to spend 
my time talking about, because my question to my colleagues is: What 
Federal juvenile justice system is he talking about? We do not have one 
juvenile counselor at the Federal level. We do not have one juvenile 
judge at the Federal level. We do not have one juvenile facility in the 
Federal system. What juvenile justice system is the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum) talking about?
  What he is talking about is federalizing juvenile justice for the 
first time in this country. Now, why is there no Federal juvenile 
justice system? For the same reason we do not have any Federal school 
system in this country. We do not have a Federal juvenile justice 
system, because, historically, throughout the whole history of this 
country, juvenile justice has been handled as a State and local issue. 
They have juvenile courts. They have juvenile judges. They have 
juvenile facilities. They have counselors. They deal with local 
juvenile issues as a local issue, which it is and should be.
  Local communities are closer to our juveniles and the children, just 
like the local school systems, are closer to juveniles and the system.
  So is not it ironic that my colleagues who profess to believe in 
States rights would come and say we are here to strengthen and take 
over the juvenile justice system?
  Let me tell my colleagues one final reason that we do not have a 
juvenile justice system at the Federal level, and that is that we have 
not done an especially good job of handling the Federal adult justice 
system. Here we go, saying, those of us who say that we believe in 
States rights, my Republican colleagues in particular, would have us 
now come and say we know more about juvenile justice than local 
communities know about it.
  This is a bad idea. It is a revolutionary idea. We should not march 
into this territory without knowing exactly what we are doing. We 
should reject this amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply have to respond to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt). I do not know if the gentleman has really 
seriously read chapter 403 of the United States Code with respect to 
criminal law. But chapter 403 is nothing but about a juvenile justice 
system at the Federal level.

                              {time}  1445

  There are several hundred juveniles who are adjudicated as 
delinquents every year in the Federal system, most

[[Page H4392]]

of them on Indian reservations, and there are several hundred more that 
are prosecuted in the Federal system for violent crimes. So there 
certainly is a juvenile justice system, and it certainly needs 
improvement, and that is what the first section of my amendment does.
  And the administration has requested every single line and every 
single word that is in my amendment related to improving this system. 
The Clinton administration has requested this. The gentleman's own 
party President has requested it.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman tell 
me, is he proposing that we apply the same juvenile justice system at 
the Federal level that we are applying on Indian reservations? Is that 
what the gentleman is proposing, instead of allowing local communities 
to handle their own juvenile justice system?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time to say that we have a 
Federal juvenile justice system and it applies to any juvenile brought 
into the system, whether on an Indian reservation or not. It is all the 
same. It is this Federal juvenile justice system that we are applying 
here and amending in chapter 403.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, here it is, it is one of the poison pills 
for this bill, H.R. 1501. I think we all knew on the Committee on the 
Judiciary that the amendment being offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum) could not become law and should not become law. 
That is why H.R. 1501 was devised with the broad bipartisan support 
that it had, at least, until the slaughter in Columbine High School. 
That incident changed our common understanding of what we should do 
here in America about juvenile crime.
  This amendment would make it easier to prosecute a 13-year-old as an 
adult. And, actually, to be clear, it would make it easier for the less 
than 300 children prosecuted in the Federal system to be prosecuted as 
adults. So let us be more specific. It would make it easier to 
prosecute a 13-year-old Native American child as an adult.
  What has that got to do with the murders at Columbine High School? I 
am sorry, who are we fooling with this? There are assorted other 
portions of the amendment, things about the Internet and guns, which I 
think are serious issues, but the boys at Colorado bought their guns 
through gun shows, not on the Internet. There are things about 
enhancing the penalties if a firearm was discharged in a school. Well, 
those two boys who killed those kids in school in Colorado, they 
committed suicide. So I do not think that the 5-year enhanced penalty 
would do one darn thing to deter those two boys from the slaughter that 
they wrought on their classmates and the families.
  What we need to do is to focus on the ability of a child to commit 
such damage if a child is so disturbed that he or she wants to kill 
others. And that focus is what we are avoiding through this really very 
disturbing setup, considering amendments calculated to sink this bill, 
tomorrow's bill, and so the American people will not get what they are 
asking for: Sensible, modest, moderate gun safety measures that will 
prevent future tragedies such as those all the parents in America 
observed saw and cared about at Columbine High School and cared deeply 
to cure.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the committee.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that violence occurs 
throughout our Nation every day. In our classrooms, in schoolyards and 
playgrounds, children are all too often at the mercy of violent 
criminals.
  Nationally, we are faced with staggering statistics. The Bureau of 
Justice statistics report that for 1997 there were 2500 juveniles 
arrested for murder. That is a 90 percent increase from 1986. Our 
Nation's youth are now among the most likely to fall victim to violent 
crimes, crimes often committed, unfortunately, by their own peers.
  To me, these numbers indicate an epidemic of youth violence, one 
which must be confronted head on. We must pass stronger laws that 
target and punish violent juvenile offenders. Stiffer sentencing 
guidelines, trying for violent juveniles as adults and opening those 
juveniles' criminal records would be a good start. The amendment of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) would enact some of these 
important provisions.
  For example, this amendment gives Federal prosecutors rather than 
judges the discretion to prosecute violent juvenile felons as adults. 
This provision would send a clear message to juveniles that if they 
commit serious crimes, they will do adult time. No more slaps on the 
wrist, no more short sentences followed by a quick release. So I 
commend the gentleman for offering this important amendment.
  Over 6,000 kids were expelled for bringing guns to schools during the 
1996-97 school year, but only nine of them were prosecuted by the 
Clinton administration, by the U.S. Attorney's Office under this 
administration. That is a travesty.
  Mr. Chairman, regardless of what we accomplish here today, we must 
acknowledge that the juvenile violence problem in this country is not 
simply the product of laws or lack thereof. It is a societal one. Our 
children are inundated every day with negative images, violent 
messages, and much less than positive role models, unfortunately. 
Parenting has become a struggle in a country where the government taxes 
an inordinate amount of a family's paycheck and forces parents to spend 
more time at work and less time raising and supervising their own kids.
  We should not lose sight of the fact that most of our parents are 
doing a good job, and an overwhelming majority of the kids in this 
country are good kids who go to school to learn and to make friends and 
to participate in positive activities. We could help these families by 
cutting their taxes and helping parents spend more time with their own 
kids.
  There are a lot of things we can do, and I commend the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the other members of the committee for a job 
well done and look forward to the debate on this particularly important 
issue to our country.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I am from Colorado, and Columbine High 
School is just a few blocks from my district. My constituents in 
Colorado and our constituents across the country are very sensitive 
about the conclusions that we take from the terrible Columbine 
shootings of just a few weeks ago. They are very sensitive that their 
political leaders do not use this tragedy as an excuse to pass some 
legislation that will really do very little, if nothing, to solve the 
problem of youth violence in our country today.
  The truth is that under 300 kids per year in the entire country, most 
of them Native Americans, are even prosecuted under the Federal laws. 
So the truth is amendments like this will do nothing to stop the kind 
of youth violence that we saw at Columbine and that we have seen so 
tragically at high schools across this country.
  I suppose that we could send Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris to jail 
for extra time, if they were not dead at this point. I suppose we could 
give them the death penalty for shooting all these people on the school 
grounds of Columbine, but that would be little comfort to the parents 
of the students and the families of the teacher who were killed there. 
Instead, our constituents demand that we take action in this Congress 
to help prevent youth violence in a way that will work across the 
country for the many tens of thousands of kids in this country who need 
help every year.
  That is why we need different programs to help across the board. We 
need to reauthorize the COPS program, we need to fund school safety 
programs, we need prevention block grants, we need to do the things 
that will actually help instead of giving the American people the 
illusion that because we are increasing sentences and doing a few 
things that will work around the edges on a few Indian reservations 
that we are doing something.

[[Page H4393]]

  The other thing that my constituents and our constituents are 
demanding is common sense child gun safety legislation; legislation 
that will stop the multiple round ammunition cartridges that Klebold 
and his colleague used; legislation that will stop people from getting 
guns at gun shows, because these kids got all four of their guns from a 
gun show, not from the Internet; legislation that will have child 
safety locks on guns. This is the kind of common sense legislation that 
begins to help, that we can use as a legislative tool in conjunction 
with our community action that is nonlegislative that we so desperately 
need in this solution.
  Please, let us not marginalize this issue, let us do something that 
will really help.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the McCollum amendment.
  I think we all agree that there are multiple factors playing a role 
in youth violence and we are going to be trying to address several of 
those over the course of this day as we debate this juvenile justice 
bill. We are all familiar with what some of those issues are. Certainly 
violence in the media is a factor.
  We have seen more than 3,000 studies on this issue, the majority of 
which have concluded there is a relationship. Drugs is a factor and 
certainly dysfunctional families. Indeed, one of the highest correlates 
of youth violence in any community is the incidence of fatherlessness 
in that community. We are going to try to address some of these things. 
Obviously, the issue of fatherlessness in the community we cannot 
address, but I do rise in support of this amendment.
  There are several features of this amendment that I think are good. 
It gives prosecutors rather than the courts the discretion to charge a 
juvenile alleged to have committed a felony. It makes fines and 
supervised release available. It also, very importantly, provides that 
the records of these juvenile proceedings will become public records 
and available to the community. This is a very, very important factor.
  The amendment is a big one. It has a lot of features, but I think we 
need to take a comprehensive look at the problem that we are trying to 
address, which is the terrible problem of youth violence, and look at 
all these different areas. And, yes, there are some weaknesses in our 
criminal justice system, but the McCollum amendment here is a good 
amendment that tries to shore up those weaknesses and strengthen the 
underlying bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, today we are going to witness a lot of 
rhetoric about what causes juvenile crimes. If we were to accept the 
majority's position, one would think that it is access to the Power 
Rangers that kill our children, not the access to guns.
  The rhetoric is tired. Let us be clear. We know that prevention 
works. Despite this common knowledge, we have witnessed time and time 
again the Republicans' failure to properly fund education, Head Start 
programs and other programs we know that work. Instead, the majority 
wants to rush our children from the crib to the jails.
  The McCollum amendment allows Federal prosecutors rather than judges 
the discretion to try children as adults, lowers the age to 13 in some 
cases at which children can be tried as adults in the Federal system, 
and broadens the scope of Federal crimes for which juveniles can be 
tried as adults.
  This provision would mean that more children would be placed in adult 
jails, and children are not specifically prohibited from contact with 
adults. This places children at serious risk of abuse and assault and 
flies in the face of current studies which indicate that trying 
children as adults increases rather than decreases youth crime.
  The McCollum amendment allows children to come in contact with adults 
in adult jails in the Federal system. Children as young as 13 years old 
would be allowed to be in the same jail cell with adults. Allowing 
contact between juveniles and adults in adult jails would place 
children at risk of assault and abuse, as children are 8 times more 
likely to commit suicide, 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted, 
and twice as likely to be assaulted by even staff in the adult jails 
than in juvenile facilities.
  The McCollum amendment imposes new mandatory minimum sentences for 
children who are convicted of certain offenses. These new draconian 
mandatory minimums would likely impose harsher penalties on youthful 
offenders than adult criminals guilty of the same offenses under the 
current law.
  Let me say this. Because I am an African American woman, I have had 
to pay attention to the disproportionate sentencing of minorities. When 
we take a look at what is going on according to the September 1998 
Juvenile Justice Bulletin, it was estimated in two States that one in 
seven African American males would be incarcerated before the age of 
18.

                              {time}  1445

  This statistic is compared with one in 125 white males. And then I 
come here today and find that there is a bill being produced that talks 
about putting more Indian children, more Native American children, in 
jail because of the way the Federal system is constructed.
  According to the September 1998 Juvenile Justice Bulletin, minority 
youth represented 68 percent of the juvenile population in secured 
detention and 68 percent of those in secured institutional environments 
such as training schools, even though minority youth constituted about 
32 percent of the population at the time of the study. I could go on 
and on and on.
  Let me just say that I am absolutely worried and concerned that we 
are going in the direction of placing more minority youth in prisons 
and in the Federal system. It is not right and we should not allow it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SCOTT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that has been made in 
order by the rule to the McCollum amendment. Do I have to offer that 
before the time runs out?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may offer his amendment at any time up 
until the time that the question is posed on the underlying McCollum 
amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would just notify the chair that I would 
like to introduce the amendment at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, listen up. Federalizing 
juvenile justice without federalizing with funds the resources 
necessary to hire additional judges, prosecutors, probation officers, 
and for the very first time Federal juvenile counselors, this is 
absolutely ridiculous. It has no impact study with it. They cannot do 
this and do it safely.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 3\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to focus on the 
acknowledgment by the Chair of the subcommittee that these particular 
provisions apply only to Native Americans who reside on reservations 
for all intents and purposes.
  I think it is very, very important that the American people do not be 
misled into thinking that these measures will have any impact on the 
rest of the United States. I submit that there will not be an iota's 
worth of difference in terms of the violence in the streets if this 
amendment should pass. They should not be misled.
  I am just surprised. I was unaware of the fact that there is a 
substantial problem of juvenile crime on Native American reservations. 
I would be willing to hear from the Chair of the subcommittee if there 
had ever been a

[[Page H4394]]

hearing on a Native American reservation. Has there been any 
consultation with State's attorneys that deal with Native American 
reservations?
  This is about imposing the most severe sanctions on Native Americans, 
mandatory sentences, the death penalties, remedies that have been 
proven over and over again do not work. Let us follow the example of 
the States and maybe, maybe, we will have some good results.
  For example, because of the leadership by the States, not by the 
Federal Government, not by Washington, this is what has occurred. The 
juvenile homicide rate has dropped by more than 50 percent since 1993. 
And for those of my colleagues that are not aware of that, that was the 
date that President Clinton was inaugurated and began the initiative on 
crime to work with the States. The States have the answer.
  Another interesting statistic: Juvenile arrest rate for all violence 
is down 37 percent in the past 5 years. And lastly, the percentage of 
violent crimes attributable to juveniles is at its lowest point since 
1975.
  Let us follow the lead of the States. Defeat this amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is 
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  I guess we ask the question again, whose side are we on as we work in 
the United States Congress? Let me associate my remarks with that of 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and my colleague the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). We are creating something 
with nothing.
  What we really should be doing is supporting H.R. 1501. I would like 
to share very briefly with my colleagues what we are talking about 
here. We are simply talking about a system that responds to juveniles 
where they find them. They are children. And we have to find a way to 
rehabilitate children.
  We have an amendment that takes away from the underlying premises of 
the bill that we can, in fact, rehabilitate children. In the system 
that we are trying to create by this amendment, we are not really 
putting into place the kinds of resources that are needed, juvenile 
judges, prosecutors who are sensitive to juveniles, counseling 
officers, individuals in schools who are sensitive to juveniles, a 
mental health system that intervenes and assesses juveniles as to 
whether or not they need mental health services.
  The American Pediatrics Association says, ``We do not support any 
amendments. We support H.R. 1501.'' Because they know what happens when 
they incarcerate children with adults. One, they increase crime, they 
endanger children, and they certainly federalize State juvenile laws.
  What we are hoping for, Mr. Chairman, is that we can come to our 
senses, pass H.R. 1501 without any amendments, provide the resources 
for our children, and begin to really rehabilitate children and give 
them a future in America.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify a few things. First of all, I have 
heard some of the other side say some things that are simply not in 
this amendment. Probably they do not understand that but I want to make 
it very, very clear that there is nothing in the amendment I am 
proposing today that will in any way allow a child to be put in the 
same cell with an adult. There never has been and, as a matter of fact, 
never will be under any amendment or offering that I propose.
  In fact, this amendment explicitly sets forth in the Federal system 
where no child may be incarcerated with an adult under any 
circumstances.
  It is also wrong to say, as some have just alleged, that the Federal 
juvenile procedures only apply to Indian reservations. This is only one 
area of Federal jurisdiction for juveniles. All Federal drug laws and 
all Federal gun laws, crimes, can be prosecuted anywhere in the United 
States that they occur in the Federal system if a juvenile is involved 
and the juvenile may be prosecuted in that system maybe as an adult or 
otherwise.
  It is also wrong to suggest that there is nothing in this amendment 
that deals with the Columbine situation. The illegal possession of a 
firearm by somebody not licensed or allowed to own a firearm certainly 
applies there, and we increase the maximum penalty for that. We have a 
provision in here for adults who illegally transfer a firearm to a 
juvenile knowing that the juvenile intends to take it to a school zone 
or to commit a serious, violent felony, and quite a number of others.
  But the one thing I want to point out that is in this amendment and a 
lot of focus has been on the very first section of a very comprehensive 
amendment that simply deals with improving the Federal juvenile justice 
system, which is a very small portion of this debate today. The biggest 
thing that is in here that has not been thought about a lot is the 
provision that requires a prosecutor, an assistant U.S. Attorney at 
every U.S. Attorney's office in the Nation in any every district of 
this country to be set aside to prosecute gun crimes.
  I want to put a chart up here that shows that in 1997, and I 
understand a comparable number last year, there were over 6,000 
juveniles expelled for possession of a firearm on school grounds. There 
could have been prosecutions for the possession of guns on school 
grounds under Federal law this year last year, et cetera, but the 
Federal Government only prosecuted a handful of them. I think in 1997, 
as another chart will show, there were only, like, five that were 
prosecuted. And last year I think there were 13 prosecutions.
  Where has the U.S. Attorney General's office and U.S. Attorney's 
offices been under this administration in prosecuting Federal gun laws 
dealing with children in schools when we have all of these guns having 
been possessed in those schools and only a handful of prosecutions 
versus the 6,000 or so that we know were recorded?
  So the amendment I am offering does a lot of things. It increases 
penalties where they should be increased, especially in the firearms 
section. Fifteen of the sections in this amendment were proposed by the 
President himself in addition to those dealing with the question of 
Federal juvenile justice.
  So I strongly urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McCollum 
amendment which amongst other things increases and mandates severe 
penalties for violating Federal firearms regulation.
  According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 82 percent of Federal 
offenders convicted of firearms offenses in addition to other more 
serious offenses such as homicide or robbery, used or carried a firearm 
during another crime. 36 percent of Federal offenders involved with 
firearms had been incarcerated in the past for at least 13 months.
  The fact is too many prisoners are violent or repeat criminals and if 
they've misused a firearm to commit a crime are likely to do in the 
future.
  Our first order of business if we are to protect ourselves and our 
loved ones from adult or juvenile violent criminals, armed with 
firearms, must be restraining those criminals. Long term mandatory 
penalties are required to do the job.
  Under the McCollum, amendment for example, the penalty for 
discharging a firearm in connection with a Federal crime of violence or 
drug trafficking will be raised to 12 years, from the existing 10. The 
bill also establishes a mandatory minimum penalty of 15 years if you 
discharge the weapon and cause injury to another person during the 
commission of a crime.
  Again, while I support the McCollum Amendment, we should have gone a 
step further. I offered an amendment that I hoped would have been made 
in order, that would have increased the penalty for discharging a 
firearm from 10 years to 25 years and imposed a 30 year sentence for 
injuring another person.
  In addition, my amendment would have imposed severe penalties of 10 
years for possessing a firearm during the commission of a crime and 20 
years for brandishing for threatening individuals with the weapon. 
Similar provision, although not as severe, were passed by the House in 
March of 1996 and exist in Federal law.
  Empirical studies and common sense clearly suggest, if we freed any 
significant number of imprisoned felons tonight, we would have more 
murder and mayhem on the streets tomorrow. Millions of violent crimes 
are averted each year by keeping convicted criminals behind bars.
  Keep firearms felons behind bars--support the McCollum Amendment.

[[Page H4395]]

  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has expired.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 8 printed in Part A of 
House Report 106-186.


Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Scott to Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. 
                               Mc Collum

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment to the amendment.
  The text of the amendment to the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Scott to Part A 
     amendment No. 6 offered by McCollum:
       Strike title II.
       Redesignate succeeding titles and sections, and amend the 
     table of contents accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hyde-McCollum amendment 
before us and to offer an amendment to strike a major portion of it.
  Unfortunately, the underlying amendment to the Hyde-McCollum 
amendment seeks to amend a bill containing only sound bipartisan 
juvenile justice policy by adding policies that have been shown to 
actually increase crime and violence against the public and the youth 
involved in policies which were specifically rejected by the sponsors 
of the amendment when we were working together to put together H.R. 
1501.
  One of the problems with the underlying amendment is that it provides 
for trying more juveniles as adults without any judicial review. Under 
current law, a judge must decide whether the public interest requires a 
child to be tried as an adult, with just very limited exceptions.
  Now, there are numerous studies which indicate that trying more 
juveniles as adults will probably result in them being treated more 
leniently in an adult court and all of those studies show that the 
crime rate will increase with new crimes being committed sooner and 
more likely to be violent.
  Now, the judge in adult court is confined to two options. He can put 
the person on probation or he can lock that person up with adult 
murderers, robbers, and drug dealers. Juvenile court judges have other 
options, and that is why the juveniles coming out of the juvenile 
system are much less likely to commit crime. If they treat a juvenile 
as an adult for trial, if they are incarcerated, they will be locked up 
with adults. And it does not take a brain surgeon to know that they 
will not only be endangered but they will be more likely to commit a 
crime when it is all over.
  Mr. Chairman, in March we had hearings on what we need to do to 
reduce juvenile crime and delinquency. And H.R. 1501, without the Hyde-
McCollum amendment, was the result. No one presented any coherent 
information to lead us to believe that trying more juveniles as adults 
was a responsible action.
  Now, one of the other problems this underlying amendment needs to be 
struck by my amendment is that, without my amendment, we will be 
federalizing juvenile crime.
  Now, Chief Justice Rehnquist has talked for years about the problem 
of federalizing crime. And I am sure he would look at this bill and 
say, there they go again. Obviously, if we had pursued the regular 
order, the provision that federalizes juvenile crime would not have 
been in the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill also contains numerous mandatory 
minimum sentences. Mandatory minimum sentences have been studied. In 
fact, the Rand study considered mandatory minimums, regular sentences, 
and drug treatment. And for every $1 million that they would spend, 
they could reduce crime by 13 with mandatory minimums. The $1 million 
could reduce crime by 27 with traditional law enforcement. Or they 
could reduce crime by 100 if they used drug treatment.
  Obviously, mandatory minimums came up last and almost a waste of 
money and, therefore, would not have survived the regular legislative 
process.

                              {time}  1500

  H.R. 1501, without the Hyde-McCollum amendment, constitutes 
responsible, effective juvenile justice legislation, the product of 
extensive hearings and thoughtful deliberations within the Subcommittee 
on Crime of the House Committee on the Judiciary. It is legislation 
which is unique because it was responsive to the problems and concerns 
of all of the experts who testified and enjoys the full support of all 
of the subcommittee members.
  Mr. Chairman, remember we began this process with two bipartisan 
bills, one in Judiciary, one in Education. Both bills were drafted as a 
result of extensive hearings, and now we are in the middle of 
participating in a political charade where we consider slogans and 
sound bites which might score well in political polls but never would 
have made it through the regular legislative process.
  Now in the wake of Littleton, Colorado, and Conyers, Georgia, this 
sudden change in approach is both a spectacle and an embarrassment.
  For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the committee should 
reject the underlying Hyde-McCollum amendment so we do not counteract 
the effective, sensible and proven policies in H.R. 1501 and replace 
them with counterproductive proposals in the pending Hyde-McCollum 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) seek 
time in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I do seek time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. It would 
strike the title of the amendment, the portion of the amendment which I 
am offering, which deals with improving the Federal juvenile justice 
system, and strike it all together. We do have a juvenile justice 
system at the Federal level. Only a few hundred are ever tried in a 
given year, juveniles in the Federal system, but it is antiquated, it 
is out of date.
  For example, juvenile judges simply do not have the discretion that 
most State court judges have in their sentencing. They have fewer 
options with juveniles, and we would give them the full range of 
discretion that one would expect all courts to have in dealing with 
juveniles. The amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
would strike that provision that the administration has urged on us for 
a number of years.
  With regard to the question that seems to be the central focus of his 
discussion with me over time and including today, and that is with 
respect to the question about the authority of trying a juvenile as an 
adult, what we are doing is not mandating that any juvenile who happens 
to come into contact with the Federal system be tried as an adult, and 
I want to make it perfectly clear that this proposal I am offering 
today has nothing to do with the State juvenile systems, only those 
handful of juveniles that may be tried in the Federal system. But what 
we are doing is taking away from the judges the discretion they have 
today under my amendment; that is, under the current law with my 
amendment we are talking that discretion they have to decide which 
children are tried as adults and which are not in the Federal system 
and giving that to the prosecutors, which is the most common thing one 
finds in most of the States today. That is not an unreasonable thing to 
do, and they were only giving that discretion, by the way, up to the 
most serious violent crimes that have been committed by juveniles.
  So it is in May, it is permissive, not mandatory, it is a discretion 
being given to prosecutors to try the juvenile as an adult instead of 
the judge, which is present in most State juvenile systems, and it is 
limited only to very serious crimes. Let me read the list:
  Murder, manslaughter, assault with intent to commit murder or rape, 
aggravated sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact, kidnapping, aircraft 
piracy, robbery, carjacking, extortion, arson or any attempt, 
conspiracy or solicitation to commit one of those offenses,

[[Page H4396]]

and any crime punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of 10 years or 
more that involves the use or threatened use of physical force against 
another.
  So we are talking only about very serious crimes that a juvenile 
would commit, and then we are allowing discretion in the prosecutor's 
hands that is common in the State systems all over the country if there 
is a Federal prosecutor dealing with those limited number of Federal 
cases of juveniles that come before us in our Federal court system. 
This is long overdue. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) should be defeated, and we should let an 
antiquated Federal juvenile system be improved.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the 
Scott amendment and adamantly against the McCollum amendment. The 
McCollum, for example, this amendment would negatively impact children 
by placing children at risk of assault and abuse in adult jails. The 
McCollum amendment allows Federal prosecutors rather than judges the 
discretion to try children as adults. The McCollum amendment would 
lower the age to 13 in some cases at which children can be tried as 
adults in the Federal system. This amendment, the McCollum amendment 
broadens the scope of Federal crimes in which juveniles can be tried as 
adults. Simply put, more children will be placed in adult jails, and 
they will be as young as 13.
  I am extremely concerned because the McCollum amendment will also 
make it easier to put more children, and just tell it like it is, more 
black and brown children in jail. Children of color make up one-third 
of all children nationwide, but two-thirds of all incarcerated 
juveniles are considered ethnic minorities. African American youth aged 
10 to 17 constitutes 15 percent of United States population in that age 
group, but they account for 26 percent of juvenile arrests, 32 percent 
of delinquency referrals to juvenile court, 41 percent of juvenile 
detained in delinquency cases, 46 percent of juveniles in correction 
institutions and 52 percent of juveniles transferred to adult criminal 
court after judicial proceedings.
  Minority youth are much more likely to end up in prisons with adult 
offenders. In 1995, nearly 10,000 juvenile cases were transferred to 
adult criminal courts by judicial waiver. Of those proceedings, cases 
involving African American children were 50 percent more likely to be 
waived than cases involving Caucasian. Mandatory minimum sentencing 
will enable our children to be at serious risk of abuse and assault. 
This, the McCollum amendment, goes against current studies which 
indicate that trying children as adults increases rather than decreases 
youth crime. Allowing contact between juveniles and adults in adult 
jails would make children eight times more likely to commit suicide, 
five times more likely to be sexually assaulted and twice as likely to 
be assaulted by staff in adult than in juvenile facilities.
  I support the Scott amendment.
  By the McCollum amendment imposing new mandatory minimum sentences 
for children who are convicted of certain offenses--mandatory minimums 
will impose harsher penalties on youthful offenders than adult 
criminals guilty of the same offenses under current law.
  For example, under the McCollum amendment any juvenile who discharges 
a firearm in a school zone would get a minimum 10-year sentence. An 
adult currently charged with the same offense would not be subject to 
the same mandatory penalty.
  Let me remind you that mandatory sentences are expensive, unfair, and 
often ineffective. A 1997 Rand study shows that mandatory minimum 
sentences are not cost effective in reducing drug-related crimes. Even 
Chief Justice Rehnquist had criticized mandatory minimum sentences as 
unduly harsh punishment for first-time offenders.
  We must help our children when they are charged of a crime. We must 
provide education and counseling services to rehabilitate them back 
into society. We must not write them off! We must remember that they 
are still children and we must try harder to help them because they are 
the future.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I just want to make it very clear, and I do not know where 
this idea of commingling children with adults in facilities, prison 
facilities, is coming from. There is no change in my amendment to the 
current law with respect to prohibiting commingling. It cannot happen. 
Under Federal law today it is impermissible to mingle a juvenile with 
an adult. Whether that juvenile is waiting for trial and sentencing or 
even after a child has been tried as an adult in an adult court and 
they are still under the legal age of 18, they may not be housed with 
or commingled with adults. There is nothing in my amendment that would 
change that in any way, shape or form, and I want to make that again 
very clear.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, as difficult as we try to 
make this, it is not rocket science. We know what works and what does 
not work. Every single study that has ever been done indicates that 
juveniles as adults and locking them up as adults increases crime, does 
not decrease crime, and I thought we were here today to talk about what 
decreases crime and what was effective.
  Here is the thing. Lock up a 13-year-old with a murderer, a rapist 
and a robber, and guess what he will want to be when he grows up? We 
know what he will want to be when he grows up. He will want to be a 
murderer, he will want to be a rapist, and he will want to be a robber, 
and that is what this amendment proposes to do. It wants to treat young 
13-year-old kids as adults. Every single study in America that has ever 
been done says it is counterproductive. This is politics and we got to 
quit playing politics with the futures of our children.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Scott amendment.
  In the wake of a series of tragic incidents at high schools in 
Colorado and Georgia, Democrats and Republicans came together to craft 
H.R. 1501. We put aside the politics of poll-tested sound bites--``do 
the crime do adult time;'' mandatory minimums; ``3 strikes you're 
out''--to hold thoughtful deliberations that yielded a unique piece of 
legislation responsive to the concerns of experts in the field and 
supported by all members of the subcommittee, both Democrat and 
Republican.
  This is why I am deeply disappointed to see the Republican majority 
abandon bipartisanship to play politics with juvenile justice; abandon 
orderly legislative process to pursue legislation by ambush; and 
abandon its commitment to the American people to follow the lead of 
special interests.
  How do we know the Republican Majority has decided to play politics 
with juvenile justice? They now advocate policies that just weeks ago 
even they acknowledged lacked merit. Listen to their own words.
  On March 11, 1999 Crime Subcommittee Chairman McCollum stated: 
``Taking consequences seriously is not a call for locking all juveniles 
up, nor does it imply the housing of juveniles, even violent hardened 
juveniles, with adults. I, for one, am opposed to such commingling.''
  On April 22, 1999 he repeated: ``I believe the bill we move today 
[represents] a balanced effort to strengthen juvenile justice systems 
so that they are able to insure appropriate measured consequences for 
delinquent acts of the most youthful offenders who because of their age 
are amendable to being directed away from later, more serious wrong 
doing.''
  Yet today, the Majority is pushing legislation which tries more 
children as adults, houses more juveniles as adults, and imposes a 
whole slew of new mandatory minimum penalties and death penalties.
  What's really extraordinary about these proposals is just how 
meaningless they really are. Fewer than 150 prosecutions in the federal 
system each year, and such changes are likely to affect only a small 
percentage of those cases. These proposals do not represent serious 
attempts at legislation. Rather they are a transparent attempt to 
legislate by sound bite and kill a bill that they themselves agreed was 
the best approach to juvenile justice.
  Housing juveniles in adult prison facilities means more kids are 
likely to commit suicide, or be murdered or physically or sexually 
abused than their counterparts in juvenile facilities. As a matter of 
fact, children in adult jails or prisons have been shown to be five

[[Page H4397]]

times more likely to be assaulted and eight times more likely to commit 
suicide than children in juvenile facilities in adult prisons.
  Judiciary Committee hearings have turned up numerous instances of 
such abuse. In Ironton, Ohio, a 15 year-old girl ran away from home 
overnight, then returned to her parents. A juveile court judge put her 
in a county jail to ``teach her a lesson.'' The girl was sexually 
assaulted by a deputy jailer on her fourth night in jail. In Boise, 
Idaho, 17 year-old Christopher Petermen was held in adult jail for 
failing to pay $73 in traffic fines. Over a 14 hour period, he was 
tortured and finally murdered by other prisoners in the cell. In 
LaGrange, Kentucky, 15-year-old Robbie Horn was confined in an adult 
facility for refusing to obey his mother. Soon after he was placed in 
jail he used his own shirt to hang himself.
  Repeated studies of prosecuting juveniles as adults indicates that 
rather than serving as a deterrent to juveile crime prosecuting more 
juveniles as adults merely leads to greater and more serious 
recidivism. This is because adult jail facilities have little capacity 
to offer the educational, counseling, and mental health services needed 
to deal with juvenile offenders.
  Other aspects of the Majority's juvenile justice proposals are just 
as misguided. For example, a Rand commission study showed that 
mandatory minimum sentences reduced crime less and cost much more money 
when compared to discretionary sentencing and release laws. Increased 
death penalties are also problematic--in addition to the increasing 
problem of prosecutor error, capital punishment diminishes the value of 
all life and could not begin to deter suicide killers like those at 
Columbine High School.
  The reality is that a continuum of services aimed at-risk youth--such 
as teen pregnancy prevention, Head Start, recreational programs, drop-
out prevention programs, summer jobs, drug treatment, mental health 
services, and education and treatment programs during incarceration--
are needed to significantly reduced juvenile crime. This is the 
approach found in H.R. 1501, but is subsequently abandoned by the 
Majority.
  If we are truly interested in juvenile justice reform, we must begin 
by rejecting unprincipled amendments allowed by the Rule that would cut 
out the heart of this bill and stick to the principles of H.R. 1501. 
This was a bill produced by a bipartisan process and unanimously 
approved by the Crime Subcommittee. In the wake of the recent school 
yard tragedies in Littleton, Colorado and Conyers, Georgia, the 
American people deserve and expect reform. We cannot and should not 
allow false arguments about ``getting tough on crime'' and prosecuting 
juveniles as adults to prevent us from achieving these important goals.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I and others who have taken to the floor to 
speak about this attempt by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) 
to open up the Federal system to youth and try them as adults is very 
serious with us because of what we already know about how the system 
works. Let me continue with some of the statistics that we have begun 
to roll out. Black youth are much more likely to end up imprisoned as 
adult offenders. In 1995 nearly 10,000 juvenile cases were transferred 
to adult criminal court by judicial waiver. Of these proceedings, cases 
involving black youth were 52 percent of all the children and 
adolescents waived to the adult court.
  Youth Law Center, America's assault on minority youth, the problem of 
over representation of minority youth in the justice system; we are 
telling the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) aside from the 
problem with minority youth we are exacerbating the problem for Native 
Americans. As my colleagues know, what they are doing is going to have 
a disproportionate impact on them, and let me just say that minorities 
do fare worse in this system because they do not have the contacts, and 
people acting on their behalf and tweaking the system; Mr. McCollum, he 
has used his influence to get off people in the system who have 
committed serious charges. Black youth and minority youth do not have 
that opportunity to have that kind of support.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and there is one provision that I do support, one out of 
all of the provisions that I support in the McCollum amendment, and 
that is the one that designates an Assistant United States Attorney to 
focus in on the issue of guns. However, I say to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum), what he fails to do in the amendment is to 
provide an authorization for the funding for the additional Assistant 
United States Attorney. Myself and the former attorney general of the 
State of Arizona, who now serves in this body, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall) had that amendment before, before the Committee on 
Rules, and it was not ruled in order, and I would hope that the 
gentleman would consider unanimous consent to adopt that amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, the Hyde-McCollum amendment was not 
subjected to the regular process and therefore we do not know what is 
wrong with the present law in trying juveniles as adults or what is 
wrong or why the mandatory minimums need to be imposed. I point out on 
page 12, line 14 of the amendment there are changes in incarceration 
with adults where the protections of juveniles are very seriously 
jeopardized.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent at the end of the 
time for the gentleman from Florida that I be able to ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw the amendment and go right to the vote on the 
McCollum amendment. I will make that unanimous consent request at the 
end of his time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman. I will not consume by any means all of it. I just want 
to respond to a couple things that have been said out here today. One 
of those concerns, the issue of again this commingling question. There 
is no commingling at all that would be allowed in this legislative 
proposal that I have. But I understand there are concerns that other 
Members on the other side of the aisle have with allowing prosecutors 
the discretion in these very serious criminal cases in the Federal 
system to try juveniles as adults. I find that to be one of those kinds 
of things where we just have a disagreement because most of the States 
have that option for prosecutors. That is all my amendment does, is to 
revise very old and antiquated Federal laws dealing just with those 
limited handful of juvenile cases that come before the Federal system 
every year to revise those laws, to let them comply with the State laws 
where there is often and most often a prosecutor's discretion allowed 
when we deal with murder, rape, robbery, those really serious crimes, 
and only with those, and it is discretionary again, and again no 
commingling.
  And last, the gentleman from Massachusetts is making a point, we did 
not authorize any funding for an additional prosecutor in the 
underlying amendment dealing with prosecuting gun crimes where we 
require a separate U.S. Attorney, Assistant U.S. Attorney, to be set 
aside to prosecute those crimes.

                              {time}  1515

  But I did not intend that we hire a new assistant U.S. prosecutor. 
The amendment contemplates that every U.S. Attorney in this country set 
aside one of the existing ones with no additional funds. That is what 
was done in the Bush administration. A priority was set among the 
existing prosecutions in the country so that gun crime prosecutions had 
high priority, such a high priority that I think should be here with 
this administration to prosecute gun crimes as we have had so few 
prosecuted.
  That is the sole purpose of that provision. No additional prosecutors 
are necessary and no additional money need be authorized in this 
setting.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my colleague and I are from 
Florida. Am I correct that Florida has a law that allows for us to be 
able to prosecute juveniles who commit even the heinous crimes that the 
gentleman's measure calls for? If that is true, why, then, federalize 
this particular process?
  So many times, I say to my colleague, we come to the floor saying, 
leave things in the hands of local authorities. How is it all of a 
sudden the Federal system is going to be better?

[[Page H4398]]

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I know that the 
gentleman probably misunderstands my amendment, because the gentleman 
has been a former Federal judge and I respect the gentleman a lot on 
this. The amendment I am proposing in no way Federalizes those crimes 
that the States are involved with. It does not add any new dimension to 
Federal jurisdiction.
  Where Federal law already allows for prosecutions such as in drug 
cases and in gun cases, which it does, there could be prosecutions of 
juveniles as adults if prosecutors decided. Today, as the gentleman 
knows, there could be prosecutions of juveniles as adults in the 
Federal system in those kinds of cases if the judges, Federal judges 
decide.
  So I am not really adding any new crimes or going into the State 
jurisdictions with my amendment, I say to the gentleman. I was very 
careful not to do that. So I am glad the gentleman pointed that out, 
because it should be clarified. I thank the gentleman for doing so.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would point out to the gentleman that since 1993 there have been 
innumerable burdens deposited on United States Attorneys' offices. If 
we are going to be really serious about the issue of guns and violence 
in a realistic approach in terms of the appropriate role for the 
Federal Government, I dare say a price tag of $8 million to save lives, 
to reduce violence in our streets, is something that ought to occur. We 
have got to pay for it. We cannot do it on the cheap, I say to my 
colleague from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say that the 
Bush administration, the previous administration did this with the 
existing resources and made it a priority. I think that should be done 
first. I am certainly willing to go with the gentleman to add more 
prosecutors, generally speaking, whether they are designated or not. I 
think we do have a lower number of Federal prosecutors and too few 
Federal judges, especially in Florida, my State, and there may be an 
opportunity later on in this bill to do something about that with some 
of the other amendments. But I respect the fact that the gentleman 
wants to see more Federal prosecutors. That in no way diminishes the 
fact that my amendment proposes that an existing prosecutor in every 
Federal district be set aside to prosecute gun cases and be given that 
as a top priority with existing resources. That is what my amendment 
does; that is what should be done.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Scott amendment, I urge that it be 
defeated, if it is not withdrawn. If the effort is going to be made to 
withdraw it, I will not oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 249, 
noes 181, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 211]

                               AYES--249

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thune
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brown (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Houghton
     Kasich

                              {time}  1542

  Messrs. COBURN, BONILLA, FOSSELLA, and DOOLITTLE changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BACHUS, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. UPTON, and Mr. MORAN of Kansas changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H4399]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to notice to the Committee, it is now in order 
to consider amendment No. 31 printed in Part A of House Report 106-186.


                  Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Hyde

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 31 offered by Mr. Hyde:
       Add at the end the following new title:
       TITLE __--PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM THE CULTURE OF VIOLENCE

     SEC. __. PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM EXPLICIT SEXUAL OR VIOLENT 
                   MATERIAL.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 71 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1471. Protection of minors

       ``(a) Prohibition.--Whoever in interstate or foreign 
     commerce knowingly and for monetary consideration, sells, 
     sends, loans, or exhibits, directly to a minor, any picture, 
     photograph, drawing, sculpture, video game, motion picture 
     film, or similar visual representation or image, book, 
     pamphlet, magazine, printed matter, or sound recording, or 
     other matter of any kind containing explicit sexual material 
     or explicit violent material which--
       ``(1) the average person, applying contemporary community 
     standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and 
     with respect to minors, is designed to appeal or pander to 
     the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest;
       ``(2) the average person, applying contemporary community 
     standards, would find the material patently offensive with 
     respect to what is suitable for minors; and
       ``(3) a reasonable person would find, taking the material 
     as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or 
     scientific value for minors;

     shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this 
     section.
       ``(b) Definitions.--As used in subsection (a)--
       ``(1) the term `knowingly' means having general knowledge 
     of, or reason to know, or a belief or ground for belief which 
     warrants further inspection or inquiry of--
       ``(A) the character and content of any material described 
     in subsection (a) which is reasonably susceptible of 
     examination by the defendant; and
       ``(B) the age of the minor;

     but an honest mistake is a defense against a prosecution 
     under this section if the defendant made a reasonable bona 
     fide attempt to ascertain the true age of such minor;
       ``(2) the term `minor' means any person under the age of 17 
     years; and
       ``(3) the term `sexual material' means a visual depiction 
     of an actual or simulated display of, or a detailed verbal 
     description or narrative account of--
       ``(A) human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks 
     with less than a full opaque covering;
       ``(B) a female breast with less than a fully opaque 
     covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple;
       ``(C) covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state;
       ``(D) acts of masturbation, sodomy, or sexual intercourse;
       ``(E) physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed 
     genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or if such person be a 
     female, breast;
       ``(4) the term `violent material' means a visual depiction 
     of an actual or simulated display of, or a detailed verbal 
     description or narrative account of--
       ``(A) sadistic or masochistic flagellation by or upon a 
     person;
       ``(B) torture by or upon a person;
       ``(C) acts of mutilation of the human body; or
       ``(D) rape.
       ``(c) Penalties.--The punishment for an offense under this 
     section is--
       ``(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more 
     than 5 years, or both, in the case of an offense which does 
     not occur after a conviction for another offense under this 
     section; and
       ``(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more 
     than 10 years, or both, in the case of an offense which 
     occurs after a conviction for another offense under this 
     section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 71 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

       ``1471. Protection of minors.''.

     SEC. __. PRE-PURCHASE DISCLOSURE OF LYRICS PACKAGED WITH 
                   SOUND RECORDINGS.

       (a) In General.--It is the sense of Congress that retail 
     establishments engaged in the sale of sound recordings--
       (1) should make available for on-site review, upon the 
     request of a person over the age of 18 years, the lyrics 
     packaged with any sound recording they offer for sale; and
       (2) should post a conspicuous notice of the right to review 
     described in paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Definition.--The term `retail establishment' means 
     any physical place of business which sells directly to a 
     consumer, but does not include mail order, catalog, or on-
     line sales of sound recordings.

     SEC. __. STUDY OF EFFECTS OF ENTERTAINMENT ON CHILDREN.

       (a) Requirement.--The National Institutes of Health shall 
     conduct a study of the effects of video games and music on 
     child development and youth violence.
       (b) Elements.--The study under subsection (a) shall 
     address--
       (1) whether, and to what extent, video games and music 
     affect the emotional and psychological development of 
     juveniles; and
       (2) whether violence in video games and music contributes 
     to juvenile delinquency and youth violence.

     SEC. __. TEMPORARY ANTITRUST IMMUNITY TO PERMIT THE 
                   ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY TO SET GUIDELINES TO 
                   HELP PROTECT CHILDREN FROM HARMFUL MATERIAL.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Television is seen and heard in nearly every United 
     States home and is a uniquely pervasive presence in the daily 
     lives of Americans. The average American home has 2.5 
     televisions, and a television is turned on in the average 
     American home 7 hours every day.
       (2) Television plays a particularly significant role in the 
     lives of children. Figures provided by Nielsen Research show 
     that children between the ages of 2 years and 11 years spend 
     an average of 21 hours in front of a television each week.
       (3) Television has an enormous capability to influence 
     perceptions, especially those of children, of the values and 
     behaviors that are common and acceptable in society.
       (4) The influence of television is so great that its images 
     and messages often can be harmful to the development of 
     children. Social science research amply documents a strong 
     correlation between the exposure of children to televised 
     violence and a number of behavioral and psychological 
     problems.
       (5) Hundreds of studies have proven conclusively that 
     children who are consistently exposed to violence on 
     television have a higher tendency to exhibit violent and 
     aggressive behavior, both as children and later in life.
       (6) Such studies also show that repeated exposure to 
     violent programming causes children to become desensitized to 
     and more accepting of real-life violence and to grow more 
     fearful and less trusting of their surroundings.
       (7) A growing body of social science research indicates 
     that sexual content on television can also have a significant 
     influence on the attitudes and behaviors of young viewers. 
     This research suggests that heavy exposure to programming 
     with strong sexual content contributes to the early 
     commencement of sexual activity among teenagers.
       (8) Members of the National Association of Broadcasters 
     (NAB) adhered for many years to a comprehensive code of 
     conduct that was based on an understanding of the influence 
     exerted by television and on a widely held sense of 
     responsibility for using that influence carefully.
       (9) This code of conduct, the Television Code of the 
     National Association of Broadcasters, articulated this sense 
     of responsibility as follows:
       (A) ``In selecting program subjects and themes, great care 
     must be exercised to be sure that the treatment and 
     presentation are made in good faith and not for the purpose 
     of sensationalism or to shock or exploit the audience or 
     appeal to prurient interests or morbid curiosity.''.
       (B) ``Broadcasters have a special responsibility toward 
     children. Programs designed primarily for children should 
     take into account the range of interests and needs of 
     children, from instructional and cultural material to a wide 
     variety of entertainment material. In their totality, 
     programs should contribute to the sound, balanced development 
     of children to help them achieve a sense of the world at 
     large and informed adjustments to their society.''.
       (C) ``Violence, physical, or psychological, may only be 
     projected in responsibly handled contexts, not used 
     exploitatively. Programs involving violence present the 
     consequences of it to its victims and perpetrators. 
     Presentation of the details of violence should avoid the 
     excessive, the gratuitous and the instructional.''.
       (D) ``The presentation of marriage, family, and similarly 
     important human relationships, and material with sexual 
     connotations, shall not be treated exploitatively or 
     irresponsibly, but with sensitivity.''.
       (E) ``Above and beyond the requirements of the law, 
     broadcasters must consider the family atmosphere in which 
     many of their programs are viewed. There shall be no graphic 
     portrayal of sexual acts by sight or sound. The portrayal of 
     implied sexual acts must be essential to the plot and 
     presented in a responsible and tasteful manner.''.
       (10) The National Association of Broadcasters abandoned the 
     code of conduct in 1983 after three provisions of the code 
     restricting the sale of advertising were challenged by the 
     Department of Justice on antitrust grounds and a Federal 
     district court issued a summary judgment against the National 
     Association of Broadcasters regarding one of the provisions 
     on those grounds. However, none of the programming standards 
     of the code were challenged.
       (11) While the code of conduct was in effect, its 
     programming standards were never found to have violated any 
     antitrust law.
       (12) Since the National Association of Broadcasters 
     abandoned the code of conduct, programming standards on 
     broadcast and cable television have deteriorated 
     dramatically.

[[Page H4400]]

       (13) In the absence of effective programming standards, 
     public concern about the impact of television on children, 
     and on society as a whole, has risen substantially. Polls 
     routinely show that more than 80 percent of Americans are 
     worried by the increasingly graphic nature of sex, violence, 
     and vulgarity on television and by the amount of programming 
     that openly sanctions or glorifies criminal, antisocial, and 
     degrading behavior.
       (14) At the urging of Congress, the television industry has 
     taken some steps to respond to public concerns about 
     programming standards and content. The broadcast television 
     industry agreed in 1992 to adopt a set of voluntary 
     guidelines designed to ``proscribe gratuitous or excessive 
     portrayals of violence''. Shortly thereafter, both the 
     broadcast and cable television industries agreed to conduct 
     independent studies of the violent content in their 
     programming and make those reports public.
       (15) In 1996, the television industry as a whole made a 
     commitment to develop a comprehensive rating system to label 
     programming that may be harmful or inappropriate for 
     children. That system was implemented at the beginning of 
     1999.
       (16) Despite these efforts to respond to public concern 
     about the impact of television on children, millions of 
     Americans, especially parents with young children, remain 
     angry and frustrated at the sinking standards of television 
     programming, the reluctance of the industry to police itself, 
     and the harmful influence of television on the well-being of 
     the children and the values of the United States.
       (17) The Department of Justice issued a ruling in 1993 
     indicating that additional efforts by the television industry 
     to develop and implement voluntary programming guidelines 
     would not violate the antitrust laws. The ruling states that 
     ``such activities may be likened to traditional standard 
     setting efforts that do not necessarily restrain competition 
     and may have significant procompetitive benefits . . . Such 
     guidelines could serve to disseminate valuable information on 
     program content to both advertisers and television viewers. 
     Accurate information can enhance the demand for, and increase 
     the output of, an industry's products or services.''.
       (18) The Children's Television Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-
     437) states that television broadcasters in the United States 
     have a clear obligation to meet the educational and 
     informational needs of children.
       (19) Several independent analyses have demonstrated that 
     the television broadcasters in the United States have not 
     fulfilled their obligations under the Children's Television 
     Act of 1990 and have not noticeably expanded the amount of 
     educational and informational programming directed at young 
     viewers since the enactment of that Act.
       (20) The popularity of video and personal computer (PC) 
     games is growing steadily among children. Although most 
     popular video and personal computer games are educational or 
     harmless in nature, some are extremely violent. One recent 
     study by Strategic Record Research found that 64 percent of 
     teenagers played video or personal computer games on a 
     regular basis.
       (21) Game players of violent games may be cast in the role 
     of shooter, with points scored for each ``kill''. Similarly, 
     advertising for such games often touts violent content as a 
     selling point--the more graphic and extreme, the better.
       (22) Due to their increasing popularity and graphic 
     quality, video games may increasingly influence 
     impressionable children.
       (23) Music is another extremely pervasive and popular form 
     of entertainment. American children and teenagers listen to 
     music more than any other demographic group. The Journal of 
     American Medicine reported that between the 7th and 12th 
     grades the average teenager listens to 10,500 hours of rock 
     or rap music, just slightly less than the entire number of 
     hours spent in the classroom from kindergarten through high 
     school.
       (24) Teens are among the heaviest purchasers of music, and 
     are most likely to favor music genres that depict, and often 
     appear to glamorize violence.
       (25) Music has a powerful ability to influence perceptions, 
     attitudes, and emotional state. The use of music as therapy 
     indicates its potential to increase emotional, psychological, 
     and physical health. That influence can be used for ill as 
     well.
       (b) Purposes; Construction.--
       (1) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to permit 
     the entertainment industry--
       (A) to work collaboratively to respond to growing public 
     concern about television programming, movies, video games, 
     Internet content, and music lyrics, and the harmful influence 
     of such programming, movies, games, content, and lyrics on 
     children;
       (B) to develop a set of voluntary programming guidelines 
     similar to those contained in the Television Code of the 
     National Association of Broadcasters; and
       (C) to implement the guidelines in a manner that alleviates 
     the negative impact of television programming, movies, video 
     games, Internet content, and music lyrics on the development 
     of children in the United States and stimulates the 
     development and broadcast of educational and informational 
     programming for such children.
       (2) Construction.--This section may not be construed as--
       (A) providing the Federal Government with any authority to 
     restrict television programming, movies, video games, 
     Internet content, or music lyrics that is in addition to the 
     authority to restrict such programming, movies, games, 
     content, or lyrics under law as of the date of the enactment 
     of this Act; or
       (B) approving any action of the Federal Government to 
     restrict such programming, movies, games, content, or lyrics 
     that is in addition to any actions undertaken for that 
     purpose by the Federal Government under law as of such date.
       (c) Exemption of Voluntary Agreements on Guidelines for 
     Certain Entertainment Material From Applicability of 
     Antitrust Laws.--
       (1) Exemption.--Subject to paragraph (2), the antitrust 
     laws shall not apply to any joint discussion, consideration, 
     review, action, or agreement by or among persons in the 
     entertainment industry for the purpose of developing and 
     disseminating voluntary guidelines designed--
       (A) to alleviate the negative impact of telecast material, 
     movies, video games, Internet content, and music lyrics 
     containing--
       (i) violence, sexual content, criminal behavior; or
       (ii) other subjects that are not appropriate for children; 
     or
       (B) to promote telecast material, movies, video games, 
     Internet content, or music lyrics that are educational, 
     informational, or otherwise beneficial to the development of 
     children.
       (2) Limitation.--The exemption provided in paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to any joint discussion, consideration, 
     review, action, or agreement that--
       (A) results in a boycott of any person; or
       (B) concerns the purchase or sale of advertising, including 
     restrictions on the number of products that may be advertised 
     in a commercial, the number of times a program may be 
     interrupted for commercials, and the number of consecutive 
     commercials permitted within each interruption.
       (3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) Antitrust laws.--The term ``antitrust laws''--
       (i) has the meaning given it in subsection (a) of the first 
     section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)), except that 
     such term includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent such section 5 applies to 
     unfair methods of competition; and
       (ii) includes any State law similar to the laws referred to 
     in subparagraph (A).
       (B) Internet.--The term ``Internet'' means the combination 
     of computer facilities and electromagnetic transmission 
     media, and related equipment and software, comprising the 
     interconnected worldwide network of computer networks that 
     employ the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol or 
     any successor protocol to transmit information.
       (C) Movies.--The term ``movies'' means theatrical motion 
     pictures.
       (D) Person in the entertainment industry.--The term 
     ``person in the entertainment industry'' means a television 
     network, any person that produces or distributes television 
     programming (including theatrical motion pictures), the 
     National Cable Television Association, the Association of 
     Independent Television Stations, Incorporated, the National 
     Association of Broadcasters, the Motion Picture Association 
     of America, each of the affiliate organizations of the 
     television networks, the Interactive Digital Software 
     Association, any person that produces or distributes video 
     games, the Recording Industry Association of America, and any 
     person that produces or distributes music, and includes any 
     individual acting on behalf of any of the above.
       (E) Telecast.--The term ``telecast material'' means any 
     program broadcast by a television broadcast station or 
     transmitted by a cable television system.
       (d) Sunset.--Subsection (d) shall apply only with respect 
     to conduct that occurs in the period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and ending 3 years after such date.
       (e) Report.--The Attorney General shall report to the 
     Congress, not later than 90 days after the period described 
     in subsection (d), on the effect of the exemption made by 
     this section.

     SEC. __. PROMOTING GRASSROOTS SOLUTIONS TO YOUTH VIOLENCE.

       (a) Establishment of National Youth Crime Prevention 
     Demonstration Project.--The Attorney General shall, subject 
     to appropriations, award a grant to the National Center for 
     Neighborhood Enterprise (referred to in this section as the 
     ``National Center'') to enable the National Center to award 
     subgrants to grassroots entities in the following 8 cities:
       (1) Washington, District of Columbia.
       (2) Detroit, Michigan.
       (3) Hartford, Connecticut.
       (4) Indianapolis, Indiana.
       (5) Chicago (and surrounding metropolitan area), Illinois.
       (6) Dallas, Texas.
       (7) Los Angeles, California.
       (8) Norfolk, Virginia.
       (9) Houston, Texas.
       (b) Eligibility.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a subgrant under 
     this section, a grassroots entity referred to in subsection 
     (a) shall submit an application to the National Center to 
     fund intervention models that establish violence-free zones.

[[Page H4401]]

       (2) Selection criteria.--In awarding subgrants under this 
     section, the National Center shall consider--
       (A) the track record of a grassroots entity and key 
     participating individuals in youth group mediation and crime 
     prevention;
       (B) the engagement and participation of a grassroots entity 
     with other local organizations; and
       (C) the ability of a grassroots entity to enter into 
     partnerships with local housing authorities, law enforcement 
     agencies, and other public entities.
       (c) Uses of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Funds received under this section shall be 
     used for youth mediation, youth mentoring, life skills 
     training, job creation and entrepreneurship, organizational 
     development and training, development of long-term 
     intervention plans, collaboration with law enforcement, 
     comprehensive support services and local agency partnerships, 
     or other activities to further community objectives in 
     reducing youth crime and violence.
       (2) Technical assistance.--The National Center, in 
     cooperation with the Attorney General, shall also provide 
     technical assistance for startup projects in other cities.
       (3) Fiscal Controls.--The Attorney General is authorized to 
     establish and maintain all appropriate fiscal controls of 
     sub-grantees under subsection (a).
       (d) Reports.--The National Center shall submit a report to 
     the Attorney General evaluating the effectiveness of 
     grassroots agencies and other public entities involved in the 
     demonstration project.
       (e) Definitions.--
       For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``grassroots entity'' means a not-for-profit 
     community organization with demonstrated effectiveness in 
     mediating and addressing youth violence by empowering at-risk 
     youth to become agents of peace and community restoration; 
     and
       (2) the term ``National Center for Neighborhood 
     Enterprise'' is a not-for-profit organization incorporated in 
     the District of Columbia.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section--
       (A) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       (B) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       (C) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       (D) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and
       (E) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
       (2) Reservation.--The National Center for Neighborhood 
     Enterprise may use not more than 20 percent of the amounts 
     appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) in any fiscal year for 
     administrative costs, technical assistance and training, 
     comprehensive support services, and evaluation of 
     participating grassroots entities.

                              {time}  1545

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and a Member opposed, each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is an unfortunate fact that it often takes a tragedy 
such as happened recently in Colorado to get our attention to help us 
focus on a festering problem.
  In the light of the recent rash of school shootings and the continued 
prevalence of youth violence in America, I think it is crucial that 
Congress address some of the cultural issues that influence the 
behavior of America's young people, factors that may actually be 
causing kids to find a gun and commit a violent act.
  The fact is new gun laws and tighter control of the juvenile justice 
system are not by themselves a cure for the epidemic of youth violence. 
Although gun legislation has its utility, the real problem is what is 
going on in our kids' minds and hearts and souls.
  The young assailants in Colorado violated 15 Federal gun and 
explosive laws and 7 State laws. So passing a few more laws and piling 
them on does not seem to me to get at the heart of the problem.
  In order to be truly responsive to the issues of youth violence, 
Congress must address the cultural influences that cause young people 
to become violent. We need to get at the issues of the heart.
  Part of the problem is that children have been overexposed to 
violence and, this, coupled with a spiritual vacuum leaves many 
youngsters desensitized to violence and unable to fully appreciate the 
consequences of their sometimes brutal actions.
  As popular entertainment becomes more violent and more sexually 
explicit and as it depicts more and more disrespect for life, and the 
rights and well-being of others, some of our children are starting to 
believe this behavior is normal and acceptable. They do not seem to 
understand that acts of violence have real life tragic consequences.
  We know as a result of several hundred studies, there is a link 
between media violence and violent behavior in our country, 
particularly among young people. Both the American Medical Association 
and the American Association of Pediatrics have warned against exposing 
children to violent entertainment. One 1996 AMA study concluded that 
the link between media violence and real life violence has been proven 
by science time and time again.
  Another American Medical Association study concluded that exposure to 
violence in entertainment increases aggressive behavior and contributes 
to America's sense that they live in a mean society. Much of the make-
believe violence that kids are exposed to today is presented not as 
horror with devastating human consequences but simply as entertainment. 
This is enormously harmful to young people whose values and conscience 
are still being developed.
  Well, what can we do about this? Are we impotent? Are we paralyzed? 
It is not easy, but I believe my amendment, which includes five 
specific proposals addressing this cultural breakdown, is a beginning 
and gets at some of the worst influences on our children.
  The first and most important section of my amendment creates a new 
Federal statute to protect minors from explicit sexual and explicit 
violent material. The First Amendment is not absolute and does not 
protect obscenity. That has been the law for 40 years. There is an 
exception to the First Amendment, and it is obscenity.
  Furthermore, under current law, it is constitutionally permissible to 
adopt an obscenity standard which restricts the rights of minors to 
obtain certain sexually-related materials that are not considered 
obscene for adults. In other words, there is a double standard and it 
is a tougher standard for minors than for adults, and that is the 
constitutional law.
  Currently, many States do this through harmful to minor statutes that 
prohibit the sale of sexually explicit material to minors that would 
not necessarily be considered obscene for adults. Thus, in most States 
with harmful to minor statutes adults can buy certain pornographic 
magazines but minors cannot.
  Right now, there is no Federal law that prohibits the sale of 
material that is considered too explicit for minors but not for adults. 
My amendment would change that by creating a Federal law that would 
prohibit the sale of certain explicit sexual and explicit violent 
material to minors under the age of 17. My amendment covers violent 
material because I believe if the Constitution permits us to restrict 
the type of sexual material kids can purchase, then it makes sense that 
we can also prohibit the distribution of material to minors that is 
graphically violent and glorifies this violence to a level that is 
harmful.
  I believe certain extremely violent movies, video games and music can 
have just as much or more of a detrimental effect on the development of 
kids than some explicit sexual material that many States currently try 
to protect them from.
  In other words, at their worst, violence and pornography are 
equivalent evils, especially where minor children are concerned.
  This new obscenity for minors statute does not restrict the rights of 
adults or parents to view certain sexual or violent material. It does 
not prohibit anyone from producing such items and does not provide an 
unworkable standard. Rather, it empowers parents to make decisions 
about what type of material is appropriate for their children.
  With enactment of this legislation, parents, not merchants, many of 
whom are responsible, but there will always be some who without the 
threat of law will pursue profit over decency and sell harmful 
materials to minors, will decide whether their kids can see explicit 
sexual or violent material.
  Some, of course, have questioned the constitutionality of this 
proposal. It is clear that this proposal is going to be challenged in 
the courts should it become law. However, I submit that those who 
assert that the statute is patently unconstitutional are engaging

[[Page H4402]]

in knee-jerk analysis and have not thoroughly studied the law in this 
area. This statute, this amendment, was carefully drafted to comply 
with the Supreme Court's precedent.
  First, a detailed definition of sexual and violent material is 
included to address the constitutional concern of vagueness. The 
definition of sexual material was taken almost verbatim from a New York 
statute that was upheld by the Supreme Court in a case known as 
Ginsberg versus New York. The definition of violent material is new, 
but I believe it is sufficiently precise that if someone challenges the 
bill on vagueness grounds it will survive the challenge.
  Secondly, the statute incorporates the standard three-prong test 
validated by the Supreme Court and used to determine if the sexual or 
violent material as defined by the statute does or does not qualify for 
First Amendment protection. I am confident the Court will uphold this 
test.
  Third, someone may argue to the courts that violent material can 
never be obscene. The Supreme Court has never held directly that 
extremely violent material may not, for that reason only, be banned.
  I submit that extreme violence, properly defined, can be obscene. If 
sexual images may go sufficiently beyond community standards for candor 
and offensiveness and hence be unprotected, there is no reason why the 
same should not be true of violence.

  I understand some people may disagree with the Court's decision to 
carve out an exception to the First Amendment freedom of speech for 
obscenity, but if one believes the Supreme Court is justified in 
maintaining a First Amendment exception for obscenely sexual material, 
then what are the policy arguments that justify this exception that do 
not also apply to violent material?
  There are no theories of the First Amendment that justify an 
exception for sexual obscenity that can't reasonably be extended to 
justify an exception for violent obscenity.
  It is also important to remember that this amendment would not 
declare any violent materials as obscene for adults only; only for 
minors under the age of 17.
  The Supreme Court has recognized there is a compelling interest in 
protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors. This 
interest extends to shielding minors from the influence of literature 
that is not obscene by adult standards.
  Under my proposed amendment it would still be legal to produce and 
distribute any explicitly violent material but some of it would not be 
permitted to be sold to minors.
  I think this new provision is exceedingly important. It says that we 
are on the side of parents and not the purveyors of harmful material to 
our children.
  I realize the big money of the entertainment industry is on the other 
side of my argument, but I believe the parents of America are on my 
side.
  This legislation is not an attack on the First Amendment, despite 
what has been charged by many of my colleagues. Rather, it is simply 
saying that some material is beyond the pale and should not be sold to 
minors. We are not trying to ban anything or censor anyone. We are just 
saying one cannot sell some of this horrible stuff to kids.
  If my colleagues do not believe that parents should have more control 
over their kids' access to these harmful materials, then by all means 
vote against my amendment. However, if they believe we should do 
something to slow the flood of toxic waste into the minds of our 
children, then please do vote for my amendment.
  There are four other parts to this amendment that will make a 
difference in addressing the culture of violence, and I would like to 
take a few moments to explain them.
  I have included as a second section a provision whereby Congress, 
through merely a sense of Congress resolution, asks retail 
establishments that sell music to allow parents to review, in their 
store, the lyrics accompanying the sound recordings they offer for 
sale. This is a simple way for parents to read the lyrics accompanying 
the CDs they are considering buying for their kids. It is my hope that 
retailers can take this responsible step on their own and allow parents 
to review in their store a copy of the lyrics.
  We are not asking them to give away copies of lyrics. We are merely 
asking them to give the parents a right to look at them so they can 
determine for themselves whether the lyrics are appropriate for their 
own children.
  Many CDs contain foul language. While others contain vulgar and 
graphic lyrics describing and glamourizing murder, gang violence, 
suicide and sex, many lyrics are hateful, racist or misogynistic. 
Although there is a voluntary labeling system within the recording 
industry that calls for placement of a sticker on CDs that contain 
explicit language, there is still no way prior to purchase for the 
parents to review the lyrics in the store.

                              {time}  1600

  Hopefully this section will result in establishment of a right to 
review in the stores.
  The third section of this amendment essentially mirrors part of an 
amendment sponsored by Senator Brownback that was included in the 
juvenile justice bill passed by the Senate. This section requires the 
National Institutes of Health to conduct the study of the effects of 
violent video games and music on child development and youth violence.
  The NIH is directed to address in the study whether and to what 
extent video games and music affect the emotional and psychological 
development of juveniles and whether violence and video games and music 
contributes to juvenile delinquency and youth violence.
  While numerous studies, one counts it at over 300, have been 
conducted regarding the impact of violence in television and movies, 
there have been very few studies done on the impact of music and video 
games on young people.
  The popularity of video games is rapidly increasing. One study, 
conducted by Strategy Records Research, found that 64 percent of young 
people play video games on a regular basis, and many are nothing more 
than a contest to see which competitor can kill the most efficiently.
  The graphics are startling. Some advertisements for these games make 
pitches like ``Psychiatrists say it is important to feel something when 
you kill.'' This game is ``more fun than shooting your neighbor's 
cat.'' ``Kill your friends guilt free.''
  Determining what impact video games like this might have on the 
decisions and behavior of young people is clearly in the public 
interest. By some estimates, the average teen listens to music around 4 
hours a day. Between 7th and 12th grade, the average teen is going to 
listen to around 10,000 hours of music. That is more time than they 
will spend in school.
  Last month, Bill Bennett commented on the possible effects of music 
lyrics on child development by first quoting Socrates who wrote, 
``Musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because 
rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, 
on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace.''
  Mr. Bennett then stated that rhythm and harmony are still fastening 
themselves on to children's souls today. However, much of the music 
they listen to is imparting mournfulness, darkness, despair, and a 
sense of death. This is something many parents fear, and we ought to 
study if some modern music does indeed impart a sense of death upon 
America's youth.
  The fourth section of this amendment is very similar to a Senate 
amendment providing a limited antitrust exemption to the entertainment 
industry to enable the entertainment industry to work collectively to 
develop and implement voluntary programming guidelines that alleviate 
the negative impact of television programming, movies, Internet 
content, and music lyrics on the development of children.
  Nothing in this amendment curtails freedom of expression in any way. 
It gives, rather, the entertainment industry the freedom to enter into 
a voluntary code of conduct.
  The fifth section of the amendment, promoting grassroots solutions to 
youth violence, authorizes the Attorney General to award $5 million 
annually for 5 years to the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise 
for the

[[Page H4403]]

purpose of funding direct demonstration operations and program 
development grants to community organizations in nine cities across the 
country.
  During the 105th Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary held a 
hearing on a number of inner city programs that have succeeded in 
reducing youth crime and violence. One of the programs showcased was 
the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, based in Washington, 
D.C. Since 1981, this organization has successfully dealt with gang 
violence, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, and fatherless children.
  One of the most remarkable successes occurred in 1997, not far from 
the Capitol, where this organization helped broker a truce between 
warring gangs that had turned the Benning Terrace neighborhood into a 
combat zone. That truce has lasted to this day, and Benning Terrace has 
been transformed into a neighborhood where people can again walk their 
streets in safety.
  The Benning Terrace truce showcased what has made the National Center 
for Neighborhood Enterprise approach to inner city violence so 
successful. Faced with an intractable problem, they stepped in, tapped 
local groups that understood the problem, and helped rival gang members 
recognize their mutual interests. This provision is an attempt to 
replicate this approach in nine violence-plagued cities across the 
Nation.
  If Congress is going to spend funds on social programs, it is 
important for us to try to direct Federal funds to community renewal 
organizations in our cities that actually have succeeded in reducing 
violence and putting kids on the right track. The National Center does 
this, as evidenced by their transformation of the Benning Terrace 
housing project, and helped prevent countless young persons from 
engaging in the life-style of violence.
  I know Congress does not have all the answers to the terrible problem 
of youth violence in America. Some of these proposals I have discussed 
are modest. But we ought to do what we can. Study after study has shown 
that exposure to violence adversely affects the development of children 
and leaves some of them more disposed to commit acts of violence.
  Even the most caring and responsible parents cannot prevent these 
influences from reaching their kids. Parents need our help. Let us 
stand with them. Nothing we do in this life is more important than how 
we raise our children.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) claim 
the time in opposition?
  Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that I speak to with 
some disappointment that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary 
would launch an unparalleled assault on the first amendment without 
committee deliberation.
  Now, we are all concerned about the impact of depictions of violence 
on children, but to try to approach a very difficult cultural problem 
in this way is, I think, to ignore at least two Federal court 
decisions, Reno versus ACLU, and yet another, the Video Software 
Dealers Association versus Webster, cases that clearly make it 
abundantly plain that creating a vast new Federal cultural police that 
overlaps with State law enforcement creates, honestly, a logistical 
nightmare for the Justice Department, which would have to apply local 
community standards in determining whether the material is sexual or 
violence.
  Also, since the statute does not have a specific intent requirement, 
the only alternative available for video and drug store clerks who are 
the poor mensches that will be prosecuted under this and would want to 
avoid prison, is to watch every movie, read every book to determine 
their content and then determine whether the community standards would 
prohibit the sale of these movies or books to minors.
  So just briefly, and I have a letter of explanation, the amendment is 
patently unconstitutional. I would remind my colleagues that, in our 
substitute, we have both the antitrust exemption and the industry 
guidelines that would start us on a more normal course of action.
  Please reject the amendment.
  The letter of explanation I referred to is as follows:
                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                    Washington, DC, June 16, 1999.

             Vote No on Hyde's Federal Censorship Amendment


       amendment is unconstitutional, unworkable, and unnecessary

       Dear Colleague: Today, Rep. Hyde will offer an amendment 
     (Amendment 31) providing for a sweeping new Federal 
     censorship regime that generally prohibits the dissemination 
     of ``explicit sexual material'' or ``explicit violent 
     material.'' This is a transparent attempt to turn the focus 
     of the debate away from common-sense gun-safety legislation 
     and instead scapegoat our nation's newspaper, magazine, book, 
     television, movie, and video industries, and I urge a NO 
     vote.


                 the hyde amendment is unconstitutional

       The Hyde amendment violates the First Amendment because it 
     is both vague and overbroad. Recently the Eighth Circuit 
     struck down a similar state obscenity statute on vagueness 
     grounds, observing that ``to survive a vagueness challenge, a 
     statute must `give the person of ordinary intelligence a 
     reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited' and 
     `provide explicit standards for those who apply [the 
     statute]' '' Video Software Dealers Ass'n v. Webster, 968 
     F.2d 684, 689 (8th Cir. 1992). The Hyde amendment is 
     unconstitutionally vague because among other things, it does 
     not define the terms used to reference violence, namely, 
     ``torture,'' ``flagellation,'' or ``mutilation.'' Failing to 
     define ``multilation'' means that even pricking someone with 
     a pin might fall within meaning of the term.
       The Supreme court has held that restrictions on speech will 
     be held unconstitutional also where they are overbroad. The 
     Hyde amendment is overbroad in several respects. For example, 
     it goes so far as to prohibit newspapers and magazines from 
     accepting such basic advertisements as those for underwear. 
     The amendment would also preclude minors from seeing a movie 
     such as Home Alone, which contains slapstick violence and 
     appeals to the ``morbid'' interest in minors who want to see 
     people get hurt. Further, because there is no exception in 
     the amendment for parents, the amendment would also subject a 
     parent to prison for up to five years for showing his or her 
     child a movie or book with supposedly--sexually-explicit or 
     violent content. The Majority's track record on these issues 
     are not very good--it was only two years ago that their 
     statutory restriction on Internet access to materials with 
     sexual content in the form of the Communications Decency Act 
     was struck down by the Supreme Court by a vote of 9-0 as 
     being overbroad. Reno v. ACLU, 117 S. Ct. 2329 (1997).


                    the hyde amendment is unworkable

       Creating a vast new Federal ``cultural police'' that 
     overlaps with state law enforcement creates a logistical 
     nightmare for the Justice Department, which would have to 
     apply local ``community standards'' in determining whether 
     the material is sexual or violent. Also, since the statute 
     does not have a specific intent requirement, the only 
     alternative available for video and drug store clerks who 
     want to avoid prison is to watch every movie or read every 
     book to determine their content and then determine whether 
     the ``community standards'' would prohibit the sale of those 
     movies or books to minors.
       The creation of a Federal censorship statute threatens to 
     cultivate a generation bereft of literary enrichment and 
     enlightenment. As a matter of fact, there are numerous 
     materials that were at one time considered to have too much 
     sexual or violent content but now are regarded as classic 
     pieces of literature. For example, works that were considered 
     too sexually-explicit include Nathaniel Hawthorne's ``The 
     Scarlet Letter'' in the 1850's by Reverend Arthur C. Coxe (a 
     judge noted that, while the book was criticized when it came 
     out, it was fully accepted in 1949); and J.D. Salinger's 
     ``The Catcher in the Rye'' by school boards in Pennsylvania 
     (1975), New Jersey (1977), Washington (1978), and Iowa 
     (1992). Ernest Hemingway's ``The Sun Also Rises'' was 
     considered ``offensive'' by the school boards of San Jose and 
     Riverside, California (1960's), and by the Watch and Ward 
     Society of Boston (1927); and William Golding's ``Lord of the 
     Flies'' was found to be excessively violent by critics in 
     Texas (1974), South Dakota and North Carolina (1981) and 
     Arizona (1983).


                   the hyde amendment is unnecessary

       Perhaps the most hypocritical aspect of the Amendment is 
     its internal inconsistency. Other provisions of the proposal 
     would institute an NIH study of the impact of violence on 
     children and grant members of the entertainment industry an 
     antitrust exemption so they could voluntarily agree on 
     appropriate community standards. Yet the censorship proposal 
     would take effect before the study is completed.
       Moreover, there are already several guidelines, methods, 
     and studies addressing violence in entertainment. For 
     example, the

[[Page H4404]]

     Motion Picture Association of America already rates each 
     movie for content and exhibits the rating every time a movie 
     is advertised. The National Association of Theatre Owners has 
     just initiated a new national ID-check policy for admission 
     to ``R''-rated films. And the video game industry puts on its 
     products the ratings that the Entertainment Software Rating 
     Board devises for games so that purchasers of such games can 
     be aware of their content. Some networks have agreed not to 
     air commercials for R-rated movies with violent content 
     before 9 PM. And just recently, the Clinton administration 
     and Democratic Members of Congress successfully pushed for 
     mandating the V-chip on television sets, thereby letting 
     parents block out television programs and movies having 
     certain ratings.
       All of these provisions will be redundant and unnecessary 
     if we put the cart before the horse and mandate Federal 
     obscenity and violence standards before we give these 
     approaches an opportunity to work. I urge you to vote ``no'' 
     on the Hyde cultural amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                John Conyers, Jr.,
                                                   Ranking Member.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley), chair of the Entertainment Caucus.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hyde amendment. 
I understand the concern of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for 
what is happening in America. We have had tragic incidents around our 
country. But like others, we are looking to seek and put the blame on 
groups rather than reflect on the problems that face society.
  Everybody is fingerpointing in our communities, trying to find a 
scapegoat for the problems in our communities. This solution grows the 
government ever larger. It will create a police force of what is 
decent, what is violent, what is excessive.
  Who would be the arbiter of those type of standards? Who would set 
the guidelines? Who will be the first to be prosecuted under this vague 
law?
  The store clerk could be subject to 5 years in prison and a fine for 
the first offense, 10 years in prison or a fine for the second offense.
  Is that a movie like ``Home Alone''? Is that a movie like ``Ben 
Hur''? Is that a movie like ``Private Ryan''?
  Now, I have had discussions with the chairman who suggests those 
would not be covered under this law, but the chairman will not always 
be chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the people at the 
Department of Justice will not always be the ones that we will know 
what is in their minds, what is in their thoughts, and what is in their 
hearts.
  I do not want the government taking the role of parents. I do not 
want the government stepping in, telling parents we are going to take 
care of their problems for them.
  Mr. Chairman, how do people under 17 who do not drive cars get to the 
malls to buy the videos? How do they get the games in their homes? How 
do they watch the TVs? They are allowed to by their parents. This 
should not be about the government stepping in, saying we are now their 
parent, we are Mr. Mom or Mr. Dad.
  We are here today debating an amendment that I do believe tramples on 
the first amendment, that I do believe tries to assume the role of 
parents in communities. I would regrettably say that while the chairman 
is well intentioned and is troubled by violence, this will not solve 
it.
  What happens if the videos in the home of a consenting adult person 
are loaned to the neighbor and the neighbor's children? Now it says 
``sale''. It says ``sale''. But it also shows, I believe, in the 
amendment ``viewing.''
  So these amendments cause me great concern, and I would hope the 
committee and the Members will vote against the amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on Judiciary for yielding 
me this time. My colleagues do not have to be intellectual to be on 
that subcommittee.
  Three points I would like to make in a very short time. This is very 
uncharacteristic of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of 
the committee. He asserts as a matter of belief, but without any case 
evidence to support it, that he can graft in what I view as a somewhat 
clumsy and inartful way, the obscenity logic onto the depiction of 
violence.
  This has been tried before; and every single time it has been tried, 
the courts have knocked it down. They said, the Nassau County Board of 
Supervisors, this is in the second circuit, Eclipse Entertainment 
versus Gluota, the Nassau County Board of Supervisors simply adapted 
the Miller obscenity standard to minors into violence. However, this 
was not a sufficient measure to shield the law from successful 
constitutional challenge, because the standards that apply to obscenity 
are different than those that apply to violence. Obscenity is not 
protected speech. This is, case after case. Time does not give me the 
time to make this argument.
  Secondly, Ginsberg, yes, Ginsberg allowed a differentiated standard 
on obsenity to minors. This seeks to track that by doing a different 
standard on the depiction of violence to minors. But in Ginsberg, there 
was an exception from any criminal prosecution where there was parental 
participation or consent.
  This measure has absolutely no such exception. The parent can be in 
the video store, in the theater, with the minor, and be quite willing 
to have the child, the minor see this. The vendor who sells it, 
ironically, we do not go after the studio, the author, the distributor, 
we go after the vendor, the poor guy at the video store, at 
Blockbusters.
  There is no exception whatsoever here for parental consent, and there 
is no standard that is contained in Ginsberg for utterly without social 
redeeming value.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a parent and a 
legislator to oppose the Hyde amendment.
  While the Hyde amendment intends to establish a standard to regulate 
children's exposure to violence, I believe this legislation will 
neither protect children nor help parents shield their children from 
harm. This amendment's overly broad attempts to regulate portrayals of 
violence raises serious constitutional questions that may result in 
this law being tied up in the courts for years. While the court battles 
are waged, not one child will be protected nor one parent's peace of 
mind enhanced.
  We need to truly empower parents with common sense protective 
measures, such as the V-chip, establish TV ratings, strict enforcement 
of age requirements at movie theaters, and software filters for the 
Internet. We all agree our children should be shielded from violence 
and that parents should have the tools to protect their children. I 
would rather the industry spend the time in developing these tools than 
fighting protracted legal battles.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Hyde amendment and to support 
common sense and effective measures that will truly protect our 
children.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rogan), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is with great reluctance that I rise in opposition 
to the amendment by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  I start with the proposition, Mr. Chairman, that it is my 
responsibility as a parent to make sure that my children are watching 
age-appropriate material. And if they are watching something that is 
inappropriate, the responsibility rests with me to correct the 
deficiency. It is not the responsibility of Congress or Hollywood or 
any other group to correct that deficiency.
  I do not believe the author of this amendment intends to censor 
movies depicting violence engaged in for a noble, heroic or socially 
worthy purpose. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that the severe punitive 
measures put in this amendment put creators and distributors in a vise. 
They essentially have to ``gamble'' before they release

[[Page H4405]]

material and make a guess whether it fits some vague literary, 
artistic, political or socially redeeming value test. And should they 
gamble incorrectly, they could spend 5 years in Federal prison.
  There is also something disproportionate about language in a bill 
that allows a negligent parent who lets their children watch horribly 
violent material have no acknowledged culpability, but the person who 
fails to pay attention one day and does not check for I.D. at the local 
video store could do up to 5 years in prison.
  I do not think that is an appropriate response from Congress. I do 
not think it will solve any of the troubles or the pathologies we are 
attempting to address. It is with that reluctance, Mr. Chairman, that I 
rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair tell us how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 11 minutes 
remaining; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 21\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, just last week, on June 10, the U.S. Supreme 
Court, in the City of Chicago vs. Morales, struck down a city ordinance 
that was intended to stop gang members from loitering. In so doing, the 
court held the ordinance was overbroad and vague. It failed to give 
proper notice of what was forbidden and what was permitted.
  The language of this bill commits the same fatal error. It fails to 
explain what is covered in its terms and, in so doing, sweeps up 
educational and entertaining material that is irrelevant to the 
sponsor's concerns.
  This Hyde amendment stems from a laudable purpose and high hopes. We 
must stop the prevalence of juvenile violence just as we must stop 
destruction by gang members. Yet the Constitution tells us we cannot do 
this by curtailing expression under the First Amendment.
  Courts have consistently found definitions for violence to be vague. 
For instance, in this bill we address ``sadistic or masochistic 
flagellation.'' Would a film about slavery have to cut scenes of slaves 
being whipped, creating the appearance that there were no violent acts 
done towards slaves? Producers most certainly delete these scenes 
simply to play it safe. Are children to be led to believe that slavery 
was not cruel? We cannot teach our children about societal issues if we 
are not allowed to give them a depiction of it. Ignorance is not the 
answer.
  The bill also defines violent material as torture by or upon a 
person. Again, this vague and overbroad definition steps into a black 
hole. Every kid likes watching the super hero catch his villain. Look 
at Spiderman, Wonder Woman and Batman and Robin. Are these the 
characters the sponsors are really afraid of?
  Much of our comedy also includes actions of ``torture'' that few 
would find any connection with violence. Look at Jim Carey, one of the 
most popular actors of today. Many of his films contain experiences 
that most humans would rarely survive. How about other movies, such as 
Home Alone, in which the child left a home, tarred the robbers, put 
nails out for them to fall on, and did a variety of other torture 
activities. Parents and children alike, however, flocked to this film.
  This amendment must be rejected. It is unconstitutional on its face, 
no matter how laudable an objective it seeks to achieve.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  (Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  I rise today in strong opposition to the Hyde amendment. It has been 
almost a month since Littleton and the Republican House has once again 
fumbled an issue important to the health and safety of America. They 
bring a bill to the floor today which has had no scrutiny from the 
Judiciary Committee, much less the whole House and will move amendments 
which will move us from a debate on gun control in order to engage in a 
book burning!
  The House Republican Leadership has been doing the bidding of the gun 
lobby since the shots were fired in Littleton. The other body had no 
problem in engaging this topic head-on and voting on serious 
legislation. In fact, most Americans are dead serious about keeping 
their children safe. But not here, my colleagues. Here in the 
Republican House, they are concerned with the gun lobby. The gun lobby 
needs time to stall; the Republican Leadership gives them time to 
stall. The gun lobby needs a little misdirection and scapegoating, no 
problem. The Republican Leadership is happy to accommodate.
  Today, the gentleman from Illinois will move an amendment that is a 
new twist on the NRA mantra, ``guns don't kill people . . . George 
Orwell does. Guns don't kill people . . . Steven Speilberg does.'' 
``Guns don't kill people . . . Verdi and Puccini do.'' As a parent, I 
am just as concerned about exposing my children to media violence, but 
tearing up the Constitution is not the way to do it. I share Chairman 
Hyde's motives to protect children but let's have a serious discussion 
on the safety of our children and not a replay of Fahrenheit 451 which, 
by the way, would be banned under this amendment.
  In the end, my colleagues, this House will produce a messy bill, 
which will have great difficulty clearing the Senate or the President's 
signature. And this is exactly what the gun lobby and the Republican 
House wants. Meanwhile, more children will suffer.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Hyde amendment.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to me how the Republican 
leadership seeks to deal with difficult and important issues. Their 
solution to the campaign finance mess is not to debate reform and limit 
special interest contributions, but to stonewall action and advocate 
lifting all spending limits.
  How do they deal with the problem of cigarette smoking, where we know 
3,000 kids start smoking each day because the tobacco industry targets 
them in order to get them to smoke? They refuse to bring up any 
legislation on the subject.
  Their solution to the horror of children killing children with guns 
is not to make it harder for kids to get weapons, but to try to shift 
the cause of the problem to movies and propose unconstitutional attacks 
on the First Amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say at the outset that it ought to be clear 
that movie makers, and many of them are my constituents, have an 
obligation to think through the consequences of what they offer their 
audiences, especially impressionable kids. They bear a serious 
responsibility for their action. But it is important for us to also 
keep in mind that these films are creative works that audiences line up 
here and around the world to see, and that is why they are America's 
largest export.
  And other countries see these very same films, but we do not see the 
level of violence that we do see in America. It is startling to realize 
that the death rate in the U.S. involving guns was nearly 14 per 
100,000 people. Yet when we compare that with Canada, it is four; or 
Australia, three; Sweden, two; Germany, 1.5; and in Japan, less than 1. 
Why such a disparity between our country and all these countries that 
watch our films? Violent films and TV programming are notoriously 
popular in Japan, yet the Japanese thrive in a society with a very low 
crime rate.
  The obvious answer is the availability of guns and lack of common 
sense control laws in our country. And it is exactly that which the 
Republican leadership has contrived to have us not be able to deal with 
because of the NRA, the tobacco, and other lobbyists that are so 
supportive of their political efforts.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, could we be advised of the time allotted to 
both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) continues to 
have 11 minutes remaining; and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Berman) has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to 
the gentleman from Illinois for his diligent work on a very important 
issue. I am concerned about the second amendment, but I am also 
concerned about the first amendment.

[[Page H4406]]

  If we look at this amendment, it criminalizes the selling or loaning 
or showing to a minor a book or printed matter that includes explicit 
violent material, which is defined, in part, by torture by or upon a 
person, among other things. We have to apply clearly the community 
standards in applying this definition, which I believe is vague, but 
this is the type of government chilling effect that is harmful to 
freedom in our society.
  For that reason, I reluctantly oppose this amendment. I do hope that 
we can have hearings to move forward in this area in a manner that does 
not violate and do damage to our first amendment.
  The book sellers have raised questions about books that it could 
jeopardize, and they realize there is a harmfulness test. But as 
pointed out, book sellers would not jeopardize them going to jail in 
order to make a decision about these books. So there will be a chilling 
effect, and I think there is certainly a problem that the courts would 
address.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  The gentleman from Arkansas makes a very good point. Ironically, when 
we look at the definition of ``depiction of violence,'' the one thing 
it does not include is murder, mass murder, or bombing. None of those 
are included. It all gets into sort of bizarre and weird acts of 
mutilation and flagellation, but nothing about spraying a hundred 
people with assault weapons.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. 
McCarthy).
  (Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  The gentleman from Illinois attempts solutions to youth violence 
which threaten to undermine our basic freedoms. The amendment calls for 
yet another study of the effects of music on child development. The 
Smart Symphonies Program, initiated by the National Academy of 
Recording Arts and Sciences, provides classical music to infants in 
response to what we already know, that early exposure to classical 
music increases a child's ability to learn to read, and to be 
proficient in math and science.
  We need not more studies but a national initiative to replicate and 
expand upon successful programs which further enhance academic 
excellence and reduce youth violence. We must encourage and allow 
parents to take an active role in teaching their children right from 
wrong and allow parents to make the decisions about what children read, 
listen to and watch.
  The Federal Government should support funding for solutions that 
work, such as arts programs in our schools. The Federal Government 
should not infringe on individual liberties.
  I intend to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  As we attempt to reach consensus on how to protect our children, can 
we rise above partisan rhetoric and focus on the means to reduce youth 
violence in our country? The gentleman from Illinois attempts solutions 
which threaten to undermine our basic freedoms.
  The Chairman of the House Republican Entertainment Industry Task 
Force has highlighted the dangerous implications of this amendment 
which would ``dramatically increase the power of the federal government 
in far too many areas'' (from Mr. Foley's press release, June 15, 
1999). The amendment's definition of violence would affect not only 
many comic books, video games, and movies, but it would also in fact, 
keep the Holy Bible out of the hands of children, as the Bible itself 
includes many narrative accounts of sadistic or masochistic acts, 
torture by or upon a person, and acts of mutilation of the human body, 
including, of course, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Stifling our 
expression and cultural experience is not a solution but an equation 
for isolation and violence.
  The amendment calls for a study of the effects of music on child 
development. Current research indicates that children who are exposed 
to the arts perform 30% better academically. Another study on high risk 
elementary students showed that children who participated in an arts 
program for one year gained 8 percentile points on standardized 
language arts tests. The Smart Symphonies program initiated by the 
National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS) provides free 
CD's of classical music for infants in response to findings that show, 
among other things, that early exposure to classical music increases a 
child's ability to learn math and science. We need a national 
initiative to replicate and expand upon successful programs which 
further enhance academic excellence and reduce youth violence.
  We must encourage and allow parents to take an active role in 
teaching their children right from wrong, and allow parents to make the 
decisions about what their children read, listen to, and watch. The 
federal government should support funding of solutions that work, such 
as arts programs in our schools. The federal government should not 
infringe on individual liberties. Therefore, I find it necessary to 
vote ``no'' on Mr. Hyde's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record documents highlighting the 
Smart Symphonies program I referred to earlier and other materials 
important to this issue:

              Babies To Benefit From ``Smart Symphonies''

       The NARAS Foundation, the non-profit music education and 
     preservation arm of the National Academy of Recording Arts & 
     Sciences, and Mead Johnson Nutritionals, maker of Enfamil 
     infant formula, announced today the launch of Smart 
     Symphonies, a national program designed to raise awareness of 
     the benefits of exposing infants to classical music.
       The cornerstone of the program is a new, specially created 
     compact disc entitled Smart Symphonies, which features 
     Grammy-winning classical music. Scientists and early 
     childhood development experts say that recent studies 
     indicate playing classical music can help stimulate brain 
     development in babies. Beginning in early May, the CDs will 
     be included in more than one million Enfamil Diaper Bags 
     given to new mothers as they leave the hospital.
       The Enfamil brand is contributing $3 million over the next 
     three years to help establish the Smart Symphonies 
     initiative. The contribution will be used to further research 
     the effect of classical music on brain development in early 
     childhood, and to assist in bringing classical music to more 
     families. This year, more than one million Smart Symphonies 
     CDs will reach parents and newborns throughout the country.
       ``There are few things more important than giving our 
     children every scientific and cultural advantage possible. 
     The Recording Academy has dedicated itself to aggressively 
     supporting research into the educational and developmental 
     benefits of music and helping to put those findings to 
     practical use,'' said Recording Academy President/CEO Michael 
     Greene. ``Partnering with Enfamil in the Smart Symphonies 
     project is just another example of how the Academy and NARAS 
     Foundation use the power of science and music to give the 
     youngest members of our community a head start.''
       Research indicates that babies unconsciously respond to the 
     qualities of classical music--rhythm, melody and harmony. The 
     relationships among these qualities make it easier for 
     infants to understand other kinds of relationships later on--
     relationships of time, space and sequence--skills that 
     children need to be proficient in science, math and problem 
     solving. Findings also suggest that good pitch discrimination 
     is associated with children learning to read by enhancing the 
     phonemic stage of learning.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Lamb, SJ and Gregory AH. The relationship between music 
     and reading in beginning readers. Educational Psychology. 
     1993; 13:19-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       ``The first year of life is a critical time for development 
     of both a baby's mind and body,'' said Mead Johnson, Vice 
     President of Pediatric Nutritionals, Michael P. Russomano. 
     ``For nearly 100 years, Enfamil has been dedicated to 
     children's healthy growth and development. Through research 
     we continue to strive to provide babies with the best 
     nutrition possible. Now through the Smart Symphonies 
     initiative, we hope to contribute further to babies' brain 
     development.''
       The NARAS Foundation and Enfamil consulted numerous experts 
     in music and early childhood development to choose several 
     well-known classical selections for the Smart Symphonies CD. 
     The disc features 16 classical favorites including 
     Beethoven's Symphony No. 8 in F major, Op. 93 (2nd movement), 
     Bach's Prelude in D minor and Mozart's Concerto for 2 Pianos 
     & Orch, K 365 (3rd movement).
       ``Music enriches our lives and it often touches us 
     emotionally; moreover, music can help our children to think, 
     reason and be creative,'' said John W. Flohr, professor of 
     music at Texas Woman's University, Denton TX. ``Research 
     indicates brain activity is also affected by the style of 
     music.2,}3 Many researchers believe classical may 
     be particularly effective.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \2\ Flohr JW and Miller DC. ``What's going on in there? Music 
     and brain research with young children.'' Connections. 
     Austin: Music Educators National Conference, Texas Music 
     Educators Conference. 1998; 12(3):10-13.
     \3\ Fagen J, Prigot J, Carroll, M, Pioli L, Stein A, and 
     Franco A. Music aids memory retrieval in infants. Child 
     Development. 1997; 68(6):1057-1066.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The NARAS Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated 
     to helping restore music education to all schools across 
     America and works to ensure access to the nation's rich music 
     history. In partnership with the National Academy of 
     Recording Arts & Sciences and its chapters throughout the 
     country, the NARAS Foundation engages in a variety of 
     cultural, professional and educational activities designed to 
     enhance

[[Page H4407]]

     music education and preserve recorded musical legacy.
       Mead Johnson Nutritionals is a world leader in nutrition, 
     recognized for developing and marketing quality products that 
     meet the nutritional and lifestyle needs of children and 
     adults of all ages. Mead Johnson Nutritionals is a Bristol-
     Myers Squibb Company. Bristol-Myers Squibb is a diversified 
     worldwide health and personal care company whose principal 
     businesses are pharmaceuticals, consumer products, beauty 
     care, nutritionals and medical devices.
                                  ____


  Foley Highlights Dangerous Implications of Government Restrictions 
                     Included in ``Cultural'' Bill

       Many mainstream films, CDS, video games, books and other 
     materials would be banned for teenagers under legislation 
     about to be considered by the House of Representatives. The 
     Chairman of the Republican Entertainment Industry Task Force, 
     Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), held a news conference to highlight 
     the dangerous implications various cultural provisions could 
     have on our society.
       Foley said the legislation would do little to combat youth 
     violence. ``Most of the provisions in this bill are desperate 
     attempts to make Congress look like it is doing something, no 
     matter how unworkable, to respond to the tragedy in 
     Littleton,'' Foley said. ``In fact, the legislation--while 
     well-intended--is little more than a hodge-podge of phony 
     solutions which won't stop violent activity among America's 
     young people.''
       ``To suggest that the federal government has a role in 
     manipulating what kind of music kids listen to, what kind of 
     video games they play or what kind of books or magazines they 
     read is unrealistic,'' Foley said. ``Furthermore, the 
     government has no business trying to supplant the role of 
     parents in raising their children.''
       Foley pointed out that virtually all of the provisions in 
     the legislation are either unworkable, unconstitutional or 
     simply unnecessary. In many instances, the bill is so broadly 
     drafted it could make it illegal for minors to view or listen 
     to a vast range of films, music, and reading material which 
     few would find inappropriate for teenagers.
       ``This bill would allow federal authorities to prosecute 
     retail outlets, libraries or video rental stores to lend, 
     sell or rent a teenager great films like Ben Hur, Lawrence of 
     Arabia, and The Color Purple,'' Foley said. ``More recent 
     films like Rocky, Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom, and 
     Schindler's List would be illegal for minors to view.''
       ``I find it stunning that some in this Congress would have 
     the federal government make criminals out of those who would 
     allow teenagers to read certain books, listen to certain 
     music or view a broad range of films,'' Foley said. ``It is 
     very likely that the government would be given broad new 
     powers to prosecute a bookstore owner for selling any number 
     of books, the manager of a discount store for selling certain 
     video games or compact discs, or a museum for displaying 
     certain works of art.''
       ``As a Republican, I thought our party was committed to 
     lessening government interference in the affairs of commerce 
     and our personal lives. Instead, this reckless proposal would 
     dramatically increase the power of the federal government in 
     far too many areas.''
       The task force was originally formed by the late Rep. Sonny 
     Bono (R-CA) to forge closer ties between Republicans and the 
     motion picture, music and other entertainment-oriented 
     industries.


 How many of These Works Could Be Included in a Government-Imposed Ban 
              on Violent or Sexually Suggestive Materials?

       1. George Orwell's ``1984'' (depicts torture).
       2. ``The Accused'' with Jodie Foster (depicts rape).
       3. ``The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman'' with Cicely 
     Tyson (depicts sadism)--and, indeed, any work about slavery.
       4. ``The Bible'' (depicts mutilation, including the 
     crucifixion itself, as well as rape, torture and sadism).
       5. Toni Morrison's ``Beloved'' (depicts sadism, mutilation 
     and rape).
       6. Toni Morrison's ``The Bluest Eve'' (depicts rape).
       7. Edgar Allan Poe's ``The Cask of Amontillado'' (depicts 
     torture).
       8. Stanley Kubrick's ``A Clockwork Orange'' (depicts rape 
     and sadism).
       9. Alice Walker's ``The Color Purple'' (depicts rape).
       10. Dostoevsky's ``Crime and Punishment'' (depicts 
     sadism)--and indeed, any work about violent crime.
       11. ``Death and the Maiden'' (depicts torture)--and, indeed 
     any work about torture as human rights violation.
       12. Donizetti's ``Lucia de Lamamoor'' (depicts mutilation) 
     Lucia kills her fiance, appears onstage in a bloody dress, 
     usually with a dagger and kills herself.
       13. Waris Dirie's recent account of female genital 
     mutilation.
       14. Anthony Mingholla's ``The English Patient'' (depicts 
     torture).
       15. ``Ghandi'' (depicts beatings)--and indeed, any work 
     about nonviolent resistance to violence.
       16. ``Gone With The Wind'' (depicts rape).
       17. ``Hansel and Gretel'' (depicts sadism).
       18. Thomas Pynchon's ``Gravity Rainbow'' (depicts 
     sadomasochism).
       19. Homer's ``Iliad'' and ``Odyssey'' (depicts sadism).
       20. Dante's ``Inferno'' (depicts torture).
       21. ``The Killing Fields'' (depicts torture)--and indeed, 
     any work about war.
       22. Shakespeare's ``King Lear'' (depicts mutilation).
       23. Stephen King's best-selling works (depicts torture and 
     mutilation).
       24. Yeat's ``Leda and the Swan'' (depicts rape).
       25. ``Life is Beautiful'' (depicts sadism)--and indeed any 
     work about the Holocaust.
       26. ``Little Red Riding Hood'' (depicts sadism).
       27. ``Marathon Man'' with Dustin Hoffman (depicts torture 
     and sadism).
       28. Ovid's ``Metamorphoses'' (depicts rape).
       29. Unberto Eco's ``The Name of the Rose'' (depicts self-
     flagellation).
       30. ``Oedipus Rex'' (depicts self mutilation).
       31. ``Ordinary People'' (depicts self-mutilation).
       32. ``The Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe'' (depicts 
     flagellation).
       33. Kafka's ``The Penal Colony'' (depicts torture).
       34. Edgar Allan Poe's ``The Pit and the Pendulum'' (depicts 
     torture).
       35. Tina Turner's ``Rock Me, Baby'' (depicts sexual 
     material).
       36. Anne Rice's best-selling works (depicts sadomasochism).
       37. ``Roots'' (depicts torture and sadism).
       38. ``Saving Private Ryan'' (depicts sadism).
       39. Nathaniel Hawthorne's ``The Scarlet Letter'' (depicts 
     self-flagellation).
       40. ``Schindler's List'' (depicts torture and sadism).
       41. Verdi's ``Ostello'' (depicts mutilation) Ostello 
     strangles his own wife with his bare hands.
       42. Tennessee Williams ``Streetcar Named Desire'' (depicts 
     rape).
       43. Billie Holiday's ``Strange Fruit'' (depicts lynching).
       44. Terence Malick's ``The Thin Red Line'' (depicts 
     sadism).
       45. Clint Eastwood's ``Unforgiven'' (depicts rape).
       46. Frank Sinatra and Kurt Weil's ``Mack the Knife'' 
     (depicts acts of mutilation).
       47. Linda Ronstadt's ``Tumbling Dice'' (depicts rape).
       49. E.L. Doctorow's ``Ragtime'' (depicts multilation)--
     character is beaten to death onstage.
       50. Puccini's ``Tosca'' (depicts torture and mutilation)--
     the main character, Cavaradossi, is tortured by Scarpia. 
     Tosca also kills Scarpia by stabbing and commits suicide.

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding me this time, and I want to salute him as one of the giants in 
this body and a Member who has distinguished himself by seeing things 
many times much more clearly than the rest of us.
  Let me just say to all of my colleagues who have talked about those 
who would be inconvenienced by this legislation. Legislation does tend 
to inconvenience people. And in determining that we are going to pass 
legislation and inconvenience some people so that we might do a service 
for others, we establish a priority list.
  I have heard on the other side of this argument an interesting 
priority list. It seems to be the same time after time. First, we have 
to worry about the vendor at the 7-Eleven. That is a person we really 
have to be concerned about. Of course, we do not worry about that 
vendor when we establish criminal sanctions for selling cigarettes to 
minors because it might damage their lungs, but we should really worry 
about that vendor if we are selling stuff that might damage their minds 
and damage their souls. In that case the vendor has to be the number 
one person on our priority list to be concerned about.
  Secondly, of course, the recording artist. We have to be very 
concerned about them. We have to be very concerned about the 
distributors. And I presume we should be very concerned about those who 
write the PAC checks.
  Finally, at the bottom of our concern list, our priority list, are 
the children and maybe a little bit below them the family.
  I understand that this is complex legislation. All of those of us who 
have tried cases involving freedom of speech understand that. But we 
can work our way through this. This is excellent legislation. It goes 
to the heart of the problem that is hurting America right now. Let us 
pass the Hyde amendment.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
  (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H4408]]

  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, if I believed that passing one additional 
law or a library filled with law books would prevent incidences of 
school violence in America, I would stand here and lead the charge.

                              {time}  1630

  But the fact is the answer to school violence in America is not here 
in Washington. The answer to tragedies like Littleton, Colorado are 
found in Littleton, Colorado.
  Were it in my power, Mr. Chairman, I would urge this body to adjourn 
and urge all Members to go home to have listening sessions with 
students home from student breaks, to encourage parents to get more 
involved in raising their kids.
  My sentiment on this issue is just as strong today as it will be 
during tomorrow's debate. And just as I believe it is inappropriate to 
point the barrel of the gun at manufacturers or at law-abiding citizens 
who enjoy the protections of the second amendment, I believe it is 
equally inappropriate to train the lens of the video camera on the 
entertainment industry or those that are enjoying their first amendment 
rights.
  Regrettably, I ask for a vote of ``no'' on the Hyde amendment.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this 
amendment, and I rise in support of the first amendment. Tomorrow I 
will be rising in defense of the second amendment.
  At the rate this Congress is going, by the Fourth of July, we will 
probably have successfully trampled upon the entirety of the Bill of 
Rights.
  I do love my good friend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the 
author of the amendment. And I want to pay him my great respect and 
affection, he is a wonderful gentleman and a valuable Member of this 
body, and also to other Members on both sides of the aisle. I am 
satisfied that they are doing what they believe is right, and I believe 
that these are sincere and well-intentioned efforts. But I believe that 
the amendment is flawed and, in all probability, unconstitutional.
  We know the difficulty of trying to define exactly what materials may 
be offensive or harmful or dangerous. In any event, I do not think it 
is the business of the Congress to let the courts do our jobs for us. 
There is a difference between assigning blame and assuming 
responsibility. Assigning blame is not going to bring back the children 
who were senselessly and tragically taken from us in Colorado and 
Georgia. But in assuming responsibility, we might proceed toward better 
legislation and prevent another Littleton in the future.
  Unfortunately, too much of the juvenile justice legislation is about 
blame and too little about responsibility.
  What I would like to see, however, is legislation that does not 
attack the Bill of Rights but instead deals with the root causes of 
juvenile crime, including the reduction in poverty, improvement of 
education and mental health and the development of job opportunities 
for decent wages.
  I would like to see legislation that will attack the problem that our 
juvenile court judge back home talks about, where he has to release 
kids to the street who are functionally insane and a threat to the 
society. I believe that that would be something which we could do that 
would be really important. We are in the unusual position on the 
juvenile justice bill of having a legislative process which usually 
works with the Senate stepping in after the House acts to calm the 
passions of this body.
  Today the House appears eager to join in trouncing the amendments to 
the Constitution. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to protect the 
cherished constitutional rights.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no greater responsibility than raising a 
child. It does not help parents when children are besieged by graphic 
violence, promiscuous sex, and foul language on TV, in the movies, in 
music, and on video games.
  Ironically, current laws actually prevent entertainment industry 
executives from meeting to create a voluntary code of conduct on the 
grounds that such meetings might hinder competition.
  To solve this problem, I introduced bipartisan legislation this 
Congress that would grant a narrow exception to current laws that bar 
such meetings. The entertainment industry should have the opportunity 
to meet and discuss voluntary standards that could help improve the 
content of television, movies, music, and video games.
  I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for including this 
provision in the amendment to protect children from the culture of 
violence.
  The small screen and CD at home, the large screen in the theaters, 
and video games wherever they are played, all too often fill young 
hearts and minds with a poisonous effluent. Violence is glorified and 
graphic stable families are ridiculed or ignored. Authority figures, 
including parents, are mocked. Religion is deemed irrelevant. Right and 
wrong are relative.
  Entertainment executives need to assume some responsibility for 
undermining American values whether they intended to do so or not. They 
can change our culture for the better simply by agreeing to turn their 
microphones and cameras in a different direction. This provision gives 
them that opportunity.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, it gives me special pleasure to yield 1\1/
2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  I regretfully rise to oppose this amendment, and I do so despite the 
fact I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde). Like him, I believe we should have more control over the content 
of what our children watch. My concern is giving that control to 
Washington, D.C.
  Now, if the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) were around to police 
and interpret these broad guidelines in the future regarding the first 
amendment, I would be more at ease. Regretfully, though, he will not. I 
fear the law of unintended consequences will kick in and the Federal 
Government's further involvement in the first amendment will prove 
troublesome.
  We have the best of intentions today working around the first 
amendment, just like tomorrow we will have the best of intentions 
working around the second amendment. But, regretfully, I think both 
efforts are misguided. And I would hope my friends who are so eagerly 
defending the first amendment today will just as eagerly defend the 
second amendment tomorrow, because I believe, like the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), that the answers to Littleton, Colorado lie not 
in Washington, D.C., but in listening sessions at home, by more engaged 
parents and by prayerful communities that once again turn their focus 
back to God.
  Regretfully, I do oppose this amendment and ask my friends to do the 
same and vote ``no.''
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is a good example 
of why it is too bad that we have short-circuited the committee 
process. I actually have a very strong interest in seeing whether we 
may extend the obscenity statutes to violence.
  After all, what is more dangerous, sex or violence?
  As the mother of two teenagers, concerned about violence, I have a 
legitimate interest in an amendment that would deal with violence. But 
I look at this amendment and I see it will instantly be declared 
unconstitutional.
  Taking a look at the legislative drafting on the first page, as 
someone who works with the Internet a lot, I can see that this proposal 
closely patterns the Communications Decency Act, which the Supreme 
Court declared unconstitutional.
  I must say that I am concerned, if this were to pass as written, we 
would be in the awkward situation of telling my teens that whoever sold 
them ``Shakespeare In Love'' on a video would be subject to criminal 
sanctions, and whoever sold them ``Attack D.C. 9'' would not. I think 
that is preposterous.

[[Page H4409]]

  Chairman Hyde has asserted that his amendment would not bar the 
selling of a film like ``Shakespeare in Love'' to minors because the 
film has ``redeeming social value'', the standard utilized in the 
analysis of sexually explicit material.
  It would appear, however, that Chairman Hyde is not familiar with his 
own amendment. Nowhere within his amendment may those words be found. 
Instead, the standard found in section 1471 includes material that, 
with respect to minors, is designed to appeal or pander to the 
prurient, shameful or morbid interest, as well as material that is 
patently offensive and not suitable for minors and material which 
``lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for 
minors''.
  I think it is clear that the winner of this year's academy awards, a 
movie rated ``R'' for a reason, would run afoul of the Hyde amendment.
  I repeat my distress that we would put behind bars those who sell a 
video of ``Shakespeare in Love'' to a teenager, but continue to allow 
persons to sell a Tec-DC9 assault weapon to that same teenager.
  As a mother of two teens, I have a genuine interest in seeing whether 
we could extend the obscenity laws to violence. But the Hyde amendment 
is not a serious effort to do that. Instead, it is a patently political 
attempt to try to discredit those who would stand up for the First 
Amendment as political cover for those who, tomorrow, will misuse the 
Second Amendment in an effort to protect the culture of gun violence 
and those who profit from gun violence in America.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) has 10\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hyde amendment. I have 
great respect for the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and 
his intentions, and I admire him for trying to do something about the 
violence which pervades our culture and, more particularly, affects our 
young people. We were all horrified by the shootings in Colorado and 
Georgia; and, like most people, we must all work to ensure a similar 
event does not occur again.
  The amendment before us has significant constitutional repercussion. 
And while the chairman raises significant questions, not one hearing on 
this new legal concept that violence is obscenity has occurred, and 
that has been particularly disappointing to me.
  As a father, I share the chairman's determination to keep violence 
and obscenity out of the hands of our Nation's children. But look at 
the volumes of case law on obscenity. All the laws and judges' opinions 
in the world have not done very well in ridding our society of 
obscenity. We need to change people's hearts and minds. If we do, the 
power of consumers and the marketplace will be more powerful than any 
law we could pass.
  The amendment before us tramples on the first amendment. I urge a 
``no'' vote.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I have a 14-year-old boy who confronted me 
with the fact that he was able to get in his hand, because he found 
some videos, a material that he, as a 14-year-old, knew was obscene 
violence.
  There is going to be a lot of debate about the Bill of Rights today 
and tomorrow. But all I have got to say is that those of my colleagues 
that so fear any one of the restrictions on any one of the Bill of 
Rights, remember that reasonable applications of restrictions do not 
threaten the Bill of Rights, they reinforce and protect them. And I 
would ask my colleagues to understand that we have accepted, as a 
society, that we do not accept sexual obscenity to be sold to our 
children.
  I praise the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for being brave 
enough to confront us with the fact that violent obscenity should not 
be sold to our children either.
  I hear my colleagues who are outraged at Joe Camel somehow getting 
our kids to smoke and demanding that that be stopped. But if they would 
see the videos and the VCRs and the other information that our children 
are being exposed to, then they would see what a 14-year-old would 
know; that obscene, violent action should not be sold to our children.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hyde 
amendment.
  Just before coming to Congress, I served as the Cuyahoga County 
prosecutor. It was my responsibility to prosecute cases much similar to 
what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) is proposing on this date.
  I tell my colleagues, as a prosecutor, I would stop and say, huh, 
what exactly is it he is asking me to prosecute? How can I prosecute 
such a case as this?
  I am a mother of a 16-year-old, and I am concerned about him, too. 
But it is my responsibility, not Congress', to decide what violent 
material we should be taking from our children and not allowing them to 
see.
  So, as a mother and a prosecutor, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, today's amendment focuses on the 
culture of violence that has saturated our society.
  While some would argue that television, the Internet, satellite 
transmissions, movies, and video games have not contributed to this 
culture of violence, I disagree. I believe their misuse has 
desensitized all of us by making murder, rape, assault, and mayhem 
appear commonplace and acceptable through the process of repetition and 
overexposure.
  To claim that the first amendment renders us powerless to deal with 
this issue is to claim that our Bill of Rights is static, such as never 
has been the case. Just as the Bill of Rights is flexible enough to 
prevent the innovative and technology-enhanced intrusions of government 
on the rights of individuals, it is, likewise, rationale enough to 
prevent it from being used as a cloak to conceal and protect conduct 
that is ultimately destructive to society as a whole.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Every generation wrestles with the reality that the internal universe 
of society is constantly expanding. Advances in technology continue to 
push back the darkness of the unknown and open up new territories that 
were hidden from the view of our ancestors. Our generation has 
experienced an explosion of technologies--television, the Internet, 
satellite transmissions, movies, video games, and cellular telephones, 
to name a few. These have expanded the scope of our childrens' world 
far beyond that which existed during our own childhood.
  Even though the world in this last decade of the 20th century, as 
magnified by the information age, is vastly different from the world of 
our founding fathers in the last decade of the 18th century, we are 
firmly committed to maintaining the structure of order embodied by our 
founding fathers in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Today's debate 
focuses on a culture of violence that has saturated our society. While 
some will argue that the new technologies previously enumerated have 
not contributed to this culture of violence, I disagree. I believe 
their misuse has desensitized all of us by making murder, rape, assault 
and mayhem appear commonplace and acceptable through the process of 
repetition and overexposure. If, therefore, these advanced 
technologies, which should be the tools for advancing civilization, 
have in fact nurtured primitive instincts of violence that are not 
compatible with making us more civilized, the clear questions arises as 
to what can government do to reverse this process without infringing on 
the individual liberties of our citizens'
  To claim that the 1st Amendment renders us powerless to deal with 
this issue is to claim that our Bill of Rights is static. Such has 
never been the case. Just as the Bill of rights is flexible enough to 
prevent the innovative and technology enhanced intrusions of government 
on the rights of individuals, it is likewise rational enough to prevent 
it from being used as a cloak to conceal and protect conduct that is 
ultimately destructive of the society as a whole.
  I commend Chairman Hyde for his amendment which applies the 
constitutionally sanctioned constraints on obscenity to the matter of 
violence as directed at children. Since both have adverse effects on 
society it is altogether appropriate for this Congress to confront our 
culture of violence in this orderly approach, and I urge adoption of 
this amendment.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that each side be

[[Page H4410]]

granted an additional 2 minutes; 2 minutes for the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman) and 2 minutes for us.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hyde 
amendment. Senator Moynihan said a few years ago that we have been 
defining deviancy down, accepting as a part of life what we once found 
repugnant. How true this is, and unfortunately it is becoming more so 
every day.
  I remember several months ago coming home one Friday night and 
hearing Barbara Walters say she was about to show on 20/20 the most 
important program she had ever presented on television. With her long 
career, I wondered what this could be. What it turned out to be was a 
program warning parents about the warped, evil, sick things mainly of a 
violent or sexual nature available to children over the Internet and on 
videos and tapes and so forth. We should all do whatever we can, even 
in a small way, to slow this flood of this toxic mind warping, sick, 
evil, violent, and obscene material that is reaching our children 
today.
  This is one of the most important amendments we have ever had before 
us in this House, and it is time to say that enough is enough and that 
today we started a new and better direction. As a judge who dealt with 
constitutional issues for 7\1/2\ years before coming to Congress, I 
urge support for this very well-crafted amendment.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong 
support of the intent and the purpose and the goals of this 
legislation, but unfortunately I am unable to support the legislation, 
as drafted, and urge rather than move forward and vote for H.R. 2036, 
we defeat this amendment, this bill, and move forward with a long-term 
study to really get to the bottom of why these pieces of material, why 
these materials are being marketed, what is the relationship between 
these materials being marketed and violence so that we can better craft 
a more narrowly focused and constitutionally sound piece of 
legislation.
  I listened intently to the debate and have studied this issue 
extensively and find myself also in agreement with my colleague from 
California (Mr. Rogan). I cannot, and I do not think any of us can, 
escape the fact that ultimately it is parents that have the ultimate 
control over what our children see, hear and do, and we can pass all of 
the legislation we want that places all sorts of restrictions, 
labeling, access to materials that we want, but if parents allow their 
children to watch these materials, if they allow them to listen to 
these materials, as vile, as disgusting, as disgraceful, as obscene, as 
pornographic as they may be, it is the parents that have to assume 
ultimate responsibility, and no amount of legislation that we can pass 
will do that, and I am afraid that, if we pass this legislation, it 
will set us back because I do not think there is really any way that 
this can avoid being struck down, at least provisions of it, as being 
unconstitutional, and then we are back behind the 8 ball once again.
  So I would urge all of our colleagues who want, I believe on both 
sides of the aisle, to address this problem of youth violence, 
obscenity, to take a harder look at it, to work together, all of us, to 
try and craft a sounder piece of legislation, but ultimately 
recognizing that unless the parents of America's children take more of 
an interest in ensuring that their children do not watch, hear or read 
the material that we are trying to reach here, nothing that we do is 
going to solve the problem.
  So, again I urge defeat of this bill and strong support for what it 
is trying to do for future legislation.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman from 
Georgia leaves the floor, I just wanted to take this opportunity to 
express my agreement with the gentleman from Georgia to help advance 
the legislative process and to satisfy all that hunger for civility out 
there in the country.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hyde amendment, 
not because I oppose what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) would 
like to see in this country. I think all of us would like to see less 
violence, all of us would like to see less obscenity in movies, all of 
us would like to see the culture expressed in our media, on the 
Internet and in the books and games and movies that our children watch 
to be less violent and less obscene.
  The problem basically, as I know has been expressed many times here, 
but I need to say it again as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection whose principal 
responsibility is to protect this free speech society, is that we 
cannot constitutionally do this. We cannot constitutionally dictate the 
content of speech in America as much as we would like to, as 
emotionally as I feel, as deeply as I hurt when I see the scenes on 
television that we have seen of children killing children.
  I am reminded about that child at Columbine who said, look, we all 
watch the same movies, we all play the same games, but we do not go 
around killing our classmates. Go check with that family, go check with 
those kids, go check with that culture that these kids grew up in, and 
do something about it. But do not think that because we see these same 
movies we are going to end up killing each other. We need to do 
something much more basic than regulate free speech.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  (Mr. WELDON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment, and I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde), for including antitrust protection to the entertainment industry 
in order for them to establish a set of guidelines to help protect 
children from harmful behavior. I was working on introducing a bill to 
provide this type of antitrust protection, and I was extremely pleased 
to see the chairman include this in his amendment.
  The National Association of Broadcasters had a code of conduct that 
they abided by until it was abandoned by the broadcasters in 1983. 
Since then standards which broadcasters find acceptable have 
deteriorated. Eighty percent of Americans have expressed concern about 
the increasingly graphic portrayals of sex, violence, vulgarity and 
programming that sanctions and glorifies criminal, antisocial and 
degrading behavior. The Hyde amendment will permit the entertainment 
industry to work collaboratively to develop a set of voluntary 
programming guidelines. This system worked well for decades. It was not 
perfect, but it did put the impetus on Hollywood to refrain from 
exploiting the American people and producing products that are directed 
toward the prurient interests of our young people.
  Hollywood has cast aside responsibility in recent years, and it is 
time that they respect traditional values. The reestablishment of a 
code of conduct will enable the American people to know clearly where 
the entertainment industry falls on this issue.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hyde amendment, 
which is a well-intended but flawed proposal that does violence to the 
First Amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Hyde amendment.
  While we must take action to address violence in our schools and to 
save children's lives, some in Congress seem to feel that it should be 
more difficult to see a picture of a gun, than to go out and buy one.

[[Page H4411]]

  This amendment is overly broad and unconstitutionally vague.
  It would take obscenity, which is removed from First Amendment 
protections, and expand its definition beyond the limits established by 
the Supreme Court.
  In the process, it would create a federally imposed ban on the sale 
of certain material. It would challenge retailers to decide whether or 
not a particular work has redeeming value. This amendment would be 
incredibly difficult to implement, lead to confusion for both the 
creators and distributors of artistic works, and could inadvertently 
chill free speech for adults as well as children.
  There is far too much violence in the media today, but we must not 
compromise the First Amendment in our efforts to protect our children. 
Parents already have the right to deny their children access to violent 
movies, music, magazines, and video games that they do not find 
appropriate for their children. If we stop buying this violent 
material, people will stop selling it.
  Many leaders in the arts and entertainment community care deeply 
about the proliferation of violent material and are taking steps to 
address this problem. The media can and should also play a role in 
promoting nonviolent activities, youth problem solving, and ways to 
avoid gun violence. We can address excessive violence in the media 
without trampling on our First Amendment rights.
  I will leave you with one final note. We ought not to make the 
entertainment community the scape goat for the massacre at Columbine 
High School. Surely, this bill will not effectively address school 
violence unless it also addresses youth access to guns. Popular films 
and music lyrics are not the root cause of violence in our society and 
guns are far more deadly than any CD or video tape could ever be. As 
one Columbine senior pointed out, if the media was at fault, then every 
one of the 1,850 students at Columbine would all be killers because 
they all watch the same movies and share in other types of 
entertainment. In fact, if films caused violence then one would expect 
crime rates to rise in every country which imports American movies. 
However, Japan, which is a heavy importer of American films, has one of 
the lowest crime rates in the world.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Hyde amendment.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, far from putting parents in charge, as 
my esteemed colleague from Illinois has stated, his culture of violence 
amendment puts big brother squarely in control of the games, art, 
movies, books and other materials available to our children. No work of 
art, magazine or CD is exempt from government scrutiny. No sales clerk 
at Blockbuster, ticket sales at the movies, librarian, museum employee 
would be free from the threat of a jail term. In fact, even if a parent 
explicitly consented to the purchase of materials deemed to be too 
violent or obscene, that sales clerk is at risk.
  This is big government at its worst, supported, it seems, by the same 
individuals who rail against big government. It is intrusion into the 
personal lives of every American, a threat to educational and artistic 
freedom, a direct assault on the First Amendment, and above all, this 
amendment undercuts the freedom which is at the core of our American 
values.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  It is time for all America to come together collectively and say that 
we do wish to get rid of the violence, the obscenity, that we see 
constantly on our television, hear on radio, read in print, but I hope 
that we would turn away from the proposals that would have us create a 
new Federal cultural police that would be empowered to determine what 
is violent and what is sexual in the material that we will see, hear or 
read.
  With all due respect to the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary whom I respect dearly, this is not the way to go. I have 
three young children, and it is my responsibility, along with my wife's 
to make sure that they grow up understanding what is right and what is 
wrong and knowing when it is right to read, to listen, to watch and 
hopefully teach them enough that they will make the right decisions as 
they grow older. But for us to say that the national government can do 
it better than I can is to completely abandon our values and our 
responsibilities.
  I would hope that we would learn that the message we try to send to 
America is one of collectively getting together and resolving this 
issue of violence that we see pervasively invading our communities, but 
let us not do it by putting the heavy hand of government on top of 
that.
  Vote against this amendment.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me. I fully support this amendment and urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of this amendment. This is not an assault on the First 
Amendment or freedom of speech. This is a courageous step to limit 
vulgarity and violence.
  Let me take a second to talk about big brother, the Federal 
Government. The Federal Government helps parents protect their children 
from dirty air, the Federal Government helps parents protect their 
children from dirty water, the Federal Government helps parents protect 
their children's equal rights.
  So I think it is only incumbent upon us for the Federal Government to 
help parents protect their children from vulgar, violent videos.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I hate to keep doing this to the gentleman 
from Hollywood, but people keep wandering up and wanting a little time. 
Would the gentleman endure one more unanimous consent request for 2 
more minutes on each side?
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would 
simply like to point out to the gentleman, as I have told him several 
times, that I am from North Hollywood, not from Hollywood; and 
secondly, that I thought last fall in the Committee on the Judiciary I 
was in Hollywood.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary Miller).
  (Mr. GARY MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the 
Hyde amendment in H.R. 1501 as a whole because we need to provide 
physical safety for our children, and we need to protect our children 
from the influence of explicit, obscene material.
  I support the Hyde amendments because we need to do what we can to 
protect our children from those who would sell them offensive material. 
Michael Carneal is currently in jail for killing three students in 
1997's school shooting in Paducah, Kentucky. Michael was an avid 
computer user who logged on to the Internet and immersed his brain in 
the sexually material he found there. Ever since the Clinton 
administration stopped all prosecution of extremely violent and sexual 
pornography our children and those who prey upon them have had easy 
access to the most disturbing, mind-impacting material. This amendment 
seeks to protect the minds of our children by holding people who sell 
obscene material to children accountable and by evaluating the impact 
of violent products on our children.
  H.R. 1501 attempts to protect the majority of our children who make 
the right choices from those who make the wrong choices by treating 
juveniles like adults, when they act like adults and commit violent 
crimes by keeping guns out of the hands of juvenile criminals, and by 
making the largest community investment in juvenile justice reform in 
history.

                              {time}  1700

  Congress cannot make a perfect world, but we can empower families and 
communities to protect their children.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, we are all concerned about violence. 
However, I never dreamed that I would see the chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary assault the Constitution in the way this amendment 
does.
  This amendment is outrageous and it does danger not only to the 
children of

[[Page H4412]]

this society, but to all of the citizens of this society. I say to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), we are not going back to burning 
books, we are not going to lock people up for artistic expression. The 
Constitution of the United States guarantees us freedom of expression. 
We cannot violate the Constitution in the name of wanting to do 
something about violence.
  What we should be doing is using our power to assist families and 
children and to help parents, many of whom are working, to deal with 
the problems of young people in a considered way. I am absolutely 
outraged by the fact that one of the best legal minds in this House 
would bring this trash to the floor of the Congress of the United 
States of America. It is outrageous and it should be defeated.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) in support of this trash.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, in the wake of Littleton, I think many of 
us are prepared to produce solutions and often guarantee that they will 
save America. Well, I am going to say that it is more than gun control, 
it is more than all that we are looking at; it is less violence on 
television, it is more of the culture of guns and the culture of 
violence, and we have to address the culture of our country.
  To be honest, I do not know what the solution is and neither does 
anybody else. I know that we do not today want to confuse motion with 
action. I am afraid too many of us are anxious to be seen doing just 
something about youth violence. I do not want to do something, I want 
to do the right thing, and I think that is passing reasonable measures 
and not overbilling the effect that they have.
  I know one thing for sure, and that is that to do this we have to 
touch the minds and the hearts of our young people. We also have to 
touch what is around them and what is entering their mind. That is why 
I am so supportive of the Hyde amendment. I think it is a very common-
sense approach to an all-too-common problem of criminals transmitting 
sexual and violent material to our children.
  There is never, ever, ever a reason for pornography to reach the 
hands and the hearts of our children, and we must stop it, and this 
will do that.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, in order to protect my 5 children and my 4 
grandchildren, I rise in opposition to this frightening amendment, and 
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that given that this measure did not have the 
scrutiny of the Committee on the Judiciary and a chance to fine-tune 
it, I think it pays to take just a minute or two to sum up a few of the 
criticisms of the piece of legislation in front of us.
  First of all, it is not just about motion pictures, it is not just 
about television, it is not just about musical recordings; it applies 
to books, to pamphlets, to magazines, to drawings, to photographs, to 
sculptures.
  Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, it seeks to translate the obscenity 
formula grafted onto depictions of violence and federalize the entire 
matter, and then claim to provide community standards so that a 
particular sculpture or movie or picture or book may have one standard 
and be quite fine for sale to minors in Manhattan, New York, and not in 
eastern Montana or in Jackson, Mississippi. A law which seeks to 
federalize the criminal conduct of selling inappropriate depiction of 
minor children, depictions of violence to minors, and at the same time 
decentralize community standards all across the country is going to 
have to fall as vague, impermissibly broad, and setting up an absence 
of adequate notice to any single person who might be regulated.
  Thirdly, it exonerates the producers of this; it criminalizes the 
activity of the vendors.
  Fourth, in response to the gentleman from Maryland, yes, the Federal 
Government spends a great deal of time protecting the clean air and the 
health and the welfare of the population, but a long time ago, we 
decided there were some limits on what the Federal Government could do.
  The first and foremost of that was the prohibition on the Federal 
Government interfering with protected speech. This seeks to strike at 
and criminalize protected speech. It is unconstitutional, and I think 
the Members of this body should not support and willingly pass a 
measure which has no chance whatsoever of being held up in the courts.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) has 4\1/4\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we could stress that there 
are important aspects of this amendment which are not controversial and 
which will be presented in other forums: the antitrust exception, the 
health-related study.
  One of the problems with this amendment is we are not talking here 
only about fiction or things that people make up. This amendment covers 
depictions of the truth. This amendment covers depictions of unpleasant 
events. This amendment does not exempt the news, if it is presented for 
commercial purposes. What this amendment does is introduce an element 
of censorship by the Federal Government into the presentation by the 
media, as long as they are not working for free, and none of them are 
that I have ever met; it introduces this element of Federal censorship 
into the media's depiction of unpleasantness.
  Yes, we should treat 16-year-olds and 15-year-olds seriously. 
Shielding them, screening them through a Federal process before they 
hear about some of the terrible things that go on in the world, torture 
is part of the world. These things are part of what goes on. I do not 
want people portraying what happened in Kosovo and helping explain why 
we were in there militarily to have to check with the Federal statutes 
before they decide how they can present this to 16-year-olds.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Youngstown, Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, no one perhaps in the history of this 
body knows or understands or has fought to uphold constitutional rights 
better than our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). 
Evidently, in listening to this debate, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde) has decided to challenge some of the interpretations by some 
appointed judges who have maybe unknowingly or without meaning 
protected the rights of many murderers, while leaving a wake of victims 
in cemetery plots all over America.
  The first amendment was never intended to promote harm. I join today 
with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of our 
Committee on the Judiciary, on the floor of this House in that 
challenge of interpretations by judges that we as Members of Congress 
should have a say in creating those laws and, when necessary, 
challenging those decisions. I want to applaud our chairman for the 
courage to come out here and take the shots of attacking our 
Constitution. He has never done that.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the remaining time on 
both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) has 3\1/4\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley).
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to this amendment. Once again, we are going down a path where we are 
going to be asking the government to set some standards on what really 
does constitute violence, and what will have the impact of encouraging 
our children to engage in behavior that could be destructive to other 
families and to our society.

[[Page H4413]]

  But I also take exception to that, because as a father of two teenage 
daughters, I know that at times they are exposed to violent movies and 
other forms of violence that could be destructive to them. But they do 
not act out in a violent way. It is because my wife Linda and I have 
done the job of instilling the values in them that allow them to be 
exposed to this material and still make the right choices.
  It is, quite frankly, a cop-out for parents and families and people 
to accuse people who are perhaps putting together information or videos 
or different material as being the cause of widespread violence that is 
leading to so much trouble in our communities.
  Once again, the responsibility lies with the families, with the 
community that supports the principles and the values of our country, 
and we should oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask for the defeat of 
the Hyde amendment. With all of the respect each of us has for the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), he is not an Oracle of Delphi when 
it comes to the Constitution of this country.
  The Constitution of this country gives us a right as parents to make 
our youngsters behave. That is what we have done wrong in this country. 
We think that this law, no other law can protect us, if we do not raise 
our children the way we want them to be raised. If we do not raise them 
with some respect, if we do not make them turn off the TV when it is 
time, if we do not say to them that this is wrong, that there should 
not be any violence, and the Bible says thou shalt not kill. So why is 
it that we will sit here in this Congress feeling that we have such a 
noble position that we can put laws in that will mandate morality and 
help us teach our children when we are not teaching them ourselves?
  I say to my colleagues, as a grandmother of 6 and a mother of 3, that 
this is wrong, I say to the gentleman from Illinois. This Constitution, 
as much as the gentleman wants it to help, he is violating it by 
putting this in the statutes of this country.
  So I ask this Congress to please oppose and vote against the Hyde 
amendment.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining time to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman) and my colleagues who have spoken here today.
  In a way, I think we all realize the importance and significance of 
this amendment offered by the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), because it is a 
watershed. Either we are to overlook the existing case law, the first 
amendment as most of us appreciate it, and move in a very overreactive 
way to deal with the cultural aspects of the problem of youth violence, 
or we do not. And it is clear to me that this debate has put on record 
that in this area I can proudly associate myself with the views of the 
majority of the Members of this House of Representatives.
  Now, in addition and over and above the constitutional problems, let 
us not rush to judgment on this quote, Hollywood phenomenon. Let us 
recognize that the V chips, let parents block out television programs; 
that movies have ratings.
  Mr. Valenti has told us that he is putting the word out that the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary are not 
taking the cultural problem lightly. Please join us in turning back an 
amendment that would be unworkable and likely unconstitutional.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for a very 
civil and I think enlightening debate, and some of the other, not all, 
but some of the other participants.
  I would like to read from Ginsberg v. New York, a Supreme Court case, 
390 U.S. 629: ``A legislature could properly conclude that parents and 
others who have primary responsibility for children's well-being are 
entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that 
responsibility.''
  I would like to tell my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Lofgren) that ``Shakespeare in Love'' has redeeming artistic quality. 
It does not fit in this definition, although there is a gratuitous sex 
scene in it which, if your children saw it, they might think it is 
normal and acceptable, and I guess maybe the gentlewoman might think it 
is too. I do not.

                              {time}  1715

  But the movie could be shown without any problem because if you read 
the bill, if you read the definition, it would have to be utterly 
without any redeeming social value.
  Now, for 40 years Congress has been wrestling with this problem, 40. 
Do Members know what it has come up with? Nothing. Nothing. We posture, 
we pass resolutions, viewing with alarm, but the entertainment industry 
gets away literally with murder.
  All we are doing is saying that obscenity for 40 years has not been 
protected by the First Amendment. We are saying some of this violence 
is as egregious and horrible and vulgar and harmful as sexual 
obscenity. Why confine the proscription just to sexual obscenity? Why 
not to mutilation? Why not to sadomasochism? Why not to flagellation? 
Why not to rape?
  Those are four specific categories, and only four, that we say ought 
not to be protected by the First Amendment. If that is doing violence 
to the Constitution, I have never read that document.
  So let us do something, not do nothing. It is my opinion that what 
happened in Littleton, Colorado, and what happened in Conyers, Georgia, 
cannot be solved by one more gun law. There were 15 Federal laws having 
to do with guns and ammunition that were violated by these two 
assailants in Colorado, and seven State laws. Is our answer to pile a 
couple of more laws on?
  No. Let us examine what it is in the psyches of these young people 
that made them want to kill, the culture of death. There is something 
missing. We have to look at it. Anybody that does thinks rotten movies, 
rotten television, rotten video games are not poisoning, toxically 
poisoning our kids' minds and making some kids think that conduct is 
acceptable just is not paying attention.
  I cannot match the Political Action Committees of the entertainment 
industry, but I will tell the Members, there are a lot of parents who 
need help. My friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) said it is 
up to the parents. If Members can watch their four kids all the time 
every day, at night and at school, and know what they are seeing and 
know what they are reading, they have solved a wonderful problem and 
should tell me how they do it.
  This is an effort to solve the problem. I hear nothing from the other 
side but ridicule. Please support the Hyde amendment.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
do so, not to defend ``Rambo,'' or ``The Terminator,'' but to defend 
the Constitution. Because this amendment is both unwise and 
unconstitutional.
  There is much in the amendment that I could support, Mr. Chairman. It 
provides for a study by the National Institutes of Health of the 
effects of video games and music on child development and youth 
violence. It encourages the entertainment industry to develop voluntary 
guidelines to minimize the extent to which minors are exposed to sexual 
and violent materials.
  These are sensible provisions, which were passed by the Senate 
earlier this month and are included in the Democratic substitute which 
Mr. Conyers will offer later today.
  But the Hyde amendment goes further. Much further. It would make it a 
crime to ``sell, send, loan or exhibit'' to minors any materials 
containing ``explicit sexual material or explicit violent material.''
  Most of us--especially those of us who are parents--are naturally 
disturbed when unsuitable material finds its way into the hands of 
young people. And many genuinely believe--rightly or wrongly--that 
there is a connection between access to such material and the juvenile 
violence in our nation.

[[Page H4414]]

  There may or may not be a connection. But before we pass a law 
codifying this theory we ought to have some facts. The amendment 
directs the National Institutes of Health to study the issue. But it 
doesn't wait to find out the results.
  And since the subject was never considered by the Judiciary 
Committee, there is No Evidence on the record that criminalizing music 
sales or video rentals would have any impact whatsoever on the level of 
youth violence in this country.
  But there is Plenty of evidence that the amendment would harm the 
precious freedoms we enjoy. Parents can and should decide what their 
children watch and listen to. But it is not for the government to 
decide this for them.
  Others have pointed out that the gentleman's amendment could prohibit 
sales to minors of such edifying but disturbing films as Amistad, 
Saving Private Ryan, or Schindler's List. All of these films contain 
violent content--some of it Extremely violent. This is clearly material 
that may be appropriate for some young people and inappropriate for 
others.
  But the amendment would prohibit sales of these films to All minors, 
unless, and I quote, ``the average person, applying contemporary 
community standards,'' would find that the material has ``serious 
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.''
  The gentleman from Illinois claims that films such as these would NOT 
be prohibited by his amendment, He says, and again I quote, ``taken as 
whole, [they] are not designed to pander to the morbid interest of 
minors, are not patently offensive, and have literary and artistic 
value. We are talking about harmful material only.'' End of quote.
  Now I have great respect for the gentleman, and I do not question his 
sincerity. I only wish it were that simple. A few years ago, a Member 
of this House launched an attack on one of the most celebrated films of 
our time, Schindler's List. He criticized it for its realistic 
depictions of violence and nudity in a concentration camp, and 
castigated the network which broadcast it for putting it on the air 
where children might see it.
  That Member was roundly criticized for failing to recognize the moral 
and political context of those scenes. But if a member of Congress can 
be wrong about a film, how are we to suppose that a video salesman or 
theater owner will make that judgment?
  For make no mistake about it--that is what the amendment would 
require. It would demand that the checkout clerk at Blockbuster or the 
ticket vender at the local Cineplex make a determination--on pain of 
imprisonment--as to whether a reasonable person would find that the 
degree of violence contained in the film is offset by the literary, 
artistic, or political value that a minor would derive from seeing it.
  And I think we all know that a reasonable person would have to be 
crazy to take a risk of guessing wrong.
  As a parent, I do not believe this is an appropriate or workable 
means of regulating access to minors.
  If I think it is important for my daughter to understand what 
happened on Omaha Beach, I don't want a clerk at the video store to 
decide whether she can see Saving Private Ryan.
  If I think it is important for my daughter to understand what 
happened to Africans brought to this country in chains, I don't want a 
ticket vendor to decide whether she's allowed to see Amistad.
  If I think it is important for my daughter to understand what 
happened in Dachau or Auschwitz, I don't want the government of the 
United States to decide whether she's ready to see Schindler's List.
  I know that the gentleman is well-intentioned, Mr. Chairman. But this 
amendment is a disaster, and it should be defeated.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment offered by Mr. Hyde. I applaud his attempt to address the 
issue of rampant violence in our popular culture, but there are serious 
First Amendment concerns I have about this amendment.
  This amendment prohibits any picture, sculpture, video game, movie, 
book, magazine, photograph, drawing, similar visual representation, or 
sound recording with explicit sexual or violent material from being 
sold or given to children.
  According to this language, books like ``Beloved'' or ``The Bluest 
Eye'' by Nobel Prize Laureate Toni Morrison would not be sold or loaned 
from the library to a student. There are possibly violent and sexual 
situations detailed in these works to tell the story that might be 
prohibited under this amendment.
  Television programs like ``Star Trek'' and movies like the popular 
``Star Wars'' trilogy would also be prohibited. Historical 
representations like ``Amistad'' or ``Schindler's List'' might be 
banned. The standard that would ban these works is problematic and 
vague.
  This amendment also contains a provision that would require that 
retail outlets that sell music recordings would have to make the lyrics 
available for the parents before purchase. However, this amendment 
contains a loophole for internet music companies and mail order 
companies. I seek to establish a process in my district where retail 
stores voluntarily work with parents and legal guardians of children to 
keep such reprehensible items/materials out of the hands of children.
  This loophole would simply alter the method in which such music is 
sold. If children wanted to obtain certain types of music, then they 
could go on-line or place a phone call to order the recordings.
  This loophole illustrates how this bill is simply not an appropriate 
vehicle to urge change in the popular culture. It is an attempt to 
censor the freedom of expression contained in the First Amendment. This 
amendment creates a standard that would drastically alter the First 
Amendment.
  However, I agree with Rep. Hyde's remarks that popular culture has 
persisted in presenting increasingly violent and sexually explicit 
entertainment. The industry must enact internal standards to ensure 
that children are not overly exposed to inappropriate material.
  The provision that requires a study by the National Institutes of 
Health is an important measure to determine the effects of the media on 
our children. I support this provision because it allows the industry 
to conduct an internal review of its content and it encourages the 
media to take responsibility for what it presents as entertainment.
  I also support promoting grassroots solutions to youth violence. One 
of the demonstration cities is Houston, Texas, but I am concerned that 
this provision was included in this amendment.
  I appreciate Rep. Hyde's concern for the messages that our children 
receive in the media. However, we cannot limit the freedom of the First 
Amendment. The First Amendment is at the core of our basic freedoms and 
I respectfully oppose the Hyde Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on the amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) will 
be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed in Part A of 
House Report 106-186.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Salmon

  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Part A amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Salmon:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. __. AIMEE'S LAW.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as ``Aimee's 
     Law''.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Dangerous sexual offense.--The term ``dangerous sexual 
     offense'' means sexual abuse or sexually explicit conduct 
     committed by an individual who has attained the age of 18 
     years against an individual who has not attained the age of 
     14 years.
       (2) Murder.--The term ``murder'' has the meaning given the 
     term under applicable State law.
       (3) Rape.--The term ``rape'' has the meaning given the term 
     under applicable State law.
       (4) Sexual abuse.--The term ``sexual abuse'' has the 
     meaning given the term under applicable State law.
       (5) Sexually explicit conduct.--The term ``sexually 
     explicit conduct'' has the meaning given the term under 
     applicable State law.
       (c) Reimbursement to States for Crimes Committed By Certain 
     Released Felons.--
       (1) Penalty.--
       (A) Single state.--In any case in which a State convicts an 
     individual of murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual offense, 
     who has a prior conviction for any 1 of those offenses in a 
     State described in subparagraph (C), the Attorney General 
     shall transfer an amount equal to the costs of incarceration, 
     prosecution, and apprehension of that individual, from 
     Federal law enforcement assistance funds that have been 
     allocated to but not distributed to the State that convicted 
     the individual of the prior offense, to the State account 
     that collects Federal law enforcement assistance funds of the 
     State that convicted that individual of the subsequent 
     offense.
       (B) Multiple states.--In any case in which a State convicts 
     an individual of murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual offense, 
     who has a prior conviction for any 1 or more of those 
     offenses in more than 1 other State described in subparagraph 
     (C), the Attorney General shall transfer an amount equal to 
     the costs of incarceration, prosecution, and

[[Page H4415]]

     apprehension of that individual, from Federal law enforcement 
     assistance funds that have been allocated to but not 
     distributed to each State that convicted such individual of 
     the prior offense, to the State account that collects Federal 
     law enforcement assistance funds of the State that convicted 
     that individual of the subsequent offense.
       (C) State described.--A State is described in this 
     subparagraph if--
       (i) the State has not adopted Federal truth-in-sentencing 
     guidelines under section 20104 of the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13704);
       (ii) the average term of imprisonment imposed by the State 
     on individuals convicted of the offense for which the 
     individual described in subparagraph (A) or (B), as 
     applicable, was convicted by the State is less than 10 
     percent above the average term of imprisonment imposed for 
     that offense in all States; or
       (iii) with respect to the individual described in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B), as applicable, the individual had 
     served less than 85 percent of the term of imprisonment to 
     which that individual was sentenced for the prior offense.
       (2) State applications.--In order to receive an amount 
     transferred under paragraph (1), the chief executive of a 
     State shall submit to the Attorney General an application, in 
     such form and containing such information as the Attorney 
     General may reasonably require, which shall include a 
     certification that the State has convicted an individual of 
     murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual offense, who has a prior 
     conviction for 1 of those offenses in another State.
       (3) Source of funds.--Any amount transferred under 
     paragraph (1) shall be derived by reducing the amount of 
     Federal law enforcement assistance funds received by the 
     State that convicted such individual of the prior offense 
     before the distribution of the funds to the State. The 
     Attorney General, in consultation with the chief executive of 
     the State that convicted such individual of the prior 
     offense, shall establish a payment schedule.
       (4) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection may be 
     construed to diminish or otherwise affect any court ordered 
     restitution.
       (5) Exception.--This subsection does not apply if the 
     individual convicted of murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual 
     offense has been released from prison upon the reversal of a 
     conviction for an offense described in paragraph (1) and 
     subsequently been convicted for an offense described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (d) Collection of Recidivism Data.--
       (1) In general.--Beginning with calendar year 1999, and 
     each calendar year thereafter, the Attorney General shall 
     collect and maintain information relating to, with respect to 
     each State--
       (A) the number of convictions during that calendar year for 
     murder, rape, and any sex offense in the State in which, at 
     the time of the offense, the victim had not attained the age 
     of 14 years and the offender had attained the age of 18 
     years; and
       (B) the number of convictions described in subparagraph (A) 
     that constitute second or subsequent convictions of the 
     defendant of an offense described in that subparagraph.
       (2) Report.--Not later than March 1, 2000, and on March 1 
     of each year thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit to 
     Congress a report, which shall include--
       (A) the information collected under paragraph (1) with 
     respect to each State during the preceding calendar year; and
       (B) the percentage of cases in each State in which an 
     individual convicted of an offense described in paragraph 
     (1)(A) was previously convicted of another such offense in 
     another State during the preceding calendar year.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a pretty awesome time to be here. I am offering 
today, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), an amendment that is known as 
Aimee's Law. I would like to take a few moments to discuss why this is 
important to Americans, and how come a nationwide grass roots effort 
has worked towards its passage.
  First of all, I would like to reference this chart. According to the 
Department of Justice, the average time actually served by a rapist in 
this country and released from State prison is 5\1/2\ years; for 
molesting a child, 4 years; and for murder, 8 years. This is 
outrageous. It is unconscionable. We have to act today to change this.
  It is not as if these criminals are suddenly Boy Scouts after their 
release from prison. The recidivism rates for sex offenders are very 
high. I think most people agree, once a molester, always a molester. As 
the Department of Justice found in 1997, over the 3-year period 
following the prison release, an estimated 52 percent of discharged 
rapists and 48 percent of other sexual assaulters were rearrested for a 
new crime. Here is that statistic. Many of those go on to commit other 
sex offenses.
  Light sentences for today's most heinous crimes contribute to an 
epidemic of completely, yes, I said it, completely preventable crimes. 
Consider, each year more than 14,000 rapes, molestations, and murders 
occur every year by somebody who was let out of prison for committing 
that exact same crime. In some 1,700 of these cases, individual cross 
State lines and then reoffend again.
  We talk a lot about accountability in this Chamber. It is time to 
restore some accountability to States that release these dangerous 
predators into our neighborhoods. Aimee's Law would add an additional 
factor to the formula for distributing Federal crime funds to the 
States.
  Specifically, the amendment would provide additional funding to 
States that convict a murderer, rapist, child molester, if that 
criminal had previously been convicted of one of those same crimes in a 
different State. The cost of prosecuting and incarcerating that 
criminal would be deducted from the Federal crime assistance funds 
intended to go to the first State.
  In other words, the State that is irresponsible, lets the rapist, 
murderer, molester out and then they cross State lines and reoffend 
again, a portion would be taken away from their crime assistance funds 
and given to the new State, enough to cover the costs of incarceration, 
prosecution, and apprehension of that monster.
  A safe harbor would not require the funds transfer if the criminal 
has served 85 percent of his original sentence and if the first State 
was a truth-in-sentencing State, with a higher than average typical 
sentence for the crime.
  Aimee's Law, a bipartisan effort from day one, passed the Senate last 
week with a whopping 81 to 17 vote. Aimee's Law is enthusiastically 
supported by law enforcement and victims rights groups nationwide. Here 
is just a smattering of those who are supportive.
  The law enforcement community in particular, they understand the need 
for this legislation. They are in the trenches. They are fighting this 
fight every day. The Nation's largest police union, the national 
Fraternal Order of Police, representing some 250,000 brave police 
officers nationwide, has strongly backed this amendment and has 
appeared at all public events to help push for its passage. Their 
president has said, ``The bill addresses this issue smartly, without 
infringing on the States and without federalizing crimes.''
  Among the other law enforcement groups that have endorsed the bill is 
the California Correctional Police Officers Association, and some of 
the others Members can see.
  Victims rights and child advocacy groups have also endorsed the bill, 
and made this one of the most important issues that they focus on: 
Child Help U.S.A., Klaas Kids Foundation, Kids Safe, Mothers Outraged 
at Molester, and the list goes on and on and on.
  From around the country, Americans have signed petitions, called our 
offices, and sent e-mails demanding passage of Aimee's Law. Even Dr. 
Laura is urging her 18 million listeners across America, and has been 
doing it all week, also including it on her web site, for a call to 
action on this particular piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this is Aimee Willard. I never met her. This 
legislation is named for her. But I have become very close with her 
through the passage of this legislation, and close with her family. 
Aimee was senselessly raped and murdered by a man who was let out of 
prison for serving 12 years for murder for killing somebody over a 
parking spot. If this man had served 85 percent of his sentence, Aimee 
Willard would still be alive today.
  Aimee was an all-American college athlete who wanted to work with 
children. We are never going to know all that we lost when she was 
taken from us, but we should do what we can to prevent others from 
enduring the same kind of pain and agony, and following her to a 
needlessly early grave.
  Many courageous victims and survivors have made extraordinary efforts 
to help me pass this bill. I cannot mention them all, but I wanted to 
list a few. Many of them came to Washington twice to support the bill 
and testify before the Subcommittee on Crime.

[[Page H4416]]

  There is Gail Willard, who lost her daughter, Aimee; Mark Klaas, who 
lost his daughter, Polly; Mary Vincent, a rape survivor; Fred Goldman, 
who lost his son, Ron; Mika Moulton, who lost her son Christopher; 
Trina Easterling, who lost her daughter Lorin; Jeremy Brown, a rape 
survivor; Louis Gonzalez, who lost his brother Ipollito; the 
Greishabers, who lost their daughter Jenna; the Pruckmayrs, who lost 
their daughter Bettina; the Schmidts, who lost their daughter 
Stephanie; and the list goes on and on, because again, that number is 
14,000 rapes, murders, molestations, that occur each year by somebody 
let out of prison for doing exactly the same crime.
  Sadly, the list goes on and on and on. Too many victims, too much 
suffering. We have to do more, and we can do it today with passage of 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, before I close, I wanted to express my heartfelt thanks 
to the survivors, the groups, and everyone else who has joined with me 
to fight this fight and to protect families.
  The gentleman from Florida (Chairman McCollum) deserves the lion's 
share of the credit for his fine leadership on this issue. I wanted to 
thank my staff for all their hard work.
  I would like to close with a couple of quotes. First of all, they are 
not from a famous leader, world leader, or a law enforcement official, 
but from the very heart of the problem. I want to quote a pair of child 
molesters whose despicable, unspeakable crimes cry out for justice.
  Mr. Chairman, there are more than 134,000 convicted sex offenders 
currently living in our neighborhoods, on probation or on parole right 
now in our neighborhoods. Let us hear from two of them scheduled for 
release. They have never met, but their message could not be more 
clear:
  ``I am terrified of being released, because I fear without 
counseling, I will molest more children. Since I don't want to return 
to prison, I would be forced to kill them.''
  The next quote: ``I am doomed to eventually rape, then murder my poor 
little victims to keep them from telling on me. I might be walking the 
streets of your city, your community, your neighborhoods.''
  Mr. Chairman, let us pass the amendment today and strike a blow 
against the revolving door of prisons, murders, and sexual predators.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for bringing this 
measure to the floor at this time. Today we have an opportunity to take 
a giant step in the fight against repeat offenders. I commend the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for bringing this legislation to 
our attention.
  It has become too common in recent years that victims are violated by 
someone who has been previously convicted of a crime and then released. 
Many who commit murder, rape, and child exploitation cannot be 
rehabilitated, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) pointed out. 
We owe it to our communities to put a stop to this pattern of violence.
  Aimee's Law will do just that. It will impede the ability of 
convicted felons to repeat their offenses at the cost of innocent human 
lives. Too often we have heard personal stories of these terrible 
crimes that legislation would help to eliminate.
  Jeremy Brown, that the gentleman recited, comes from my own 
congressional district in New York and was the only survivor of a man 
who raped and murdered a number of other women. Having been through 
this horrible ordeal and having persevered, she has demonstrated 
tremendous courage and has become symbolic of the reason that we should 
pass this legislation today.
  To all the courageous people who hope that together we will be able 
to prevent future violence, our hearts, our prayers and support are 
with them, now and always. That is why I urge support for this measure.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1730

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia seek time in 
opposition?
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment emphasizes the need for us to have held 
hearings on some of these so that we could determine actually what is 
going on. This seems well intended; it might work, might not but we 
just do not know.
  It is interesting that there is an exemption in this bill for those 
States that have abolished parole and require prisoners to spend 85 
percent of their time in prison; it is truth in sentencing. I like to 
call it not truth in sentencing but a half truth in sentencing, because 
as that poster points out if parole is abolished, people can no longer 
be held.
  The half truth is a person cannot get out early but they cannot hold 
them longer either. If a person has a short sentence for which they 
have to serve 85 percent, they would be eligible for the exemption 
under this, but if they have a much longer sentence with parole, then 
they would have been able to retain them.
  Let us give an example of how that thing works. I am not sure whether 
I heard the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) right, but I thought he 
mentioned Mr. Klaas in California. The perpetrator in that case was 
Richard Allen Davis, who was in prison on a 6-month to life sentence. 
He was denied parole, denied parole, denied parole. They finally 
cracked down on crime and abolished parole. He was resentenced to 7.2 
years which he had already served and he got on out because they had to 
let him out, and he committed another crime.
  He received 8 years; served 8 years. They could not hold him longer 
because they had abolished parole. Then he got out and kidnapped and 
murdered Polly Klaas. If that had been parole, he never would have been 
out on the first offense, certainly never would have been out on the 
second offense, but because parole was abolished they had to let him 
out.
  Even the people, with quotes that the gentleman said, they had to let 
them out because they could not hold them longer.
  Maybe if we had had a hearing, maybe we could flesh some of this out 
so we could determine whether abolishing parole and letting somebody 
out is better than having a much longer sentence when there is some 
discretion.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this bill that suggests 
that we do away with parole by any stretch of the imagination. I think 
that the goals of the gentleman and my goals are the same. We want to 
do what is right by families.
  The fact is that 14,000 rapists, child molesters and murderers go on 
to reoffend every year and States are not doing a good job.
  I go back to the statistics, that the average time served for 
molestation, 4 years; 5 years for rape; 8 years for willful murder.
  Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, that has nothing to do with parole. As 
a matter of fact, if a person had 4 years and they had to serve it all, 
maybe I misread it.
  CQ has the summary of the amendment of the gentleman which says the 
amendment would not require funds transferred if the criminal had 
served 85 percent of his original sentence and if the first date had, 
quote, truth in sentencing with a higher than average typical sentence 
for a crime, which means the average sentence, all one has to do is 
serve the average. Someone cannot be held longer than average.
  Virginia went through this. We took a 10-year sentence, which was a 
year and a half to 10 years, average 2\1/2\, doubled the average time 
served so that the average time was 2\1/2\. We doubled the average time 
so now everybody has to serve 5 years.
  Now, if we think about it for 15 seconds, the person that could not 
make parole at all would have served all 10 years. Now that there has 
been a crackdown on crime, they have to be released after 5 years, even 
if they are telling stuff that was on those posters.
  Maybe if we had had some time in committee we could have discussed

[[Page H4417]]

this, but the gentleman comes springing this out on us without 
hearings, and we are just doing the sound bite.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, we did have a very, very thorough hearing 
last year and this is not a surprise. We have been working on this for 
a year and a half. We did have a hearing before the Subcommittee on 
Crime, and frankly the Supreme Court has determined that for violent 
sex offenders the courts can hold somebody beyond their sentence. They 
can put them in security, but beyond that I am not prescribing how 
States deal with the parole issue. All I am saying is that a State 
ought to certify. Rather than play Russian roulette with somebody 
else's head, all I am saying is the State ought to be accountable.
  If a State is going to let somebody go, make sure that they are not 
going to reoffend again, and if they want to deal with that with a 
combination of counseling or parole or whatever the case may be, all I 
am trying to do is restore a modicum of accountability back to the 
States. If they want to address that for parole, that is their option.
  Mr. SCOTT. If the gentleman could have convinced a majority of the 
members of the committee after we had had a hearing and a markup 
through the regular process, maybe it would have worked, but we are not 
doing that. We are coming out here and exchanging sound bites.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), for yielding me this time, and I 
applaud him for this law.
  Mr. Chairman, we are here to support Aimee's Law. As we know, laws 
are about people.
  This is Aimee. Aimee lived 2 miles from my home in Pennsylvania. 
Aimee was a bright 22-year-old, promising young lady, great in 
athletics, great in school, who had an unbelievable career ahead of 
her. Her life was snuffed out because a man who had been repeatedly 
involved in hurting other people struck her car on a freeway to make 
her pull over. When she pulled off the side of the road on June 20, 
1996, and got out to see what was wrong, as any normal person would do, 
he accosted her. She was abducted. She was raped. She was brutally 
murdered.
  She was found in a dumpster with two trash bags over her head and a 
stick between her legs. The man who was convicted of brutally murdering 
Aimee Willard served 11 years of a life sentence that had been given to 
him for killing someone else, but that State paroled him early. They 
let him out without serving his full sentence.
  Not only did he kill Aimee Willard, he is now the suspect in a second 
murder, Maria Cabuenos, who disappeared in March 1997 and was also 
found murdered. The same individual who has been convicted of murdering 
twice was driving Miss Cabuenos' car when he was found while trying to 
burglarize another house.
  How many times are we going to let someone out early? And why should 
not we create a disincentive to have States thoroughly review the 
process for people who have been convicted of rape, of murder and child 
molestation from getting out prematurely?
  This does not provide a one-size-fits-all answer. It simply says to 
States that we are going to hold a person accountable. If someone 
allows people who commit these brutal crimes to get out prematurely, 
then they are going to pay the price of the other State where that 
person is convicted of their costs in having to convict that person a 
second time.
  In the name of Aimee Willard and all of those other thousands of 
people, I ask our colleagues to support Aimee's Law.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me this time, even though we disagree 
on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of the amendment and strongly support 
it. I think the issue of parole is not what we are dealing with here. 
However an individual State wants to handle it, wants to pass out the 
sentencing, is fine with us. The question is are they going to pass out 
strong sentences? If they do it under a parole system and hold them for 
longer, the point of this bill is to try to give incentives to States 
to hold the most dangerous of criminals, murderers, rapists and child 
molesters for as long a period as possible so that they do not 
reoffend.
  We are trying to drive dollars out to encourage that decision and to 
move them in that direction for a very good reason. We want to protect 
the citizens of our country.
  There are many reasons for punishment in crimes, but one of the 
biggest is to protect society with a very simple notion. If an 
individual who is given to committing crimes is behind bars, they are 
not victimizing other people. That is one of the clearest ways to 
protect our citizens, is to lock them up when they have made it clear 
that they are dangerous to the citizens.
  Right now, too often crimes as serious as rape and child molestation 
have very short sentences and those people are free to reoffend all 
over again. We need to do a better job of protecting our citizens, and 
I commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for putting forward 
this modest piece of legislation to try to do that, to try to give 
States the encouragement they need, the financial encouragement, to 
hold these dangerous offenders for a longer period of time.
  There are many reasons why the crime rate has fallen in recent years, 
but one that should not go unnoticed is that we have increased 
punishment for crimes of all types, but certainly of the most serious 
nature. That keeps dangerous offenders off the streets so they cannot 
reoffend so that we can protect future victims.
  I again commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for bringing 
this piece of legislation forward and hope that the effect of it will 
be to save lives and to keep dangerous offenders behind bars where they 
cannot victimize the people that we represent.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have, as I have indicated, a great deal of problem 
with the amendment. We should have gone through subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum), the chairman, to explain how this got here and let him say a 
little bit about the amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all say that we did have a hearing 
on this bill last Congress in the Subcommittee on Crime, not in this 
Congress. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), I think, has 
produced a remarkably good product. It would have been highly desirable 
had we brought this or been able to bring this through the subcommittee 
this time because I have no doubt that we would have reported it out 
virtually intact as it is here today.
  I think this is a terrific product, and the reason I am going to 
support it and I am supporting it today is because of that reason, even 
though it would have been more desirable had we been able to mark it up 
in committee. It happens to be this is a good vehicle and he has 
convinced the Committee on Rules to let it come to the floor, and I 
think it is an appropriate thing to vote for. I am going to support it 
because if a State adopted a truth in sentencing, which half the States 
in the United States have, well, more than half, almost 30 now have, 
where a person has to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence for 
any major crime, that State would not be, and those States that already 
have will not be, affected by this proposal because they will not lose 
any money or risk it if somebody gets out early, because they will not.
  Other States that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) has been 
very creative with, they do not have to adopt truth in sentencing. 
There are other ways to deal with it under his

[[Page H4418]]

proposal, but I do think the incentive is there to keep people in jail 
for long periods of time to serve at least 85 percent or higher of 
their sentence if they have committed murder, rape or child 
molestation, and that should be the law of the land for every State in 
the Union.
  This is an extraordinary bill. It was widely supported in the hearing 
that we had before the subcommittee in the last Congress, and I 
strongly urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the honorable gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished whip of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Salmon), for bringing this amendment. He has worked so 
hard on this, and it is very creative in trying to bring safety to our 
children. There is no better cause than the safety of our children.
  I rise in support of the amendment because it does protect America's 
children from predators. This amendment, better known as Aimee's Law, 
fights that plague of repeat offenders. Specifically, this law tracks 
criminals that have crossed state lines, guilty of murdering, rapists 
and otherwise assaulting children under the age of 14. Why are these 
monsters set free? Aimee's Law holds States responsible for felons they 
release who commit further violent crimes in other States.
  So, Mr. Chairman, our kids need to be protected from these violent 
criminals. States need to be encouraged to keep child molesters behind 
bars, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, like the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), I am on 
the other side on this amendment.
  I was honored to serve 20 years in the legislature in Texas and so I 
have some hesitation in requiring States to do something that we 
typically do not pay for but there are exceptions to this, and frankly 
we cannot accomplish this without a change in Federal law.
  If a person is released from one State and commits a crime in another 
State, then without a Federal law we have to have Federal action to be 
able to require that.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Aimee's Law legislation by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Smith) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), because of the 
problem with repeat offenders, dealing with murder, rape or child 
molestation.
  The only crimes that are more heinous than murder and rape are those 
same crimes committed against children. I believe that individuals who 
commit these violent or sexual crimes against children should spend the 
rest of their lives in prison.

                              {time}  1745

  Lord knows, in Texas, we have had the biggest building boom in prison 
in many years, so we are trying to build a place for them.
  If, however, a State believes that such a criminal has been 
rehabilitated and decides to release this person back to society before 
the end of their term, then that State should be held responsible if 
that person commits the crime again in someone else's neighborhood, if 
it is in another State.
  Under the Salmon-Smith amendment, these States who have an early 
release of violent criminals would pay to incarcerate these criminals 
in the other State. This is the only fair and just approach. I urge my 
colleagues to support it simply because the repeat offenders are what 
we are trying to get to.
  We have seen some good numbers on our crime statistics, and the 
reason is because a lot of States are keeping people in prison longer 
because they are the repeat offenders, and this will make it even, 
hopefully, make those statistics even sound better.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chairman how much time 
remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cannon).
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, as the father of several children and 
husband of 20 years, I rise today in support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) better known as Aimee's law. I 
commend him for his hard work in bringing this common-sense legislation 
to the forefront of today's debate.
  As on editorial page put it, ``Giving a one-way ticket to a sex 
offender might improve the community he leaves, but it is the 
equivalent of shipping toxic waste to unsuspecting States.''
  The practice of returning criminals to freedom for which they can 
prey on the innocent is outrageous and must stop. This body has an 
opportunity to act with clarity, to demonstrate to law breakers that 
are serious about keeping these violent offenders off the streets, and 
from repeating these acts.
  I urge passage of this amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member, very much for his kindness, 
and I respect his position on this legislation and acknowledge the fact 
that the better route would have been to have this particular 
legislative initiative, as all of the amendments that we are dealing 
with in these 2 days on guns and juveniles, to come through the 
committee procedure.
  But I want to rise in support of this amendment because I believe 
that some crimes are heinous enough that deserve incarceration. It is 
tragic that we face, on a daily basis, the attack of our children, 
child molesters and murderers and rapists who go about our Nation and 
repeat their crimes.
  Right now in the State of Texas, we are fighting a serial killer 
whose trail of killings have gone throughout the city of Houston into 
States in the Midwest; and, still, he is not found, killing innocent 
victims, ministers of gospel, elderly and young women.
  The most terrible tragedy that a parent has to confront is a murdered 
child. I think it is important when we begin to talk about how we solve 
this problem, it is simply that we not allow them to do it again.
  In the State of Texas, we attempted to place on the books a bill that 
would allow incarceration without parole for heinous crimes for those 
who may oppose the death penalty. We were not successful. But I think 
it is extremely important that we realize that we can put murderers and 
rapists and child molesters away, where they do not have an opportunity 
to prey on innocent victims again.
  I am saddened by the loss of Aimee and many other Aimee's and Peters 
and Pauls across this Nation. As a mother, I stand up and say those 
kinds of individuals must be incarcerated. If they go into another 
State and are convicted, let us lock them up. I think it is a terrible 
tragedy that each day we come about having to see another tragic 
incident.
  I know that there are other responses to the idea of repeat 
offenders, but I think the best way to deal with it is to ensure that 
they never see the light of day to perpetrate these offenses of murder, 
rape, and child molestation again.
  I ask that my colleagues support this amendment.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Salmon) for his leadership and his partnership in working with him 
on no second chances legislation, legislation that is very simple. No 
second chances for those who prey on kids, murderers, rapists, and 
those who commit sexual assaults.
  Fourteen thousand murders, rapes, and assaults on children have 
occurred each year, and it is time to get them off the streets. When I 
think of this

[[Page H4419]]

legislation, I think of a mother who came to me, Mika Moulton, a mother 
of a child who was murdered in 1995, a child who would be alive today 
if this legislation was law.
  In particular, the murderer of Christopher Moulton is a murderer that 
had already received a short sentence when he was released. This 
legislation would have kept him in prison for a long time. Let us pass 
it. No second chance.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SCOTT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, does this side have the right to close since 
we are defending the committee position?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is correct. The gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has the right to close.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Salmon) for his leadership in this area.
  It is my hope that passage of this bill will make States take a hard 
look at what too often are lax parole systems that will let dangerous 
felons back out in society without proper safeguards.
  Aimee's law includes a clear statement that it is the sense of this 
Congress that any person who is convicted of a murder should receive 
the death penalty or life in prison without the possibility of parole. 
It also emphasizes that rapists and child molesters, criminals who are 
classic recidivists, be put away for life without the possibility of 
parole.
  Right now, the average time served in State prison for rape is only 
5\1/2\ years and for child molestation only 4 years. These criminals 
are then free to do it again, and many of them do. These statistics are 
outrageous, and States need to get back to it and do the right thing.
  The family of Clara Swart, who was killed in my district in 
Cincinnati, also endorses this legislation.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, today the average murderer in the United 
States serves only 6 years in prison. One out of ten convicted rapists 
serves no jail time. Time and time again we hear about repeat offenders 
out on the street repeating their crime.
  It is time to draw a line in the sand. If one commits murder, rape, 
or molests a child, one should spend the rest of one's life in prison.
  Let us pass this amendment because some criminals do not deserve a 
second chance.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this really is a no-brainer, a common-sense 
amendment. This amendment has been a long time in the process. There 
are a lot of far greater people out there than I that have fought for 
this; and for them, please let us do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this may be a no-brainer, but it would have been nice 
if we had brought it up under the normal procedure so we would have 
time to evaluate it.
  Under this amendment, a State would have to pay if they hold somebody 
for 10 years of a 20-year sentence and then let them go because they 
only served half the time. But they would have an exemption if they 
held them for 4 years of a 4-year sentence. If the person served all of 
the time of a 4-year sentence, held them for 4 years, same offense, 
they would not have to pay. If the State had held them for 10 years of 
a 20-year sentence, they would have to pay.
  I think it would have been nice if we had the opportunity in 
committee to develop this issue, to see if it made any sense or not. We 
were denied that opportunity, and, therefore, I will oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona.
  In 1996, 22 year old Aimee Willard was raped and brutally murdered by 
a man who had been previously convicted of murder and later released 
after serving only 12 years of a life sentence in a Nevada prison.
  What a tragedy, Mr. Chairman. Aimee was a bright, energetic young 
woman who had a promising future. But, her life was snuffed out by a 
so-called ``model prisoner.''
  Who is to blame? Certainly, Aimee's killer. But to some extent, the 
State of Nevada should shoulder some of the blame. Why? because it let 
out of prison a man who already proved that he was a threat to society 
and who was supposed to spend the rest of his life behind bars.
  One might think that this is an isolated case. But, unfortunately, 
Mr. Chairman, it's not. More than 14,000 murders, rapes, and sexual 
assaults are committed each year by previously convicted murderers and 
sex offenders. That's outrageous.
  Why are states letting these people out of jail? Maybe they just need 
some more incentive to keep people behind bars.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, we give them that incentive with this amendment. 
In short, under Aimee's Law, states that keep criminals in jail receive 
more federal crime funds. States that let criminals out of jail, who 
later commit a similar crime in another state, lose a portion of those 
funds. It's simple as that! I can't think of a better way of convincing 
states to keep these types of criminals in jail where they belong.
  I commend the gentleman from Arizona for his amendment and urge all 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the Hyde amendment 
No. 31 on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 412, 
noes 15, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 212]

                               AYES--412

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)

[[Page H4420]]


     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--15

     Clay
     Conyers
     Frank (MA)
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Lee
     Martinez
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Payne
     Roybal-Allard
     Scott
     Waters
     Watt (NC)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brown (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Ehlers
     Houghton
     Kasich
     Thomas
     Weiner

                              {time}  1816

  Messrs. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, BLAGOJEVICH, UDALL of New Mexico, 
and MORAN of Kansas changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Ms. LEE changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 212, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                  Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Hyde

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 146, 
noes 282, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 213]

                               AYES--146

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     LaHood
     Largent
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers
     Roukema
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--282

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Burton
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Houghton
     Kasich
     Thomas
     Weiner

                              {time}  1824

  Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky and Mr. METCALF changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 10 printed 
in Part A of House Report 106-186.

[[Page H4421]]

               Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Cunningham

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Cunningham:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

                        TITLE __--MATTHEW'S LAW

     SEC. __. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as ``Matthew's Law''.

     SEC. __2. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR CRIMES OF VIOLENCE AGAINST 
                   CHILDREN UNDER AGE 13.

       (a) In General.--Title XVII of the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

    ``Subtitle C--Enhanced Penalties for Crimes of Violence Against 
                         Children Under Age 13

     ``SEC. 170301. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR CRIMES OF VIOLENCE 
                   AGAINST CHILDREN UNDER AGE 13.

       ``(a) In General.--The United States Sentencing Commission 
     shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to provide a 
     sentencing enhancement of not less than 5 levels above the 
     offense level otherwise provided for a crime of violence, if 
     the crime of violence is against a child.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `crime of violence' means any crime 
     punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year that 
     has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use 
     of physical force against the person of another; and
       ``(2) the term `child' means a person who has not attained 
     13 years of age at the time of the offense.''.
       (b) Conforming Repeal.--Section 240002 of such Act (28 
     U.S.C. 994 note) is repealed.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act 
     is amended by striking the item relating to subtitle C of 
     title XVII and the items relating to sections 170301 through 
     170303 and inserting the following:

``Subtitle C--Enhanced Penalties for Crimes of Violence Against 
              Children Under Age 13
``Sec. 170301. Enhanced penalties for crimes of violence against 
              children under age 13.''.

     SEC. __3. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ASSISTANCE 
                   AVAILABLE TO STATE OR LOCAL LAW AUTHORITIES IN 
                   INVESTIGATING POSSIBLE HOMICIDES OF CHILDREN 
                   UNDER THE AGE OF 13.

       To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation may provide to State and local law enforcement 
     authorities such assistance as such authorities may require 
     in investigating the death of an individual who has not 
     attained 13 years of age under circumstances indicating that 
     the death may have been a homicide.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, Aimee Willard, Megan's Law, Polly 
Klaas, now Matthew's Law. Mr. Chairman, the children I just named, 
every Member in this House is tired of having to name bills after 
murdered children.
  I know, Mr. Chairman, this is a very bipartisan amendment. The same 
amendment passed by Mr. Chrysler in the House on H.R. 2974 passed 414 
votes to 4. And with that, this is something that my colleagues can 
stand for.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), 
a great leader.
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Cunningham 
amendment. This amendment will increase Federal penalties for criminals 
who commit Federal crimes of violence against children.
  Last November, 9-year-old Matthew Cecchi was brutally murdered in my 
hometown of Oceanside, California. Matthew was not a troubled runaway, 
not a child that was allowed to wander far from his parents. He simply 
walked into a public restroom and moments later he was dead, the victim 
of the killer who carefully stalked and hunted down a young and 
helpless child. This crime shocked our community and struck fear in the 
hearts of parents.
  Mr. Speaker, unspeakable crimes deserve the harshest of penalties. 
The Cunningham amendment ensures that those who seek to harm the 
helpless are met with severe punishment. His amendment will 
dramatically increase sentencing requirements for those individuals who 
commit violent crimes against children under 13 years of age.
  I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this very important 
amendment that will protect our Nation's children from violent crimes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) seek 
time in opposition?
  Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the gentleman that has 
promoted the amendment, how much time did the awful murderer of 9-year-
old Matthew Cecchi get? What was his sentence?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I do not 
know the answer to that.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, let me just point out two things.
  I think that would be pretty important in this kind of a matter 
because the implication is, of course, that there was an insufficient 
sentencing of the killer of this 9-year-old boy.
  The second point I would like to make is that the State handles most 
of these kinds of crimes, and to my knowledge these are not normally 
Federal issues, and finally, the U.S. Sentencing Commission is the body 
that we established in the Congress to make sentencing recommendations 
independent of the political process. Now if for some reason we were 
dissatisfied with them, then we may want to communicate that through 
the Committee on the Judiciary which regularly brings and hears reports 
from the Sentencing Commission.
  So I just want to point out that this may not be the most orderly way 
to pass criminal statutes raising the Sentencing Commission's levels in 
this way.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would tell my friend that this is the same, actually the same 
language. I will not submit this for the Record in the full House 
because it is almost the same verbatim that the gentleman spoke to with 
Mr. Chrysler about the commission. I am very familiar with the 
commission. As a matter of fact, the gentleman here goes through 15 
minutes of dialogue on how that it should not be germane, that it was 
political. This vote was 14 to 4, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), who wrote consenting language, actually ended up voting for 
it after fighting it on the floor.
  I would say to the gentleman this is about leadership in this House 
and in the body. It is not about a particular person. Whether we have 
Aimee or Megan's Law or whoever you have, this is an important factor. 
This goes after the family values of this body. It also tells people in 
this time of summer when people are going on vacations that our parks 
and recreation areas are for children, not for murderers.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding this time to me, and I rise in opposition to this amendment 
not because it may not be a worthwhile thing to do, to increase the 
offense level for such a heinous crime by five levels over what it 
currently is for somebody who is 13 years or younger, but for the very 
reason that my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) just alluded to or made obvious. If every time we get 
emotional in response to some criminal offense, we come onto the floor 
of the United States House of Representatives and we beat our chests 
and try to show America how hard we are on crime by directing that 
sentences be increased, what we are doing is undermining the whole 
integrity of our sentencing system in this country, and we end up with 
a hodgepodge of sentences that make absolutely no sense and make a 
mockery of our whole sentencing structure in this country.
  That is the very reason that we put in place a U.S. Sentencing 
Commission

[[Page H4422]]

so that every time somebody gets murdered and we get emotional, we do 
not come in and make an emotional political response which undermines 
the orderly administration of justice in this country, and colleagues 
are going to see throughout this debate a number of different times 
where for various reasons people are going to come in and try to 
undermine the system that we have put in place through the United 
States Sentencing Commission.
  The reason that we have a U.S. Sentencing Commission is so that we do 
not have haphazard sentencing in this country, we do not end up with a 
hodgepodge of inconsistent, not well-thought-out sentencing for 
criminal offenses in this country.
  So it is the very reason that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) just articulated that impels me to rise in opposition to 
this amendment. We do not need to beat ourselves on the chest and show 
how difficult and harsh we are on crime. We have a Sentencing 
Commission that sets a uniform standard.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman on the other side of the aisle 
knows me well enough. I have never had to beat on my chest. Life has 
been difficult at times, and I have always carried through with action.
  If the gentleman says that I am emotional about children being 
murdered in the vernacular, I plead guilty. I am very emotional about 
it, and I know the gentleman is about it, too, and I am not suggesting 
that he is not.
  I do not have much time, only 5 minutes, but this was the same 
arguments about the Sentencing Commission. As a matter of fact, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) made this. I would be happy to 
submit it to the Record in the full body, the same exact verbiage right 
down the line, and 414 people said that the gentleman was wrong. Mr. 
Conyers, who spoke in the same language that the gentleman about the 
Sentencing Commission, ended up voting for the legislation after he 
made the same statements that the gentleman just made.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding. Just because 400 and some people vote for something is the 
very reason that I am saying we are in a political position here, and 
sometimes we cannot afford not to vote for something, and that is why 
we took this sentencing process out of politics, so that we would have 
a reasonable and rational sentencing policy in this country.
  It is not that I am not emotional about it, I am emotional about it.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me read to the 
gentleman what the Sentencing Commission itself says.
  If Congress feels that additional measures need to be taken in this 
area, it should direct the commission to take them without 
micromanaging the commission's work. In order they have asked us to do 
this, and this is exactly the reason that we have gone forward. The 
Senate did not have time to take this bill up last time. We feel just 
like in Aimee's law or Megan's Law every single thing that we do to 
help prevent children being murdered is a plus, and this is a win, this 
is a win-win and a positive in a crime bill that we are trying to fight 
for.
  As my colleagues know, I wanted to call Megan's law Duke-Dunn-Deale 
because Jennifer Dunn and Nathan Deal were the ones that really started 
it, and I kind of piggy-backed on it. But they were the same things 
said, and I would challenge the gentleman to look on the computer. I 
used to think there were 1 or 2 bad sexual abusers, there are hundreds 
in your district.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I ask for the support of this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed 
in part A of House Report 106-186.


           Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin

  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. __. MANDATORY LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR REPEAT SEX OFFENDERS 
                   AGAINST CHILDREN.

       (a) Amendment of Title 18, United States Code.--Section 
     3559 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Mandatory Life Imprisonment for Repeated Sex Offenses 
     Against Children.--
       ``(1) In general.--A person who is convicted of a Federal 
     sex offense in which a minor is the victim shall be sentenced 
     to life imprisonment if the person has a prior sex conviction 
     in which a minor was the victim, unless the sentence of death 
     is imposed.
       ``(2) Definitions.--For the purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `Federal sex offense' means an offense under 
     section 2241 (relating to aggravated sexual abuse), 2242 
     (relating to sexual abuse), 2243 (relating to sexual abuse of 
     a minor or ward), 2244 (relating to abusive sexual contact), 
     2245 (relating to sexual abuse resulting in death), or 2251A 
     (relating to selling or buying of children), or an offense 
     under section 2423 (relating to transportation of minors) 
     involving the transportation of, or the engagement in a 
     sexual act with, an individual who has not attained 16 years 
     of age;
       ``(B) the term `prior sex conviction' means a conviction 
     for which the sentence was imposed before the conduct 
     occurred forming the basis for the subsequent Federal sex 
     offense, and which was for either--
       ``(i) a Federal sex offense; or
       ``(ii) an offense under State law consisting of conduct 
     that would have been a Federal sex offense if, to the extent 
     or in the manner specified in the applicable provision of 
     title 18--

       ``(I) the offense involved interstate or foreign commerce, 
     or the use of the mails; or
       ``(II) the conduct occurred in any commonwealth, territory, 
     or possession of the United States, within the special 
     maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, 
     in a Federal prison, on any land or building owned by, leased 
     to, or otherwise used by or under the control of the 
     Government of the United States, or in the Indian country as 
     defined in section 1151;

       ``(C) the term `minor' means any person under the age of 18 
     years; and
       ``(D) the term `State' means a State of the United States, 
     the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or 
     possession of the United States.''.
       (b) Title 18 Conforming and Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Section 2247.--Section 2247 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting ``, unless section 3559(e) 
     applies'' before the final period.
       (2) Section 2426.--Section 2426 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting ``, unless section 3559(e) 
     applies'' before the final period.
       (3) Technical Amendments.--Sections 2252(c)(1) and 
     2252A(d)(1) of title 18, United States Code, are each amended 
     by striking ``less than three'' and inserting ``fewer than 
     3''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today we debate and consider legislation aimed at 
protecting our young people from crime and violence. Well, Mr. 
Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment aimed at protecting our 
children from a particularly devastating form of violence, and that is 
sexual violence. The amendment is known as the Two Strikes and You Are 
Out Child Protection Act. It is similar to my bill, H.R. 1989, which 
enjoys bipartisan cosponsorship. Furthermore, it builds upon the fine 
work done by my colleague from Texas (Mr. Frost) and his law known as 
the Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act of 1996.
  Now this is really a very simple proposal. It provides for a life 
sentence for those sick individuals who repeatedly prey on our 
children. This amendment says something very simple. It says

[[Page H4423]]

that if someone is arrested and convicted of a serious sex crime 
against kids and then, after serving that time they do it yet again, 
under this plan, Mr. Chairman, they will go to prison for the rest of 
their life.
  Now almost as important as what this bill does is what it does not 
do. This bill in no way conflicts with the fine work of my colleague 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). It builds upon it. It makes it 
stronger, just as it builds upon the three strikes and you are out law 
passed by this Congress several years ago.
  This bill does not federalize in any way our sexual assault laws, and 
finally, this bill does not simply pile criminal penalties on for 
sexual assaults. It has been narrowly drafted to target a very small 
group of individuals, but individuals who cause so very much damage and 
destruction in our society, damage to children, damage to families, 
damage to communities. It focuses on those who repeatedly molest our 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, in my home State of Wisconsin 77 percent of all sexual 
assault victims are juveniles, and the recidivism rate of the monsters 
who prey on these children is extraordinarily high. An Emory University 
report done some years ago suggested that the average child molester 
will commit 150 acts of child molestation during his lifetime, 150. 
Furthermore, there is actually a study from the Washington Post that 
suggests the number is higher, perhaps twice as high. I know these 
numbers sound unbelievable, I know we do not want to believe them, but 
unfortunately they are real, and they demand our action. Every time one 
of these sexual offenders offends, he destroys another life, he steals 
innocence yet again. When we find someone who has done this terrible 
act, after having served time for doing it before, in my view that 
person is self-defiant. He has shown us that he is unwilling or unable 
to stop his chain of violence.
  This amendment, I admit, is not about punishment, it is not about 
deterrence. Quite simply, this amendment is about removing bad actors 
from society, keeping them away from our friends, our families, our 
streets.
  Now many of my colleagues are familiar with my good friend Mark 
Klaas, whose name has come up quite a bit in the debate today, and as 
many of my colleagues are aware, he is a dedicated child safety 
advocate. He is the founder of the Mark Klaas Foundation for Kids.

                              {time}  1845

  The story is unfortunately all too famous. His daughter, Polly, 12 
years old, was kidnapped from her home in California, brutally molested 
and murdered. I have in fact here in my file a letter from Mr. Klaas 
strongly supporting the amendment that we have here today.
  I would also like to recognize, once again, the great work done by my 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) who offered the Amber 
Hagerman Child Protection Act of 1996. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) was successful in creating a Federal two-strikes law covering 
the crime of aggravated sexual abuse. I commend his work and I hope to 
build on his achievement today.
  This bill creates a new repeat offender clause, or a two-strikes 
provision. It not only includes aggravated sexual abuse, but it also 
includes other serious sex crimes as well. Crimes like sexual abuse of 
juveniles, the selling and buying of children, and the transportation 
of those under 16 for illicit, illegal sexual activity. I would also 
like to point out that under this amendment, just as with the Frost 
amendment, previously State offenses which would have qualified as a 
Federal crime, a Federal strike, had they been prosecuted as such, 
would count as a strike.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this common-
sense, yet very important child protection amendment. If my colleagues 
want to strike back at the alarming rate of sexual offenses against 
kids, my colleagues will support this amendment. I hope that they do.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would begin by pointing out that we are now in the 
slippery slope of mandatory minimums, and there is a question about the 
policy wisdom of mandatory minimums that would affect this kind of an 
amendment. We are taking judicial discretion in individual cases away 
from the judge and unless there is some compelling reason that this 
discretion in the judiciary has been abused, or that there are more and 
more cases coming into the Federal system, this seems to be another 
emotional statement in the form of an amendment that we are now dealing 
with.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I certainly agree with my learned colleague from Michigan. This is a 
very emotional subject, there are no two ways about it. Of course the 
day we cease to be emotional about child molestation is the day I cease 
to be proud to serve in this institution, and I know the gentleman 
shares that sentiment. I respect his opinion, and that is why this 
proposal is so carefully and narrowly tailored. It is built upon the 
three-strikes proposal that was passed by a democratically-controlled 
Congress some years ago. It is also based upon the proposal of the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) which again I commend.
  I took to heart the gentleman's arguments on a previous matter in 
which he talked about adding clutter, I think was the term, to the law, 
and was concerned about a lack of clarity when we take sentencing away 
from the Sentencing Commission. I respect that. In the case, though, of 
this proposal, I would submit that we add clarity and simplicity to the 
law, because we send a very strong signal with it. Instead of having 
conflicting terms and sending conflicting signals, this one is rather 
simple. Again, this is based upon the three-strikes law which this 
institution has previously passed and which many, if not most, States 
in the Nation have.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, one of the problems of doing this outside of 
the committee is that we do not have the opportunity to research and 
figure out exactly what the impact of the amendment is.
  Section 2241 of the code already has a two-strikes provision. If I 
could engage the gentleman from Wisconsin in a colloquy, I would like 
to inquire of him, how does this amendment change present Federal law?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, with respect to this provision, 
it would not. It would essentially recodify the proposal and position 
of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost).
  What this bill does is create a two-strikes provision, a new 
provision within Federal law; codifies the proposal of the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Frost) and puts that within that. It does not in any 
way conflict with it.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it does not conflict, 
but what does it apply to? Because it appears, looking through all of 
these sections, that some crimes for which one could get probation, two 
of those would result in a life imprisonment.
  I mean that is why we have a Sentencing Commission. They can go 
through this to determine what the appropriate sentence would be, and 
we are having a great deal of problems trying to determine all of the 
areas to which it might apply. It obviously applies to the very serious 
sexual offenses, but there are a lot of offenses listed in there, 
touching through clothing, for example, that it may apply to, and two 
offenses of that for which probation would probably be the sentence 
would result in a mandatory life sentence. Is that right?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, 
which part is the gentleman's question?

[[Page H4424]]

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what else does it apply 
to other than section 2241? What kinds of activities does it apply to?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it 
explicitly provides, section 2241, as the gentleman referred to, the 
aggravated sexual abuse, which is currently the maximum sentence is any 
term of years or life. It provides for sexual abuse for which the 
sentence is 20 years; sexual abuse of a minor, 15-year penalty; abuse 
of sexual contact, 12-year penalty; sexual abuse resulting in death 
which is a term of years or life or capital punishment; the buying and 
selling of children, not less than 20 years; and the transportation of 
minors across State lines for illegal sexual purposes.
  I would also remind the gentleman that we are talking in all of these 
cases about a second offense. So the individual that we are referring 
to here must have been arrested, convicted, and served his time for a 
previous commission of such an offense.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, are there any offenses 
in here that if one does twice, do the sentencing guidelines now 
provide for a year or less for any predicate offenses that the 
gentleman is describing?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, the information that I just gave the gentleman, the 
information I have on the sentences reaches those crimes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has crimes that are very 
serious crimes. My question was, are there any crimes for which the 
sentencing guidelines now are a year or less?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, it covers no other crimes 
besides the ones that I have stated to the gentleman.
  Mr. SCOTT. Do any of those crimes provide for a penalty by sentencing 
guidelines of a year or less?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I have given the gentleman the maximum 
sentences that I have under these.
  Mr. SCOTT. What I have asked for is for sentences for which the 
normal punishment is a year or less. Are there any of those covered?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I have just given the gentleman 
the information that I have.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, we cannot get an answer to the question, and 
that is the problem with trying to do this on the floor and not in 
committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) has 3 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge passage of the Green 
amendment to put repeat sex offenders behind bars once and for all.
  When a child is robbed of his innocence by a sex offender, there are 
no second chances for that child. The little boy or girl must carry the 
shame, the fear, and the hurt for the rest of their life. Ironically, 
when a sex offender is released from prison, they do have a second 
chance to change the course of their life. There are considerable 
resources available for them to get treatment and counseling so that 
they can control their problems. Studies show that a considerable 
number of sex offenders have molested more than one child before and 
after their first conviction.
  Once a sex offender is caught, they must be punished and treated 
immediately so that more children are not put in danger. The average 
convicted child molester only spends 2.2 years in prison. Sex offenders 
cannot be allowed to repeat their crimes. We cannot continue to put our 
children at risk, and I strongly support the Green amendment on two 
strikes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To the distinguished author of the amendment, might I try to make the 
point that the gentleman from Virginia was discussing in a little bit 
different way?
  What the concern is, is whether or not this amendment allows a 
misdemeanor State offense such as a misdemeanor sexual battery as a 
predicate offense. And if it does, the gentleman sees the problem of 
some very minor offenses, a couple, that would then bring us into a 
mandatory life sentence.
  This could move us into the cruel and unusual punishment prohibition 
of the eighth amendment, and I ask my colleague if there has been 
consideration of this point. I raise it again because we have not had 
hearings.
  Could the gentleman comment on that?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, first off, I appreciate the 
point. I do better appreciate the question now that it was raised. The 
answer to the first question about misdemeanor State offense is no, it 
would not be covered by this.
  Secondly, this is the law in Wisconsin already, and this has been the 
law for some time in Wisconsin. Obviously, I keep referring back, we 
have a three-strikes law here on the Federal level that would cover 
many of these same crimes and we have a three-strikes law that would 
cover many of these same types of crimes in nearly every State in the 
Union. Again, we are talking about repeated offenses; an offense that 
is committed after someone has been arrested and convicted of one of 
these offenses, and that after having served his time, doing it yet 
again.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. 
Does the gentleman appreciate that had we had a hearing in the 
Subcommittee on Crime, these kinds of questions might not have been 
raised here in a colloquy fashion which we have to research the answers 
on after the debate, and unfortunately, after the vote. But I see where 
the gentleman is coming from. He is assuring us that these would all be 
serious felonies that would result in a mandatory life sentence by 
virtue of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I certainly support this amendment. I 
concur with the gentleman from Michigan that this is unfortunate in 
many ways. We have a number of amendments out here that might have been 
separate bills going through our subcommittee and ironed some of these 
things out, but I am being reassured by staff who have looked over this 
that we are not indeed trampling on anything that would be a minor 
offense. These are major offenses the gentleman is talking about. These 
are major sex offenders. They are repeat offenders. And I certainly, 
for one, believe that we ought to put them away as the gentleman from 
Wisconsin wants to do, so I strongly support his amendment, and I thank 
him for offering it.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just briefly summarize. I appreciate 
gentleman's concerns about the lack of a hearing. I did not choose the 
pace with which this moved.
  But let me say this, today we are taking or seizing upon a historic 
opportunity to not only punish young offenders, but hopefully create 
protections for young victims. That is obviously what this is all 
about.
  This is a commonsense measure, not a radical departure from law. We 
have a two strikes and you are out for some sexual offenses, for one 
type of sex crime we have a three strikes law.
  This is a commonsense proposal. It says that for a narrow class of 
criminals, those who repeatedly prey upon young people, we cannot wait 
around for three strikes. Three strikes is too many: Too many 
criminals, too many victims.
  This bill says if we find someone who has done it a second time, they 
are a self-defined repeat offender and we must remove them for the sake 
of our children, our families, and our communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H4425]]

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full minute. I would 
just point out that one of the reasons we have a problem is the term in 
the bill is ``Federal sexual offense.'' The code goes back and forth 
between what a sexual act is and what sexual contact means. Sexual 
contact could be patting someone on the rear end. If that is what we 
are talking about, getting two offenses of that and getting life 
imprisonment, it is obviously out of control.
  That is why we need a committee hearing, so we can actually 
deliberate and get a straight answer to the questions we have been 
asking. We have been denied that, and here we are, looking at a 
mandatory life imprisonment potentially on information that we cannot 
quite understand because it is presented outside of the regular order.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee finds itself at some point of difficulty 
here. It would seem to me, especially with the comments of the Chair of 
the subcommittee and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, 
that this amendment, as salutory as it is intended to be, might better 
serve the purpose of an orderly process if it were withdrawn at this 
time for a committee review.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) has made a very good and 
strong case, but it seems to me that we are leaving some things that 
really have to be researched by staff, and that we might be able to 
proceed on this very quickly as a freestanding bill. After all, we 
still have a great number of months remaining before this term is over, 
and my fears have not been allayed.
  It would seem to me that this juvenile justice bill itself would not 
be harmed in any way were the gentleman to accede to my invitation.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed in Part A of 
House Report 106-186.


           Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Canady of Florida

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Canady of Florida:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC.   . INCREASE OF AGE RELATING TO TRANSFER OF OBSCENE 
                   MATERIAL.

       Section 1470 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``16'' each place it appears and inserting ``18''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Canady) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady).
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, for decades it has been a Federal crime to distribute 
in interstate commerce material that is obscene; that is, material 
which is patently offensive, sexually explicit, and without serious 
value. As it has been defined by the Supreme Court, obscenity is by 
definition outside the protection of the First Amendment of the United 
States Constitution.
  Last year this Congress passed a law which has been codified at 18 
U.S.C., section 1470, providing enhanced penalties for distributing 
this illegal obscene material to children under 16 years of age. Under 
this law, purveyors of obscenity under the age of 16 are subject to 
imprisonment for up to 10 years, rather than 5 years.
  The amendment I have submitted would simply increase the age of the 
minors to which the prohibition would apply from children under 16 
years of age to children under 18 years of age. There is no reason why 
Congress should not fully protect all minors from obscene material.
  Again, I would point out to my colleagues that the material we are 
talking about here is material which, by definition, is unprotected 
under the First Amendment. I believe that those who provide such 
material to minors should be singled out for a harsher penalty. This 
proposal that is before the House now would simply ensure that all 
minors receive the protection of the law that was passed last year 
protecting minors under 16 years of age.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) seek 
time in opposition?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, rather 
than seek time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is unable to strike the last word.
  Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan is recognized to 
control 5 minutes in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Canady), who I believe is a member of the Subcommittee on Crime, 
that it would have been my hope that we would have brought this through 
the committee process.
  I have no objection to the measure. As a matter of fact, on its face 
I quite agree with it. But it is this process that could have quite as 
easily brought this to the floor through the full committee and the 
subcommittee.
  I was wondering if there were some reason that it did not happen that 
way.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, let me express to the gentleman 
from Michigan my agreement that it would be preferable for us to move 
all items through the committee process. That is my preference. I would 
have preferred for this whole process to be operated differently.
  But I will tell the gentleman that it is my view that this process is 
going the way it is because there are certain people not on this side 
of the aisle who decided that they were going to force the issue, that 
we could not act quickly enough to satisfy them. We are going through 
the process we are going through now to avoid the disruption of the 
process of the House that would have otherwise incurred. I believe that 
is the reality of why we are here today.
  Frankly, I think it is unfortunate. I would have preferred to see 
hearings and markups conducted on all these matters. But under the 
circumstances, I think we are dealing with this in the best way 
possible, given the determination, the apparent determination, of some 
people to disrupt the legislative process unless these issues were 
brought to the floor immediately.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response. I 
happen to recall that the juvenile justice markups were canceled on 
one, two, three, maybe four different occasions, and I do not think 
that whatever the objection that anybody on the Committee on the 
Judiciary may have had to any of the substance, I do not think this 
would have run into any difficulty. I do not think the gentleman 
imagines that this was part of whatever the problem was.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I would certainly agree. I would hope that all 
the Members of the House could support this amendment. I believe it is 
appropriate for us to be dealing with this very simple amendment at 
this point.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have three sentences on this. The fact 
of the matter is that legislating from the floor on matters of Federal 
criminal law is not the most orderly process in the world, even when it 
appears to be a matter that we can all, on the surface, support.
  I refer to the immediately preceding amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), which certainly sounds 
appropriate, but we ran into a problem. In the 10 minutes we have been 
debating this measure we have not run into a problem, but it is not 
beyond my understanding that there might be a problem in here.
  I do not think our staff has spent much time on this. There have been 
no hearings. As I have indicated, I support the measure, from what I 
have heard of it on the floor. It still is not an orderly way to 
proceed. I regret that we had to

[[Page H4426]]

do it this way. I am sorry that whatever concerned persons did not 
cooperate so that these hearings in the committee could be scheduled. I 
do not think it was around this measure, which is coming to my 
attention rather late.
  So Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady). I do put the committee on notice 
that I am going to ask my staff to continue to research the matter and 
bring to the gentleman's attention anything that may be the fruits of 
that research.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just in responding to the gentleman's point, I would 
observe that it is not at all unusual for Members to go to the 
Committee on Rules with an amendment which has not been through the 
committee process, to have that amendment made in order, and then have 
it debated on the floor without the benefit of hearings.
  So the fact that this amendment is here without having been through 
the hearing process is by no means extraordinary. I am sure the 
gentleman from Michigan has brought amendments to the floor that have 
not been through the committee process. I do not have examples, but I 
do not think we would have to search far or wide to find examples of 
the gentleman from Michigan doing that. That is nothing that is against 
that.
  I do agree with the gentleman's general point, that it is better to 
work issues through the process, but that does not mean that every 
amendment has to be considered in that way. I certainly think in 
amendments such as this that the gentleman, as I understand it, agrees 
to, that it is appropriate for us to bring them to the floor.
  I urge all the Members to support this amendment that I think really 
more than anything else corrects an oversight in the law that we passed 
last year, and frames that law more appropriately than we did in the 
last Congress.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Canady).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed 
in Part A of House Report 106-186.


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mrs. Kelly

  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 13 offered by Mrs. Kelly:
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. __. CHILD HOSTAGE-TAKING TO EVADE ARREST OR OBSTRUCT 
                   JUSTICE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 55 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 1205. Child hostage-taking to evade arrest or obstruct 
       justice

       ``(a) In General.--Whoever uses force or threatens to use 
     force against any officer or agency of the Federal 
     Government, and seizes or detains, or continues to detain, a 
     child in order to--
       ``(1) obstruct, resist, or oppose any officer of the United 
     States, or other person duly authorized, in serving, or 
     attempting to serve or execute, any legal or judicial writ, 
     process, or warrant of any court of the United States; or
       ``(2) compel any department or agency of the Federal 
     Government to do or to abstain from doing any act;

     or attempts to do so, shall be punished in accordance with 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) Sentencing.--Any person who violates subsection (a)--
       ``(1) shall be imprisoned not less than 10 years and not 
     more than 25 years;
       ``(2) if injury results to the child as a result of the 
     violation, shall be imprisoned not less than 20 years and not 
     more than 35 years; and
       ``(3) if death results to the child as a result of the 
     violation, shall be subject to the penalty of death or be 
     imprisoned for life.
       ``(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `child' means an individual who has not attained the age of 
     18 years.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     55 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new item:

``1205. Child hostage-taking to evade arrest or obstruct justice.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Kelly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today for the purpose of offering an amendment 
that addresses the problem of children being taken as hostages. Far too 
many scenarios have been documented in which children are taken as 
hostages and exposed to violence, emotional trauma, or physical harm at 
the hands of adults.
  For example, in New York a woman's estranged husband took her and 
their three children hostage at the point of a loaded shotgun. He held 
them for nearly 4 hours, and at one point he allegedly traded his 7-
year-old son for a pack of cigarettes.
  In Texas a man took 80 children hostage at an area day care facility. 
They were held at gunpoint and released over a 30-hour period before 
the standoff was brought thankfully to a nonviolent conclusion.
  In Florida a suspected drug addict and murderer held two children 
ages 2 and 4 hostage for 2\1/2\ days. An entire Orlando neighborhood 
was evacuated during the standoff. Only when he threatened to use the 
children as human shields did a SWAT team rescue the children in a raid 
that resulted in the death of the suspect.
  In Baltimore a man broke into a second-floor apartment, stabbing a 
young mother and holding her 9-month-old child hostage for 2 hours 
before a quick response team could rescue the baby and apprehend the 
suspect.

                              {time}  1915

  Situations such as these are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. We 
in Congress must do our part to prevent scenarios in which children are 
used as pawns by a violent adult.
  The amendment I offer today is based on my bipartisan legislation, 
H.R. 51, and will give new protection to our children. It establishes 
the strictest punishments for those who would evade arrest or obstruct 
justice by using children as hostages. This provision toughens 
penalties against any person who takes a child 18 years of age or 
younger hostage in order to resist, compel or oppose the Federal 
Government.
  Such a person would serve a minimum sentence of 10 years to a maximum 
of death depending on the extent of injury to the child.
  A number of States, including California, Illinois, Florida, are 
already enforcing tougher penalties on people convicted of stealing 
children for their own personal gain.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in this important effort to protect 
the lives and well-being of our Nation's children. It is my hope that 
together we can make our Nation a safer place for everyone, especially 
those who are least able to protect themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) claim 
the time in opposition?
  Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Crime.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this bill, again, did not go through the 
committee so we do not know the impact. The gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Kelly) has mentioned several heinous crimes and has not indicated 
what time was given to those people upon conviction. It would be 
interesting to see what the Sentencing Guidelines would say in those 
situations.
  Without a hearing, it is difficult to determine what impact this 
would have one way or the other and, therefore, Mr. Chairman, again, it 
shows that we are just out here trading sound bites, who can come up 
with a name for a bill, who can come up with and state a heinous crime 
and then raise whatever the penalty it was to something we do not know 
what it is.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), and 
ask if she would give us an idea of how much time was given in each of 
those cases that she mentioned. It would be helpful.

[[Page H4427]]

  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, I cannot give the gentleman 
that information because I did not bring it to the floor with me. It 
may be important for the gentleman to recognize the fact that this 
amendment that I am offering passed the floor of the House last year. 
It passed not only with the membership of the Republican Party but also 
with a number of Members of the Democratic Party supporting this bill, 
as they again do this year.
  Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am sure it would 
probably pass. I just wanted to know what we were doing. Apparently we 
will not find out.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a strong statement for the 
protection of America's children. Time and time again we speak of our 
children as our Nation's most precious possession. This amendment, the 
Kelly amendment, sends that message to our children. I commend the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) for introducing this 
legislation.
  Just this month two fugitives were arrested after kidnapping a five-
month-old boy from a Georgia trailer park to escape capture. After 
fleeing for 4 days across half a dozen States, the fugitives were 
finally apprehended in Quebec. Fortunately, the child was unharmed and 
returned to his parents.
  Crimes like this must not be taken lightly. This Kelly amendment 
toughens penalties against any person who dares to take a child hostage 
in order to evade arrest. This amendment provides any criminal bringing 
a child as a hostage into a crime will spend 10 years in prison; harm 
that child, he serves 20 years in prison; and should the child die, the 
perpetrator will serve life or be subject to the death penalty.
  Today Congress is considering sending a message to America's 
communities about safety for our Nation's children. We are considering 
legislation that will give communities the tools, the opportunity and 
protection they want to give their children, a safe environment in 
which to grow up. However, this legislation must also send a message to 
those communities that America will not take any threat to their 
children lightly. This amendment clarifies that message.
  Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to support the Kelly amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this proposal is similar to those that are imposed upon 
adult offenders of the drug and firearms laws, but what we are doing is 
promoting the use of mandatory minimums because it is concerned with 
punishment and not prevention.
  We have yet to realize that prevention is indeed the best way to 
address violence.
  So I want to suggest to the committee that mandatory minimums, as 
this is, are not good policy; that they are, in fact, misguided because 
they create unfairness and require judicial and correctional 
expenditures disproportionate to any deterrent or rehabilitative effect 
that they may have.
  That is taken directly from a Drug Policy Research Center study of 
1997.
  I do not think it is inappropriate to suggest that judges in 
individual cases are still in the best position to determine what 
sentences are appropriate for individual offenders. Mandatory minimums 
take discretion away from the Court to utilize other problem-solving 
approaches to crime prevention.
  What about the U.S. attorneys? When a mandatory minimum crime is 
involved, this makes any attempt at plea bargaining, if they are moving 
up a chain of crime figures, literally impossible. In this decade, the 
U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that over one-third of the Federal 
defendants whose criminal conduct should have triggered application of 
a mandatory minimum provision have somehow even yet escaped the effects 
of such provisions.
  So here for the third time in a single evening we have criminal laws 
named after some poor victim for whom our sympathies are overflowing, 
but whether or not this is the best way for us to proceed as a matter 
of process still remains much in doubt.
  We are still legislating with no committee of original jurisdiction, 
that I can recall, having had anything to do with what might be an 
otherwise well meaning amendment, to impose severe penalties on people 
who take children as hostage to evade arrest.
  Why this was not able to come through the committee in an orderly way 
is not clear to me. This is not gun legislation. It is the meat and 
potatoes of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  So I am again sorry that this could not have been taken up in a more 
orderly way.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Kelly) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. It is a great bill 
that she introduced last year that we passed here in the House, and I 
believe this is the perfect case for a minimum mandatory sentence.
  If someone is going to take a child as a hostage to try to avoid a 
judicial writ or court process or to try to compel an agency of the 
government to do something, they ought to have a minimum mandatory 
sentence. It is a deterrent message. That is what a minimum mandatory 
sentence is. It takes a really bad apple off the street and takes them 
off the street for a period of time.
  I commend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) for offering the 
bill. It is a good proposal and it should be adopted.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, the passage of this amendment would give 
law enforcement across the country a new and powerful weapon in the 
fight against violent criminals. As I mentioned earlier, there are 
disturbing examples of hostage situations involving children. I hope my 
colleagues will join me and pass these new protections and protect 
children from crime in America.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to also point out that in the last Congress, 
this bill did pass through the committee process. So I believe the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) did have a chance to look at it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 printed 
in part A of House Report 106-186.


               Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Hutchinson

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 14.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
  Part A amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Hutchinson:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFERRING TO JUVENILE A FIREARM 
                   THAT THE TRANSFEROR KNOWS OR HAS REASON TO 
                   BELIEVE WILL BE USED IN A SCHOOL ZONE OR IN A 
                   SERIOUS VIOLENT FELONY.

       (a) Prohibition.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (y) the 
     following:
       ``(z)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, 
     deliver, or otherwise transfer any firearm to a person who 
     the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a 
     juvenile, and knowing or having reasonable cause to believe 
     that the juvenile intends to possess, discharge, or otherwise 
     use the firearm in a school zone.
       ``(2) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, 
     or otherwise transfer any firearm to a person who the 
     transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a 
     juvenile, and knowing or having reasonable cause to believe 
     that the juvenile intends to possess, discharge, or otherwise 
     use the firearm in the commission of a serious violent 
     felony.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `juvenile' 
     means an individual who has not attained 18 years of age.''.
       (b) Penalties.--Section 924(a) of such title is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(7)(A) A person, other than a juvenile, who violates 
     section 922(z)(1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned 
     as provided in section 924(a)(6)(B)(ii), or both.
       ``(B) A person, other than a juvenile, who violates section 
     922(z)(2) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned as 
     provided in section 924(a)(6)(B)(iii), or both.''.


[[Page H4428]]


  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes it unlawful to transfer any firearm 
to a juvenile if the transferror knows or has reason to believe that 
the firearm will be used in a school zone or in the commission of a 
serious violent felony.
  This amendment goes to the heart of the problem of straw purchasers, 
where someone else purchases a firearm for someone else who is 
disqualified or for the purpose of giving it to a juvenile for an 
unlawful purpose. Those are straw purchasers.
  Under current law, even if the transferror knows that the juvenile 
intends to use the weapon to commit a crime, the prohibition only 
covers handguns and handgun ammunition.
  Now, amendments have been offered that expand this prohibition to 
semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding 
devices, or will be considered by the House. However, even with the 
adoption of these amendments, it will not be against the law to 
transfer a rifle or a shotgun to a juvenile when the transferror knows 
that the weapon will be used to commit a crime.
  This does not impact any legitimate transfers of firearms, shotguns 
for hunting purposes or other legitimate purposes. But as we know from 
the Colorado tragedy, any firearm is sufficient to cause death, whether 
it is a handgun or not. My amendment closes this loophole and actually 
does something positive to keep guns out of the hands of violent 
juveniles.
  The penalties for violating this provision are the same as those 
found in current law, which carries up to 10 years in prison. However, 
this amendment anticipates the adoption of the McCollum amendment, 
which amends current law to provide for certain mandatory minimums for 
violations of school zones and for use during the commission of a 
serious violent felony.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important to note that in many of the 
recent school shootings, students did use long guns, rifles and 
shotguns. To the extent that an older friend or relation acquires these 
guns for such unlawful uses, I believe it is important to hold those 
accomplices accountable for their actions and to discourage such 
purchases and transfers when it is used for a serious violent felony or 
for purposes of use in a school zone.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) seek 
time in opposition?
  Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do, for purposes of debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, could I ask the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson), who is a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
author of the amendment, whether shotguns and rifles are now within the 
purview of his amendment?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHISON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, all firearms would be under the purview of the 
amendment that I am offering if the transfer is with the knowledge that 
it is going to be used for the commission of a serious violent felony 
or to be used in a school zone.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, in view of that then I would like to state 
that we on this side have no objection to this amendment and withdraw 
any opposition to it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I do not need 2 minutes but I thank the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I strongly support this amendment. 
The gentleman is right, it does perfect an amendment I have already 
offered that has been adopted out here today, and I think it fills a 
loophole that needed to be filled so we do not have kids possessing a 
gun in conditions where they should not.
  I think the gentleman has done a good service, and I support the 
amendment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for 
his comments, and if I just might conclude on this issue by saying that 
I have approached the entire issue of violent juvenile crime in terms 
of what can we do to keep firearms out of the hands of violent 
teenagers, people who are prone to crime, as well as criminals?

                              {time}  1930

  That is why we can legitimately look at solving those problems. This 
amendment certainly goes to the heart of that by making sure there is a 
strong penalty for those who engage in straw purchases. We have seen 
that where we would use someone else to purchase a firearm when they 
are disqualified or have an unlawful purpose. I think this really puts 
a clamp and will be helpful in addressing the serious problem that this 
Congress as a whole is trying to address in a bipartisan basis.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his 
courtesies that he has extended.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed 
in part A of House Report 106-186.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SCOTT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, is there a provision for skipping an 
amendment and coming back to it?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would respond to the gentleman that--the one-
hour notice procedure established in House Resolution 209 aside--only 
by unanimous consent in the full House could a change of sequence be 
accomplished.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, is it a rule to prohibit another Member 
from offering an amendment so printed?
  The CHAIRMAN. The rule provides that an amendment may be offered by 
the Member designated in the report or by his or her designee.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered By Mr. Quinn

  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Quinn:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

                   TITLE __--EXPLOSIVES RESTRICTIONS

     SEC. __1. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Restricted Explosives 
     Control Act of 1999''.

     SEC. __2. PROHIBITION AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTION OR RECEIPT OF 
                   RESTRICTED EXPLOSIVES WITHOUT A FEDERAL PERMIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 842 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by inserting ``that are not restricted explosives'' 
     after ``explosive materials'' the 2nd place such term 
     appears; and
       (ii) by striking ``or'' after the semicolon;
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) to distribute restricted explosives to any person 
     other than a licensee or permitee; or''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated), by inserting 
     ``that are not restricted explosives'' after ``explosive 
     materials''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting ``if the explosive 
     materials are not restricted explosives,'' before ``a 
     resident''.
       (b) Restricted Explosives Defined.--Section 841 of such 
     title is amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page H4429]]

       ``(r) `Restricted explosives' means high explosives, 
     blasting agents, detonators, and more than 50 pounds of black 
     powder.''.

     SEC. __3. REQUIREMENT THAT APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL EXPLOSIVES 
                   LICENSE OR PERMIT INCLUDE A PHOTOGRAPH AND SET 
                   OF FINGERPRINTS OF THE APPLICANT.

       (a) In General.--Section 843(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended in the 1st sentence by inserting ``shall 
     include the applicant's photograph and set of fingerprints, 
     which shall be taken and transmitted to the Secretary by the 
     chief law enforcement officer of the applicant's place of 
     residence, and'' before ``shall be''.
       (b) Chief Law Enforcement Officer Defined.--Section 841 of 
     such title, as amended by section 2(b) of this Act, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(s) `Chief law enforcement officer' means the chief of 
     police, the sheriff, or an equivalent officer or the designee 
     of any such individual.''.

     SEC. __4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to conduct 
     engaged in after the 180-day period that begins with the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Quinn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn).
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss an amendment made in order by the 
rule. Earlier today the House adopted legislation which addresses my 
concerns regarding the purchase of explosives. I therefore intend to 
withdraw my amendment here this evening. However, before I do so, I 
would like to just make a few comments if I may.
  First, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman 
Dreier) and all of my colleagues on the Committee on Rules for making 
this amendment in order.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Upstate New York (Mr. 
Reynolds), my friend and neighbor for his assistance.
  We have been working to restrict the sale of explosives since 1993 
when four bombs exploded in western New York State, killing five 
people. Current law enabled those responsible for the murders, who have 
been convicted and are now serving time, to buy the deadly dynamite 
over the counter in another State ssimply by providing false 
identification, completing a short Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco and 
Firearms form, and promising not to cross State lines.
  Although New York State has tough laws with respect to the purchase 
of explosives, the murderers were able to purchase dynamite simply by 
going to another State with weaker laws.
  As we well know, however, we do not need to go back 6 years to think 
of a tragedy brought about with the use of explosives. Recent events 
have again demonstrated the pressing need for increased controls on the 
purchase of such explosives. Over the weekend, in fact, in my hometown 
of Hamburg, New York, two of my constituents were killed within a mile 
of my own house in a violent explosion. The bombing in Oklahoma City 
and the recent tragedy in Colorado are all obviously examples as well.
  Again, currently, certain States allow dynamite and other explosives 
to be sold over the counter. Language in the McCollum amendment, which 
was approved by the House earlier today, requires criminal background 
checks before explosive materials can be transferred to nonlicensed 
buyers. This McCollum amendment also requires individuals to obtain 
explosives from federally licensed dealers to obtain that same Federal 
permit.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman McCollum) 
and the Committee on the Judiciary for addressing the problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding to me.
  I simply want to commend the gentleman for the work he has done over 
the years on the explosives issue. As the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Crime, I know he has been involved, and I appreciate the fact that 
he is going to withdraw this amendment for reasons of technical nature 
dealing with what has already been passed.
  I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) deserves commendation 
for this. He has been very, very involved with this issue. If it were 
not for his efforts, we might well not have the provisions we had in my 
amendment earlier today. So I thank the gentleman from New York for his 
efforts.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for his kind words. I also appreciate the 
work of the House on the floor to make sure that the gentleman from New 
York had an opportunity to rise here this evening.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I ask the 
author of the amendment, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), with 
all due respect, all examples he gave were good reasons to have this 
amendment. It sounded like this could be a very important amendment. He 
says that it is now to be found elsewhere in the McCollum amendment. Is 
that correct?
  Mr. Chairman, under my reservation of objection, I yield to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) for an answer.
  Mr. QUINN. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, 
could the gentleman from New York indicate to me where within the 
voluminous McCollum amendment is the language that would make it 
unnecessary for his amendment?
  Mr. QUINN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, under my reservation of objection, I yield 
to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. QUINN. We are perfectly satisfied with the intent and the 
language of the McCollum amendment this afternoon, that it met the 
concerns that we had. Although technical in nature, we had discussions 
this afternoon with the Treasury Department and others to make certain 
that our bill, fashioned after Brady and others that have been before 
the House years before, are satisfied here today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, could I point out to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Quinn), the author, I am glad he had these discussions 
earlier. I do not know anything about them, of course. I am not sure, 
but it is suggested that the gentleman's amendment is stronger than the 
language he is referring to that appears in Mr. McCollum's amendment. 
Is that correct?
  Mr. Chairman, under my reservation of objection, I yield to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn).
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan 
yielding to me. That is for the gentleman's decision to decide, I 
guess, whether it is stronger or not. I know that for our purposes in 
working on this bill and the amendment, for now, going on 4 or 5 years, 
that we are satisfied that today's action is more than adequate, and we 
are prepared to go forward with the chairman.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
explanations, and I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Quinn) is withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed 
in part A of House Report 106-186.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered By Mr. DeLay

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Part A amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. DeLay: 
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. __. LIMITATION ON PRISONER RELEASE ORDERS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 99 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 1632. Limitation on prisoner release orders

       ``(a) Limitation.--Notwithstanding section 3626(a)(3) of 
     title 18 or any other provision of law, in a civil action 
     with respect to prison conditions, no court of the United 
     States or other court listed in section 610 shall have

[[Page H4430]]

     jurisdiction to enter or carry out any prisoner release order 
     that would result in the release from or nonadmission to a 
     prison, on the basis of prison conditions, of any person 
     subject to incarceration, detention, or admission to a 
     facility because of a conviction of a felony under the laws 
     of the relevant jurisdiction, or a violation of the terms or 
     conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or a 
     diversionary program, relating to the commission of a felony 
     under the laws of the relevant jurisdiction.
       ``(b) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       ``(1) the terms `civil action with respect to prison 
     conditions', `prisoner', `prisoner release order', and 
     `prison' have the meanings given those terms in section 
     3626(g) of title 18; and
       ``(2) the term `prison conditions' means conditions of 
     confinement or the effects of actions by government officials 
     on the lives of persons confined in prison.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new item:

``1632. Limitation on prisoner release orders.''.

       (c) Consent Decrees.--
       (1) Termination of existing consent decrees.--Any consent 
     decree that was entered into before the date of the enactment 
     of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, that is in 
     effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, and that provides for remedies relating to prison 
     conditions shall cease to be effective on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Definitions.--As used in this subsection--
       (A) the term ``consent decree'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 3626(g) of title 18, United States Code; and
       (B) the term ``prison conditions'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 1632(c) of title 28, United States Code, 
     as added by subsection (a) of this section.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment in the form of a bill that passed 
overwhelmingly in this House last year. So I bring it to the House 
because I think it is so appropriate to put it on this bill at this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been talking about crime all day. I rise to 
introduce this amendment that seeks to cut at the very heart of crime. 
Early release of felons due to prison conditions puts all Americans at 
risk, and this practice should stop. All the talk about fighting crime 
and keeping children safe boils down to nothing if we are not willing 
to keep prisoners behind bars where they belong.
  Now, many States have tried to combat crime by assessing truth in 
sentencing laws. However, these noble efforts are countered by activist 
judges who side with predators over victims. Activist judges are 
accessories to crime. Every day, laws are ignored, misinterpreted, and 
overturned by radicals in robes who have stolen the role of legislative 
bodies.
  Article III of the U.S. Constitution allows the Congress to set 
jurisdictional restraints on the courts, and this amendment reasserts 
that right.
  Tragically, judges have used the excuse of overcrowding to empty 
prisons of violent offenders and drug dealers. These judicial magicians 
create prison caps out of thin air and then empty jail cells until they 
reach their arbitrary number.
  In Philadelphia, for instance, after some convicts complained, Judge 
Norma Shapiro created a prison cap that resulted in the release of 500 
prisoners every week; 9,732 of these criminals onto the streets because 
of her own arbitrary caps. These criminals were released. They were 
later rearrested for new crimes, including murder and rape.
  Now, in recent years, 35 percent of all offenders arrested for 
violent crime were already on probation, parole, or pretrial release at 
the time of their arrest. Studies show that up to 76 percent of former 
inmates are rearrested within 3 years of their release.
  Even more criminals are released before their trial because activist 
judges claim that they have no room to keep them in custody. These 
people should not be let loose, and my amendment assures that they 
cannot be released due to the prison conditions loophole.
  We will not reduce crime until we stop letting criminals back onto 
the streets to continue to prey on innocent Americans.
  This amendment does not prevent any other methods to correct prison 
conditions. It simply stops judges from releasing dangerous convicts to 
alleviate overcrowding or other conditions.
  Justice may be blind, but it is and does comprehend common sense. 
This amendment makes neighborhoods safer by keeping convicts behind 
bars.
  Mr. Chairman, no American is free if he does not feel safe in his 
house or on the streets. Congress must act now to take back our 
streets. Congress must combat judicial activism. I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished whip, has 
offered an amendment that would drastically and, in my view, 
unconstitutionally limit the authority of Federal judges to remedy 
inhumane prison conditions where they are brought to their attention to 
the judicial process.
  I would remind the gentleman that, where this kind of a permission is 
granted, where relief is granted for this condition, it is probably in 
consonance with the eighth amendment to the Constitution.
  I think that the Philadelphia case that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) referred to is a State matter. I would like just to inquire 
that, in his research, since this has not come before the committee, 
was it his impression that this practice, which he decries, is 
something that occurs in the Federal system, or is he referring to the 
Philadelphia case which, it is my understanding, occurred in the State 
system?
  I will repeat it. Apparently the gentleman from Texas did not hear 
the question that I was posing to him.

                              {time}  1945

  The question is whether or not the conditions of which the gentleman 
complains, that is the litigation that does release prisoners in 
inhumane prison conditions, does that turn on State prison conditions 
or is the gentleman referring to Federal prison conditions? Because it 
is my understanding that the Philadelphia incident, of which the 
gentleman remarked, was a State matter.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I am having a hard time understanding the 
gentleman's question. I guess what he is talking about is the specific 
case in Philadelphia. It was a Federal judge, and on her own set her 
own arbitrary limits to overcrowding in the Federal system and started 
releasing prisoners as a condition of overcrowding. Violent prisoners, 
if I might say.
  Mr. CONYERS. All of them were violent?
  Mr. DeLAY. Well, what is the gentleman's definition of violence?
  Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman is asking me for my definition of 
violence?
  Mr. DeLAY. It is the gentleman's question.
  Mr. CONYERS. Yes, but it is your term.
  Mr. DeLAY. It is the gentleman's question. What is the gentleman's 
definition of violence?
  The CHAIRMAN. All Members will follow regular order. The time is 
controlled by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me make a 
case in a different way for the gentleman from Texas. It just so 
happens that this amendment would improperly interfere with the work of 
the judicial branch in our constitutional system of government because 
these cases are legally and properly brought, they are heard by a 
court, they can even be appealed to from the court.
  And so I think that this is a dangerous proposal that would terminate 
ongoing consent decrees in prison condition cases. In addition, it 
would prohibit judges from issuing prisoner release orders to remedy 
unconstitutional overcrowding.

[[Page H4431]]

  So the gentleman is saying that it does not matter where we put 
people who have violated the law; it does not matter what circumstances 
that they are put; that under no circumstances can a judge, having 
heard all of these arguments on both sides from the Department of 
Justice or the State Attorney General, they would then be precluded 
from passing judgment in these kind of cases.
  I think this is an unwarranted limitation on States rights. I object 
very strenuously to the gentleman's amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I 
include for the Record information detailing examples of horrible 
prison conditions:
     Examples of Horrible Prison Conditions Involving Women
       Women housed in the previously all-male Federal Detention 
     Center in Pleasanton, California were sexually harassed and 
     abused. They had no privacy when showering, dressing or using 
     the toilets. Prison guards harassed the women and unlocked 
     the women's cell doors at night to allow male prisoners to 
     enter their cells and abuse them. When one of the women 
     complained to a senior officer, her complaint was made known 
     to the other officers and prisoners and she was beaten, raped 
     and sodomized by three men who gained access to her cell 
     during the night. She was denied medical attention for some 
     weeks after the attack despite the serious injuries she 
     sustained. [Lucas v. White, filed 1996]
       In Georgia, women, some as young as 16 years old, were 
     forced to have sex with prison guards, maintenance workers, 
     teachers, and even a prison chaplain. The sexual abuse came 
     to light when many women prisoners became pregnant and were 
     pressured into having abortions. More than 200 women 
     testified by affidavit that they had been coerced into having 
     sex or that they know other prisoners who had. [Cason v. 
     Seckinger, consent decree, 1994]
       In Washington, DC, the court found that correctional 
     officers and other prison employees routinely sexually 
     assaulted, touched, and harassed the women in their care. On 
     one occasion, a correctional officer sexually assaulted an 
     inmate while she was a patient in the infirmary. He fondled 
     her, tried to force her to perform oral sex and then raped 
     her. Another officer forced an inmate to perform oral sex on 
     him while she attempted to empty trash as part of a work 
     detail. [Women Prisoners v. District of Columbia, post trial 
     order, 1994]
       Prison staff in Louisiana engaged in sexual abuse of women 
     prisoners ranging from vulgar and obscene sexual comments to 
     forcible sexual rape. Prison staff not only participated in 
     the sexual misconduct but also allowed male prisoners to 
     enter the female prisons to engage in forcible intercourse 
     with women prisoners. [Hamilton v. Morial, consent decree, 
     1995]
       In California, women prisoners received almost no 
     pregnancy-related medical care and, as a result, some gave 
     birth to stillborn or severely deformed babies. One woman, 
     while in active labor, was transported to an outside hospital 
     seated in an upright position in shackles; her daughter 
     suffered severe trauma at birth. Another prisoner, who 
     received almost no prenatal care, gave birth on the floor of 
     the jail without medical assistance three hours after 
     informing staff that she was in labor. [Yeager v. Smith and 
     Harris v. McCarthy, consent decrees, 1989]


   Examples of Horrible Prison Conditions Involving Mentally Ill and 
                           Disabled Prisoners

       In California, a severely mentally ill prisoner was locked 
     naked, without medication, for two years in a ``quiet room,'' 
     where she rubbed feces onto her face and hair, talked 
     incoherently, and did not bathe. Another severely mentally 
     ill inmate was in segregation when she set herself on fire 
     and died. A bulimic, diabetic inmate was placed in a unit 
     with inadequate staff to monitor her condition. When two 
     officers notified a nurse that she was having seizures, the 
     nurse told them ``not to make a fuss over her.'' She died 
     later that afternoon. [Coleman v. Wilson, post-trial order, 
     1995]
       A prisoner with an IQ of 54, was subjected to both verbal 
     and physical attack by other prisoners. Correctional officers 
     dismissed his attempts to express his fears, allowing other 
     prisoners to slash his throat and repeatedly rape and assault 
     him. The California Department of Corrections offered 
     virtually no screening to identify the developmentally 
     disabled and makes little effort to protect them. [Clark v. 
     California, filed 1996]
       A Utah prisoner with a long history of mental illness, 
     including depression, self-inflicted wounds, suicide attempts 
     and hearing voices, inflicted deep razor wounds in his 
     abdomen. When he returned from the hospital to the Utah state 
     prison, the prison doctors stopped all of his psychiatric 
     medications and shackled him to a stainless board with metal 
     restraints. He remained shackled for 12 weeks (let up on 
     average about 4 times a week) and developed pressure sores. 
     When he defecated he was hosed off while remaining on the 
     board. He was stripped to his undershorts and frequently not 
     allowed a blanket. He was eventually released from the board 
     and sent to the mental hospital by judge's order and over the 
     objections of prison officials. [N.L.S. v. Austin, filed 
     1996]
       A mentally-ill prisoner at the Moscogee County Jail in 
     Georgia was observed by jailers to be barking like a dog. 
     Without consulting a doctor, they put him into solitary 
     confinement where his condition quickly deteriorated and he 
     committed suicide within hours. A recent investigation by the 
     U.S. Justice Department reported that the medical care at the 
     jail, which houses 1,000 prisoners, consisted of one doctor 
     working a total of four hours per week. The report also noted 
     that jail staff regulatory placed prisoners with serious 
     mental health problems in isolation without consulting a 
     psychiatrist. [Porter v. County of Moscogee, filed 1996]


       Examples of Horrible Prison Conditions Involving Juveniles

       A 17-year-old boy in an adult prison in Texas was raped and 
     sodomized. His request to be placed in protective custody was 
     denied. For the next several months he was repeated beaten by 
     older prisoners, forced to perform oral sex, robbed, and 
     beaten again. Each time, his requests for protection were 
     denied by the warden. He attempted suicide by hanging himself 
     in his cell after a guard had ignored the warning letter he 
     wrote. He was in a coma for four months until he died. [Case 
     to be filed this year]
       In Pennsylvania, children in a juvenile detention facility 
     were regularly beaten by staff with chains and other objects. 
     The facility was severely overcrowded and, as recently as 
     February 1995, was at 160% of capacity. [Santiago v. City of 
     Philadelphia]
       In a state-run juvenile institution outside of 
     Philadelphia, the children were routinely beaten by facility 
     staff, staff trafficking in illegal drugs was rampant, and 
     sexual relations between staff and confined youth were 
     commonplace. [D.B. v. Commonwealth, consent decree, 1993]
       In Delaware, juvenile were housed in overcrowded, dirty 
     living units with serious fire danger. Their food and 
     clothing were inadequate. The children were physically and 
     verbally abused, beaten and maced, and shackled. The medical 
     and mental health care and educational programs they received 
     were all below even minimally acceptable standards. [John A. 
     v. Castle, consent decree, 1994]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the work of the majority 
whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and I will tell my 
colleagues why. As a Floridian, as a resident of that State, we 
released 127,486 prisoners early, and the judges said we had to do it. 
It did not matter what crime they committed.
  Now, some around here would like us to think we need Holiday Inns and 
Ritz Carltons for prisoners. I can tell my colleagues what early 
release did, and they can talk to these families: A 78-year-old woman 
murdered in an orange grove by a 21-year-old convicted burglar out of 
prison on early release; a 30-year-old convicted armed burglar who 
killed a convenience store owner in Palm Beach; a teenager whose corpse 
was found in a Miami Beach bathtub last year, murdered and mutilated by 
a 30-year-old murderer and drifter out of jail on early release; or 
Fort Pierce police officer Danny Parrish, who had to die because we let 
a convicted murderer out on early release. We do not need any more 
facts or information than that.
  I feel for these families. I do not feel for the criminal. I do not 
feel for the prisoner. I do not feel for these people who have violated 
society's laws. I feel for the victims.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
each side be given an additional 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) each will control an additional 2 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Like my good friend and colleague whose district and mine abut each 
other, I too am a Floridian with extraordinary concern.

[[Page H4432]]

  I wish to address the distinguished whip in what I hope is a 
meaningful way, and that is when you use language, Mr. DeLay, that is 
so strong to allow that those who get perceptions other than those of 
us that are playing legislative gamesmanship, as rightly we should.
  Federal judges are extremely responsible people in this country, and 
to the man and woman activists or strict constructionists, if they are 
construed that way, they act in a very responsible manner. For you to 
suggest that they are complicit with predators because they have 
followed the law and made rulings having to do with prisons is just not 
fair.
  I, as a former Federal judge, feel very strongly about speaking up 
for my colleagues who still do this job. There are judges in South 
Florida who right today have under their tutelage and curtilage jails 
that are unfit in these times. Never mind about who is in them.
  What you need to understand, when you say that something is done----


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DeLAY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is the gentleman not 
supposed to speak through the Chair?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Fine.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman is correct that all Members should address their 
comments to the Chair.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) may proceed.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I understand that I am 
speaking through you on the basis of the other person that spoke 
through you.
  And what I want you to understand, Mr. Chairman, is that in Florida, 
since 1996, we have spent more money on prisons and prisoners than we 
have on the entire university system of Florida, and that is 
scandalous. For us to continue down this road of just beating up on 
people who do their jobs responsibly is irresponsible.
  What I want him to understand, Mr. Chairman, is that they do not do 
it out of thin air. We have built prisons in Palm Beach County more 
because taxpayers could not afford it. And Federal judges did that and 
I am proud of the fact that they did.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida has expired.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to strongly support the proposal 
here today of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). We have had early 
release problems for a long time. The interest of inhumanity and 
inhumane conditions in any prison should be of concern to all of us, 
but early release, releasing prisoners or not allowing more in prison, 
should not be the remedy Federal judges use to correct that problem. 
There could be tent cities, they could require the building of 
additional prisons, there are a lot of other possible remedies, but 
public safety is the question.
  Letting really terrible criminals loose, as has happened in the State 
of Florida, violent criminals, in the name of somehow trying to force 
the legislature of a State to do something is wrong, and that is a 
very, very bad situation. The remedy the gentleman from Texas has 
proposed is a reasonable step in the right direction.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to underscore that there was 
no distinction in Florida whether they were violent or nonviolent 
offenders. Everyone was treated equally.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, that is correct, Mr. Chairman. 
Everybody got out. Even violent offenders got out. It was a terrible 
situation. And, unfortunately, the courts have continued to be a 
problem in this regard, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is 
trying to do something about that problem.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It is easy to claim we know what is constitutional or not. I just 
referred to the Constitution and Article III. It is very specific. This 
Congress, when we create courts, can set their jurisdiction. And when 
the courts abuse that jurisdiction and overreach by releasing violent 
criminals, or any criminals, out on the streets because of overcrowding 
conditions, then we have every right to limit the jurisdiction of these 
Federal courts.
  I might also say to the gentleman from Michigan, in answer to his 
comments, this amendment in no way eliminates the ability for courts to 
enter into consent decrees, it does not have anything to do with 
prisoners filing claims that prison conditions are cruel and unusual.
  The gentleman, Mr. Chairman, mischaracterizes my amendment. My 
amendment is very simple. It just limits the jurisdiction of Federal 
courts and says that they cannot turn violent criminals out on the 
streets.
  I might also say, Mr. Chairman, that when Federal judges have no 
concern for the victims of crimes and turn violent criminals out, they 
should have their jurisdiction limited.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to add and submit 
the examples of horrible prison conditions involving women, examples of 
horrible prison conditions involving mentally ill and disabled 
prisoners, and examples of horrible prison conditions involving 
juveniles directly after my remarks.
  Mr. DeLAY. Reserving the right to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) reserves the right 
to object.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to object, because I think 
it is very important to submit this kind of information, but for the 
gentleman, Mr. Chairman, to submit such information . . . to think that 
my amendment has anything to do with bad prison conditions, it has 
nothing to do with bad prison conditions. It does not limit anybody's 
right to claim there is bad prison conditions.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand the gentleman's words be taken down. 
The gentleman said the gentleman was trying to mislead this body.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. OBEY. I think he owes a retraction to the gentleman.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to retract the word 
``misleading.''
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) reserves the right 
to object to the request of the gentleman from Michigan.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is recognized under his 
reservation.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it, and under that reservation 
I apologize for claiming that the gentleman is misleading the House. 
What I meant to say was the gentleman is confusing the issue on my 
amendment by offering this information. My amendment has nothing, has 
nothing to do with cruel and unusual punishment or the rights of people 
to bring actions if they think that prison conditions are outrageous. 
It has nothing to do with other remedies to correct those kinds of 
conditions in prisons.
  All my amendment says is that the jurisdiction of the judges to 
release violent criminals on the streets of this country because of 
overcrowded conditions will be restricted.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on the amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) will 
be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 printed in part A of 
House Report 106-186.

[[Page H4433]]

                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Gallegly

  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Part A amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Gallegly: 
       Add at the end the following:

                        TITLE __--JUVENILE GANGS

     SEC. __1. SOLICITATION OR RECRUITMENT OF PERSONS IN CRIMINAL 
                   STREET GANG ACTIVITY.

       (a) Prohibited Acts.--Chapter 26 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 522. Recruitment of persons to participate in criminal 
       street gang activity

       ``(a) Prohibited Act.--It shall be unlawful for any person, 
     to use any facility in, or travel in, interstate or foreign 
     commerce, or cause another to do so, to recruit, solicit, 
     induce, command, or cause another person to be or remain as a 
     member of a criminal street gang, or conspire to do so, with 
     the intent that the person being recruited, solicited, 
     induced, commanded or caused to be or remain a member of such 
     gang participate in an offense described in section 521(c).
       ``(b) Penalties.--Any person who violates subsection (a) 
     shall--
       ``(1) if the person recruited, solicited, induced, 
     commanded, or caused--
       ``(A) is a minor, be imprisoned not less than 4 years and 
     not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, 
     or both; or
       ``(B) is not a minor, be imprisoned not less than 1 year 
     and not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this 
     title, or both; and
       ``(2) be liable for any costs incurred by the Federal 
     Government or by any State or local government for housing, 
     maintaining, and treating the minor until the minor attains 
     the age of 18 years.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Criminal street gang.--The term `criminal street 
     gang' has the meaning given the term in section 521.
       ``(2) Minor.--The term `minor' means a person who is 
     younger than 18 years of age.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 26 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``522. Recruitment of persons to participate in criminal street gang 
              activity.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gallegly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly).
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment targets one of the most 
central causes of violence among young persons, the proliferation of 
violent street gangs. My amendment will give law enforcement an 
important tool to fight this growing problem by attacking the lifeblood 
of gangs, the recruitment of young, impressionable members.
  The amendment would make it a Federal crime to use interstate or 
foreign commerce to recruit a person to join a criminal street gang for 
the purpose of having that person commit a serious felony. It would 
impose a prison sentence of 4 to 10 years for the recruitment of a 
minor into a criminal street gang, and for the recruitment of an adult 
to commit a serious crime, the amendment imposes a sentence of 1 to 10 
years.
  This provision was included in S. 254, the companion Senate bill 
dealing with juvenile crime by the chairman of the Senate Committee on 
the Judiciary Orrin Hatch.

                              {time}  2200

  The language was drafted jointly with Senator Feinstein and Senator 
Hatch. Senator Feinstein first included this provision in the Federal 
Gang Violence Act of 1996 after lengthy discussions with California law 
enforcement officials.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is necessary because gangs are no longer 
just a local problem involving small groups of teenagers. Instead, gang 
organizations have become national and in some cases international in 
scope.
  A nationwide survey conducted last year by the Department of Justice 
found that there was an estimated 25,000 gangs with 652,000 gang 
members operating in the United States. Many are sophisticated crime 
syndicates that regularly cross State lines to recruit new members and 
traffic drugs, weapons, and illegal aliens. They also steal, murder, 
and intimidate State and Federal witnesses.
  Despite the downturn in violent crime nationally, gangs continue to 
expand their criminal operations into new areas. Here are just a few 
examples:
  The Gangster Disciples, a Chicago-based gang, has 30,000 members, 
operates in 35 States, traffics in narcotics and weapons, and has an 
estimated income of $300,000 per day.
  The 18th Street Gang, based in Los Angeles, now deals directly with 
the Mexican and Colombian drug cartels and has expanded its operation 
to Oregon, Utah, El Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico.
  And finally, the Bloods and Crips have, according to the FBI and 
local law enforcement agencies, spread their tentacles from California 
to more than 119 cities in the West and Midwest.
  One of the ways in which these and other gangs expand is by 
recruiting children into the criminal enterprise and indoctrinating 
them into a life of crime. In addition, by having children and 
teenagers actually do the gang's dirty work, the gang's leaders, many 
of whom are adults, are able to evade conviction.
  This amendment focuses on this problem by giving the Federal law 
enforcement officials the ability to prosecute gang leaders for the 
recruitment of new members with the intent of having them commit gang 
crimes.
  I urge the Members to support this bipartisan common-sense crime 
fighting provision.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) seek time 
in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. SCOTT. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again, we have the use of new mandatory minimums with 
the crime that we have not been able to review in committee. I would 
ask the gentleman from California if he could respond to let us know 
how the street gang statute has been used so far, whether it has been 
effective in reducing crime?
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman please repeat his 
question? I am sorry, I did not hear it.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, whether or not the street gang statute has 
been effective in reducing crime?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Gallegly).
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, no.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is the problem. The 
street gang statute is replete with constitutional problems and freedom 
of association proof problems and really irrelevant, because the normal 
conspiracy theories will give persons more time than they would 
ordinarily get.
  To compound that with a 4-year mandatory minimum or a 1-year 
mandatory minimum just goes into another area. But we do not know what 
we are doing. It would have been extremely helpful if we could have had 
a hearing to determine what the implications of this amendment might 
be, one way or the other. We did not have that opportunity.
  We are trading sound bites, what sounds good, what makes common sense 
or may not make common sense. We just do not know.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Gallegly).
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  This is a problem that we have been contacted by law enforcement 
agencies, prosecutors from all across this country. The broad 
bipartisan support that has been indicated on the Senate side that this 
bill, of course, has been working its way through the system for some 
time with the leadership of Senator Diane Feinstein of California and, 
of course, also with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
Mr. Hatch, at the appeal of law enforcement officers and prosecutors 
across this Nation.
  Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it would have been nice 
to have had this explained to the committee where we might have been 
able to consider it in a deliberative fashion. We have been denied 
that.
  And so we are just guessing. It might be a good idea. It might not.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H4434]]

  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
El Paso, Texas (Mr. Reyes), the former chief of the Border Patrol.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the Gallegly 
amendment to the juvenile justice bill.
  Today, as we consider this bill, it would be wrong for us not to 
address the issue of gangs and the increasing numbers of juveniles that 
are being recruited into their ranks.
  As someone who spent 26\1/2\ years in Federal law enforcement, I can 
tell my colleagues that I have personally observed an increasing 
violence in the number of street gangs and it continues to be a growing 
problem all across this country.
  These gangs have evolved from local and regional criminal elements 
into large-scale and well-organized criminal enterprises. They are 
involved in a range of serious crimes including narcotic trafficking, 
open violence, intimidation and extortion. Their reach stretches across 
the country, and they have members in nearly every major metropolitan 
area, creating a nationwide network of violence and well-organized 
crime.
  The evolution and growth of these gangs is a result of heavy 
recruitment that takes place by gangs to attract our Nation's youth. 
Gangs have found that the juveniles are impressionable and easily led 
into a life of crime. They have also learned that they can direct these 
recruits to commit and take the fall for crimes while the gang leaders 
escape responsibility and prosecution. With their emphasis on 
recruitment of juveniles, they are a significant breeding ground for 
the rise in crime all across this country.
  I am, therefore, pleased to join the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Gallegly) and support his amendment. It provides our Federal law 
enforcement officials an important tool to prosecute these gang leaders 
who recruit juveniles to a life of crime.
  We simply cannot stand here today and credibly say that we are 
addressing juvenile crime unless we support this amendment. This 
amendment provides an effective tool in our law enforcement arsenal and 
allows our agencies to combat these gangs. I am convinced that this is 
a proper tool at the proper time for this bill.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the problems with the mandatory minimums is the 
gentleman from California mentioned common sense. It takes all common 
sense out of sentencing.
  Last year we passed legislation that provided for mandatory sentence 
for showing someone a firearm in the commission of a drug deal would 
get them more time than just shooting the person, in just cold-blooded 
shooting. Those kind of situations where we just come up with the crime 
of the day and whatever crime we come up with; we have to be serious 
about crime, and we take it out of perspective is really the problem 
with the mandatory minimum sentences.
  That is why we have a Sentencing Commission who can look at the crime 
and put it in perspective, compare it to similarly serious crimes, and 
give an appropriate sentence rather than just the crime of the day.
  I would have hoped that we could have had this in committee. We would 
have had time to consider it, assess a reasonable sentence in 
relationship to the crime, considering other similar crimes. But we do 
not have that opportunity. We are on the floor. We have good vote-
getting sounds bites. We have somebody say that we have got to be 
serious about crime and this is serious and, therefore, a 4-year 
mandatory minimum is what we have got to go along with.
  That is not the way we ought to legislate. And I would hope that we 
would in the future consider these bills in committee and also consider 
the Sentencing Commission to take the politics out of crime.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I stand to voice my support of 
the Gallegly Amendment to H.R. 1501, The Child Safety & Protection Act. 
This Amendment, specifically, targets the gang recruitment of young 
persons that occurs every day across this great country. I see the need 
for such action every day in the Seventh Congressional District of 
Illinois. I walk down Madison street and across Western street, and I 
see how gangs rob America's youth of their future by inducing them, 
threatening them, and seducing them into a life of crime. Every day, I 
see the terrible price these children eventually pay. We lock them up 
and throw away the key or they end up dead, it is time that Congress 
did something to stem gang recruitment.
  By making it a federal crime to travel in, or use the facilities of 
interstate or foreign commerce to recruit someone to be a member of a 
criminal street gang we are making a strong stand against gang 
violence. As a nation we need to take this strong action to reduce the 
numbers of youth entering street gangs. This worthy amendment 
represents a large step forward in combating gangs and crime. I stand 
with my worthy colleague from California in voicing support for this 
needed amendment and congratulate him on its passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gallegly).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 18 printed 
in part A of House Report 106-186.


                  Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Goss

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Goss:
       At the end of the bill, add the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):

     SEC. 3. DISTRICT JUDGES FOR DISTRICTS IN THE STATES OF 
                   ARIZONA, FLORIDA, AND NEVADA.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Emergency Federal Judgeship Act of 1999''.
       (b) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate--
       (1) 3 additional district judges for the district of 
     Arizona;
       (2) 4 additional district judges for the middle district of 
     Florida; and
       (3) 2 additional district judges for the district of 
     Nevada.
       (c) Tables.--In order that the table contained in section 
     133 of title 28, United States Code, will reflect the changes 
     in the total number of permanent district judgeships 
     authorized as a result of subsection (a) of this section--
       (1) the item relating to Arizona in such table is amended 
     to read as follows:

``Arizona.....................................................11'';....

       (2) the item relating to Florida in such table is amended 
     to read as follows:

``Florida:

    Northern.....................................................4 ....

    Middle......................................................15 ....

    Southern..................................................16'';....

     and
       (3) the item relating to Nevada in such table is amended to 
     read as follows:

``Nevada.......................................................6''.....

       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     the provisions of this section, including such sums as may be 
     necessary to provide appropriate space and facilities for the 
     judicial positions created by this section.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment parallels an amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the efforts of the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) 
and the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
  It is short. It is to the point. It provides for four new district 
judges for the middle district of Florida, three for Arizona, and two 
for Nevada. This exact language is already contained in the Senate 
juvenile justice bill and similar legislation overwhelmingly passed 
this House last year.
  In these communities, the need for judges has hit the emergency 
level. In

[[Page H4435]]

the middle district of Florida, for example, we have experienced a 62-
percent caseload increase since 1990, the last time we added a new 
judgeship. In fact, the active caseloads for judgeships exceeds the 
national average by as much as 100 percent. These statistics are 
important, but they do not begin to describe the human impact.
  In Ft. Myers, my hometown, a brand new Federal courthouse has an 
empty judge's chambers, absolutely empty. While there are more than 800 
active cases pending, there is no Article III judge to hear them.
  While we may disagree on the merits of further gun restrictions or 
increased penalties for juveniles, one thing is absolutely certain, 
that all of us suffer when justice cannot be delivered. Even the best 
laws are neutered if the judicial branch fails to adjudicate in a 
timely fashion.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that there are as much areas of this 
country with compelling arguments for more judges. These three States, 
however, are among the top six court districts having the highest 
weighted caseloads. In fact, the independent judicial conference 
recommended a total of 19 new judgeships for these States.
  This amendment contains nine paralleling the Senate language. This is 
a responsible, necessary step to restore swift and certain justice in 
some of the highest growing areas in the land. It is a bipartisan 
amendment in both Houses. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. McCollum).
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out the middle district of Florida 
encompasses 5 of the 10 fastest growing cities in the United States. It 
is a 400-mile district from Jacksonville to Naples. And we have had no 
new Federal judges since 1990 and during that time have had a 60-
percent increase in total filings and cases per judge, which is 
extraordinary.
  So I commend the gentleman for letting me join with him in this 
amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the distinguished 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleagues for 
yielding and applaud him on his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, of course, this issue is one of fundamental fairness. 
The basic tenet of all our judicial system is the right to a speedy 
trial. The addition of these Federal judges will allow not only 
Florida, Arizona, and Nevada, who are rapidly growing; in fact Nevada 
has one of the highest growth-rate cities in the Nation, to be able to 
compete with that and complete that speedy-trial requirement.
  The Federal average caseload is about 400 cases per judge. In Nevada, 
the caseload per active judge is about 863. These two new Federal 
judges for Nevada will allow for Nevada to compete with that 
fundamental fairness and justice.
  I urge the passage of this amendment.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I have to point out that the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Canady) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) have 
taken the lead efforts in this matter and we are grateful.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Canady).
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding; and I want to thank him for the leadership that he has 
demonstrated, along with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and 
the others who have been involved in this effort.
  We are facing a serious problem in the middle district of Florida. 
There is an unacceptable backlog of cases. The administration of 
justice is not going forward as it should in a timely fashion. This is 
something that has to be addressed, and I believe it is important for 
the House to step forward and meet its responsibility to make the 
judicial personnel available to deal with the cases that are there.
  This is an urgent matter. And if we are serious about the timely 
administration of justice in the middle district of Florida and in 
these other areas that are affected by this amendment, we will adopt 
this amendment unanimously and get on with the business of seeing that 
justice is administered.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to this amendment, but I 
ask unanimous consent to be recognized to control debate time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for 
offering this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Goss amendment to 
provide additional judgeships for Florida, Arizona, and Nevada, clearly 
the three neediest States in the country.
  As the representative of southern Nevada, I stand before you today to 
demonstrate how great our need is for more judges. Nevada is ranked 
second out of 94 in the Nation for caseload per judge and first in the 
Ninth Circuit. Nevada is third in the Nation for growth of civil cases 
per judge and eighth for felony cases.
  In 1998 a total of 863 cases were filed in Nevada, almost double the 
national average of 467 cases. Nevada is fifth in the country for 
pending cases. If a constituent in my district files a lawsuit today, 
that case will not be heard until January of the year 2002. Other 
citizens across the United States have only to wait 9 months for 
justice.
  The reason for this delay in Nevada is that we do not have enough 
judges for this extraordinary caseload. And justice delayed is justice 
denied.
  The Goss amendment would give much needed relief to our overworked 
system. The two judgeships provided for Nevada would be the first 
additions to our judicial circuits since 1984. While Nevada has not 
seen an increase in the number of judges in its Federal courts in 15 
years, Nevada's population has almost tripled.

                              {time}  2015

  It is imperative that our judicial system is expanded to handle this 
explosive growth. With 5000 new residents pouring into southern Nevada 
every single month with no end in sight, this crisis in our judicial 
system will only get worse if we do not address it today. Because of 
the dynamic commercial development in southern Nevada we have some of 
the most complex and difficult cases in the Nation. Southern Nevada is 
truly a microcosm of our Nation's judicial system. Whatever can be 
found in the United States will be found in my district tenfold.
  As an attorney I can tell my colleagues that our judges handle 
complex antitrust cases, intricate security litigation and a wide array 
of employment discrimination cases and civil rights cases. They also 
hear an unusually high number of fraud and criminal cases. We need 
these additional judgeships.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an emergency amendment to handle an emergency 
situation. If Members review the facts, they will see that there are 
solid reasons why Florida, Arizona and Nevada are distinguished from 
the other jurisdictions. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to provide this relief. Let us pass the Goss amendment and ensure 
that our judicial courts can continue operating with the goal of 
protecting all of our citizens.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 19 printed 
in Part A of House Report 106-186.


               Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
  Part A amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 4, line 23, strike ``To'' and insert the following 
     ``Except as provided in section 1803(f), to''.

         Page 13, after line 19, insert the following:

       ``(f) Special Rules.--

[[Page H4436]]

       ``(1) In general.--The funds available under this part for 
     a State shall be reduced by 25 percent and redistributed 
     under paragraph (2) unless the State has in effect throughout 
     the State a law which suspends the driver's license of a 
     juvenile until 21 years of age if such juvenile illegally 
     possess a firearm or uses a firearm in the commission of a 
     crime or an act of juvenile delinquency.
       ``(2) Redistribution.--Any funds available for 
     redistribution shall be redistributed to participating States 
     that have in effect a law referred to in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Compliance.--The Attorney General shall issue 
     regulations to ensure compliance with the requirements of 
     paragraph (1).''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).


 Modification Offered By Mr. Traficant to Amendment No. 19 Offered By 
                             Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be modified by the modification I have submitted to the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Modification to Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Traficant: In the 
     text of the matter proposed to be inserted, strike ``25 
     percent'' and insert in lieu thereof ``10 percent''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio that the amendment be modified?
  Mr. CONYERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, could I 
inquire of the author of the amendment what is the purpose or what is 
this reduction about?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, relatively we do not want to really 
penalize States and make it overly burdensome to enact this 
legislation, but we want to, in fact, try and encourage the States to 
move towards this prevention modality that I am offering.
  Mr. CONYERS. So, it is from 25 percent to 10 percent of what?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Of the justice funds be made available to the State 
under the act.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As my colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, I am a former sheriff, and I 
think this bill is lacking in one major area, and that is prevention. 
The only acceptable crime to me was the crime that was never committed, 
an old axiom, an ounce of prevention is worth a full pound of cure. The 
Traficant amendment simply says there be a 10 percent reduction in 
funds under this bill for any State that does not enact the following 
law:
  Any juvenile that commits an offense involved with a gun or firearm 
and convicted, in addition to any other penalties that are placed 
before under the State, they would also have their driving privileges 
revoked to age 21.
  It is a very simple little preventive measure. Kids love to drive 
cars, and many of them make mistakes they wish they had back 30 seconds 
of their life, and I could see a new attitude and mentality in saying, 
``Look, Bob, I dig you, but I don't want to hear about it with that 
gun,'' and for the first time we begin to modify some behavior.
  I think it is very important for Congress to look at prevention 
elements, to try and reduce the potential of crime. Not every kid in 
jail for a crime is as bad as he is purported to be, for sure, and 
there is some kids and some parents we have to tell it is their kids 
that other kids should stay away from for sure.
  I think it is a very good amendment, I think mandatory minimums and 
all of the heavy penalties we put are not going to make much of a 
difference, and I am not going to say this is going to affect every kid 
and have a great reduction in crime, but I think it will become the 
universal applied law through the States where most of the crime is 
committed; the word will get out and say, ``Look, man, I don't want to 
lose my driving privileges,'' and I think it will have some beneficial 
effect, enough of a beneficial effect that I think it would be good for 
the country.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise to support the amendment 
with the gentleman from Ohio. Having had the accommodation that he 
granted a moment ago in the modification, I think the gentleman has 
been gracious about that. In principle I have agreed with him all 
along, that the idea of a child, a youngster, losing their driving 
privileges is an extraordinary incentive. That is probably the best 
disciplinary tool we have got for a teenager, and I think that it does 
work.
  The only question I ever had was the attachment as a condition that 
perhaps in some larger States in the Nation, cost the money in this 
bill if their legislatures did not go along, which they might well not, 
and the money, being money in this base bill that goes to improvement 
of the juvenile justice systems and the States for more juvenile 
judges, probation officers and so forth, that is extraordinarily 
important.
  The only restriction in the bill other than this one that exists is 
the one on requiring States to demonstrate graduated sanctions 
punishing the first time offender, which is not happening right now, 
and we are worried about putting consequences, and, as the gentleman 
knows, and accountability into the law now making sure that from the 
very first early delinquent act a child receives some kind of sanction.
  So I understand the gentleman has been sympathetic to my concerns, I 
am sympathetic to his, and with the reduction of the amount of loss of 
money for failing to do this to a State down to 10 percent as the 
condition, I support the gentleman's amendment, and I appreciate his 
accommodation.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. In closing I would just like to add 
the following:
  We should be about trying to prevent crime. This message does that. 
As a former sheriff, I know that most of the deal, most of the debate 
we have about crime, is really in the State province, and I think this 
is one way to deal with the volumes of cases that are affected by State 
law.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) seek to 
control the time in opposition?
  Mr. SCOTT. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this seems like a reasonable bill to add loss of 
driver's licenses to the myriad of different options available to a 
judge. However, we have had no hearing on this provision, and so we do 
not know what it might do.
  I would also add that we are telling the States to change their laws 
to accommodate this particular provision. It is another mandatory 
sentence, and one of the things we heard from judges and advocates and 
researchers was that the punishment should be individualized to the 
particular juvenile. This does not individualize the punishment. It 
gives a one size fits all. There may be some young people for whom the 
loss of license may not be appropriate, a young person who may need the 
license to continue employment, for example. There may be other 
punishments that may be more appropriate for that individual, and for 
that reason, Mr. Chairman, I think this needs some more work. It should 
be considered by committee and should be opposed at this time.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for the 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, it would be up to the States, and, as 
they have done in some DUI cases with juveniles, they could grant 
exceptions for young people who have to use their car for work.
  The bottom line, that is up to the States. It would simply reduce the

[[Page H4437]]

funds if they did not enact the law that would cause them to lose and 
revoke their driving privileges.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Congress for an aye vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 printed 
in part A of House Report 106-186.


                 Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Meehan

  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Meehan:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. __. YOUTH CRIME GUN INTERDICTION INITIATIVE (YCGII).

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     expand--
       (1) to 75 the number of city and county law enforcement 
     agencies that through the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction 
     Initiative (referred to in this section as YCGII) submit 
     identifying information relating to all firearms recovered 
     during law enforcement investigations, including from 
     individuals under 25, to the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     identify the types and origins of such firearms; and
       (2) the resources devoted to law enforcement investigations 
     of illegal youth possessors and users and of illegal firearms 
     traffickers identified through YCGII, including through the 
     hiring of additional agents, inspectors, intelligence 
     analysts, and support personnel.
       (b) Selection of Participants.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury, in consultation with Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement officials, shall select cities and counties for 
     participation in the program under this section.
       (c) Establishment of System.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall establish a system through which State and local law 
     enforcement agencies, through online computer technology, can 
     promptly provide firearms-related information to the 
     Secretary of the Treasury and access information derived 
     through YCGII as soon as such capability is available. Not 
     later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Chairman and ranking Member 
     of the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, a report explaining the 
     capacity to provide such online access and the future 
     technical and, if necessary, legal changes required to make 
     such capability available, including cost estimates.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, and annually thereafter, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to the Chairman and 
     ranking Member of the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate a report regarding 
     the types and sources of firearms recovered from individuals, 
     including those under the age of 25; regional, State, and 
     national firearms trafficking trends; and the number of 
     investigations and arrests resulting from YCGII.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of the Treasury to carry 
     out this section $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2001 through 2004.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment expands the youth crime gun interdiction 
initiative to 75 cities and county law enforcement agencies throughout 
the country. The ATF's youth crime gun interdiction initiative is a 
cutting edge strategy to disrupt the illegal supply of guns to 
juveniles.
  Following the example of the fantastic successes of the Boston gun 
project led by Professor David Kennedy, local law enforcement officials 
in 27 cities are employing ATF's expertise and resources to trace 
firearms used in crimes. This number of participating cities is 
currently slated to grow to 37 cities and counties by the end of Fiscal 
Year 2000.
  Now the Boston gun project, also known as operation cease-fire, is 
aimed at preventing youth homicide. It combines Federal efforts with 
those State and local law enforcement authorities to crack down on the 
illegal guns supplied, those officials who identify sources and 
patterns of illegal firearm trafficking and develop law enforcement 
strategies to reduce the flow of weapons to the youngest members of our 
society. Once we know how the kids are getting the guns, and from whom 
they are getting the guns, and where those guns are coming from, we 
will be far more likely to be able to prevent the kids from getting 
guns in the first place.
  For example, through gun tracing the Boston Police Department 
discovered that the guns being used by gang members in one particular 
neighborhood were purchased by one individual in Mississippi and then 
transported to Boston. Now after that individual was arrested, 
shootings in that neighborhood declined dramatically. The connection 
between guns and juvenile crime is well known. Virtually all of the 
striking rise and the homicide rate between 1987 and 1994 was 
associated with guns.
  Now the Senate included an expansion of the youth gun control 
interdiction initiative in their version of the juvenile justifies 
legislation. In fact, the other body passed this legislation and 
expands the programs to 250 cities or counties by October 1, the year 
2003. As time goes on and this program continues to demonstrate 
success, we can add cities to the list. My amendment is not gun control 
legislation, but rather it is a proven effective crime control. It 
simply keeps illegal guns out of the hands of those kids who use them 
to commit crimes and seeks out and punishes those who provide guns to 
kids.
  I was disappointed that this program was not included in the 
gentleman from Illinois' juvenile justice bill, especially in light of 
the fact that it has proven so successful. Trafficking of guns drives 
the worst kind of violent crime. We can address this problem with the 
youth gun interdiction initiative that has already started to do just 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, keeping guns out of the hands of children is not a new 
debate. Over 30 years ago Robert Kennedy spoke about the dangers of 
kids and guns in words that have proven unfortunately timeless. We have 
a responsibility to the victims of crime and violence, Robert Kennedy 
said. It is a responsibility to think not only of our own convenience 
but of the tragedy of sudden death. It is a responsibility to put away 
childish things to make the possession and use of firearms a matter 
undertaken only by serious people who will use them with the restraint 
and maturity that their dangerous nature deserves and demands.

                              {time}  2030

  Let us end kids' access to guns once and for all.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek to control time in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment?
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest that what the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary is 
doing, is extremely important, because rather than trying to determine 
penalties and negative means of controlling dangerous weapons, we are 
going to the root of the problem. Many of these young people get guns 
from sources that are not entirely clear to us, and this gun control 
initiative is going to surely be helpful. I want to congratulate the 
gentleman on this, because the Senate has already moved and they are 
waiting for us.
  So I am happy to add the support of the Democrats on the committee 
for this important measure.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the ranking member, and I would say that there are success 
stories in cities across the country; in Boston, I mentioned, and in my 
hometown of Lowell, Massachusetts where the police department is 
initiating similar goals and objectives. I thank the gentleman for his 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page H4438]]

          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House resolution 209, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order:
  Amendment No. 10 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham);
  Amendment No. 16 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


               Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Cunningham

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is a demand for a recorded vote on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 401, 
noes 27, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No 214]

                               AYES--401

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--27

     Campbell
     Clay
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Engel
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Lee
     McDermott
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mink
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rush
     Sanford
     Scott
     Shadegg
     Waters
     Watt (NC)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (CA)
     Ewing
     Houghton
     Kasich
     Thomas
     Weiner

                              {time}  2055

  Mr. HILLIARD, Mr. PAUL, Mrs. CLAYTON, and Mr. CONYERS changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DELAHUNT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated For:
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 214, I was unavoidably 
delayed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 209, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 
5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device 
will be taken on the additional amendment on which the Chair has 
postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. DeLay

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 296, 
noes 133, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 215]

                               AYES--296

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)

[[Page H4439]]


     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--133

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brown (CA)
     Houghton
     Kasich
     Thomas
     Weiner

                              {time}  2103

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, can the Chair inform us of the schedule at 
the present moment for the balance of the evening as to whether there 
will be further votes?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has no information on the schedule.
  Mr. CONYERS. Could leadership give us a clue?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we are going 
to roll votes through the DeMint amendment in the order that we are and 
probably take any votes that have been ordered then. I do not know if 
the intent is to go further than that but I do not believe Members 
generally will be required to stay for votes after that. I am not quite 
sure how long that will take.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the subcommittee chair. It is our hope on this 
side that we will roll all the votes for the balance of the evening, if 
it pleases the leadership.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 printed 
in part A of House Report 106-186.


                Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Stearns

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Stearns:
       At the end of the bill insert the following:

     SEC. __. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) more than 40,000 laws regulating the sale, possession, 
     and use of firearms currently exist at the Federal, State, 
     and local level;
       (2) there have been an extremely low number of prosecutions 
     for Federal firearms violations;
       (3) programs such a Project Exile have succeeded in 
     dramatically decreasing homicide and gun-related crimes; and
       (4) enhanced punishment and aggressive prosecution for 
     crimes committed with firearms, or possessing a firearm 
     during commission of a crime, are common sense solutions to 
     deter gun violence.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislation we are discussing today and tomorrow 
will be a major factor in demonstrating how this Congress addresses the 
concerns of our Nation. My amendment inserts a set of congressional 
findings into H.R. 1501 regarding enforcement of Federal firearms laws.
  Mr. Chairman, both the House and the Senate have heard hours of 
testimony regarding this current epidemic of youth violence, with both 
bodies examining the role that guns have played in the issue. One of 
the most striking facts to emerge from these hearings is a very small 
number of prosecutions for Federal firearm violations.
  Now, all of us in this Chamber remember the Brady Act which passed in 
the 103rd Congress. It was a law designed to prevent criminals or other 
ineligible individuals from obtaining firearms through waiting periods 
and background checks.
  President Clinton announced earlier today that since passage of the 
Brady bill over 400,000 sales to individuals prohibited from owning a 
firearm were prevented. Two-thirds of those were prior felons.
  Under current law, it is illegal to submit false information in 
attempting to purchase a firearm. However, Mr. Chairman, not even a 
tenth of those attempts were prosecuted.
  Let me just give a few statistics from the Executive Office of the 
U.S. Attorney on Firearms from 1996 to 1998. Out of all violations in 
the first phase of the Brady Act, only one person was prosecuted for 
unspecified violations under the Brady Act. Less than 100 were 
prosecuted since the beginning of the second phase; the instant check 
phase, there has not been a single prosecution.
  Now, let us compare the Brady Act to another program, one that was 
not initiated by Federal mandate and not initiated by this Congress, 
Project Exile out of Richmond, Virginia.
  This was initiated by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Richmond, 
Virginia. Specifically, the program increased the number of 
prosecutions for felony possession of firearms when an individual was 
apprehended in possession of a gun.
  When an individual was apprehended in possession of a gun, he was 
exiled to prison for a minimum of 5 years. Law enforcement officers 
carried a laminated card specifying the types of criminals targeted 
under the program: Felons, drug users and fugitives. If a suspect was 
caught with a firearm, and it was determined that any Federal law had 
been broken, prosecution began immediately.
  In 1997, Richmond had one of the highest homicide rates in the 
Nation. Within one year, under Project Exile, Richmond's homicide rate 
was reduced by one-third. Furthermore, at the end of 1998, 309 Federal 
criminal gun law

[[Page H4440]]

violations were prosecuted. These were prosecutions in one city, in one 
county.
  The Brady Act is nationwide and cannot even begin to compete with 
this program, Mr. Chairman.
  The administration in testimony before the House Committee on the 
Judiciary stated that the number of prosecutions are not a good measure 
of the law's effectiveness. In fact, Attorney General Reno, in her May 
5 appearance before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, stated, ``I 
cannot promise improvement in the numbers of prosecutions.''
  Prosecution is a key to the law's effectiveness. The Brady Act may 
have prevented 400,000 illegal purchases but knowing that two-thirds 
were prior felons, how many of those then obtained guns illegally? If 
they were prosecuted for attempting to purchase a firearm as the law 
requires, we would not have to ask that question.
  Mr. Chairman, my enforcement amendment simply states that this body 
recognizes that our country has over 40,000 firearm laws at all levels 
of government, and there has been less than adequate prosecution of 
these 40,000 laws. It acknowledges the success of Project Exile through 
vigorous enforcement and prosecution of current laws.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, my amendment states that enhancement and 
aggressive prosecution of gun crimes is the best deterrent to gun 
violence. Enforcement and prosecution is the key to curbing gun 
violence and protecting our children, and I urge the adoption of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) admits that 
the Brady Act is working. He cites 400,000 criminals and others who 
could not get guns, but he says that those 400,000 prohibited persons 
should have been tried or prosecuted for false statements.
  I would say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), this shows 
that he does not understand Brady's purposes. It is preventive. If 
400,000 ex-cons are stopped from getting semiautomatic and other 
illegal weapons, the law worked. Prosecutions were never the purpose of 
the Brady Act.
  First, the amendment notes that with thousands of current Federal and 
State and local firearms laws in existence, there have been very few 
prosecutions under those laws.
  This finding is simply inaccurate. 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. It 
is a rise from 20,681 to 25,186. This argument also does not 
acknowledge that the violent crime rates in America have dropped 
significantly since 1992. The Nation's overall violent crime rate has 
dropped by nearly 20 percent since 1992.

                              {time}  2130

  The collaboration between Federal, State and local authorities and 
community leaders has led to more significant decreases in specific 
areas. The drops in the violent crime rate extends specifically to 
crimes involving guns as well.
  Between 1992 and 1997, violent crimes committed with guns, including 
homicides, robberies, and aggravated assaults fell by an average of 27 
percent. Overall, these statistics show that the government is pursuing 
actively any violations of the current firearm laws.
  The argument that the decrease in the number of Federal prosecutions 
indicates otherwise ignores the cooperation between the several levels 
of government and members of the community to maximize prosecutorial 
resources.
  Second, the amendment notes that programs such as Project Exile, 
which shifts prosecution of gun offenses from State court to Federal 
court, have reduced homicide rates. While Project Exile has reduced 
homicide rates, it is not without its share of criticisms.
  First, it greatly expands the number of criminal cases handled in the 
Federal court, which prevents the court from adequately handling other 
cases that are the proper domain of the court such as civil rights case 
and multistate civil cases. Further, by requiring the U.S. Attorney to 
charge the most serious offense possible, it takes away prosecutorial 
discretion.
  Finally, encouraging Federal prosecutors to prosecute State court 
offenses is another example of the Federal Government encroaching on 
the domain of the States.
  When I got elected to Congress, Mr. Chairman, I committed to my 
colleagues, members of the National District Attorneys Association, 
that if I had an opportunity to stand on the floor of the House to 
oppose any legislation that will require Federal prosecutors to do our 
job, I would do that. I stand here today in opposition to this 
amendment and many of the other amendments that have come to this floor 
to take away the discretion of State prosecutors.
  State prosecutors are elected and well endowed with the ability to 
handle many of the offenses that we are considering here on this floor 
today. So I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Further, Mr. Chairman, I would say, drying up the supply of firearms 
and building on the success of Brady is what we intend to do. Since 
1993, when Brady became law, it meant more than 250,000 felons, 
fugitives, and other prohibitive purchasers have been denied access to 
firearms.
  Let us talk about the purpose of Brady. It was preventive. It meant 
we do not even let them get to have a gun in order to commit an 
offense. By considering the amendment that is on the floor today, Mr. 
Chairman, we deny the importance of Brady and make a suggestion, just 
by assuming the facts of the amendment of the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Stearns), that that is going to do something to curb the gun 
problem in our country.
  To make statements is not going to curb the problem. The way we curb 
gun problems in our country is gun control, gun safety, and gun trigger 
locks.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think, while I have my other speaker speak, I would 
like the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) to read the Federal 
Criminal Code. It is a Federal crime to even attempt to buy a firearm. 
Perhaps she would like to read 922. I do not think she quite 
understands the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Commerce.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Let me say this, I commend the gentleman for his amendment. Project 
Exile has worked in Richmond. It has the support of the Richmond City 
Council, the Richmond City Police Department. It has been responsible 
for reducing homicides in the city by a substantial amount.
  Let me read, though, it has been recognized that most violent crime 
is committed by just a few repeat offenders, the U.S. Attorney for the 
Eastern District of Virginia, whose office initiated Project Exile, 
says, and I quote, ``Officials were shocked at the extent of Project 
Exile. Suspects criminals records: Several have been four, five and 
eight convictions of offenses as serious as robbery, abduction, and 
murder. Let me say, this has been a project that has worked, and I hope 
that more cities and communities around the country will adopt it.''
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Ohio for yielding me this time, and I thank her for her very pointed 
and very responsive comments to the gentleman's amendment.
  I think it is all right to recite as findings that we all can do a 
better job at law enforcement. But I think it is important to be clear 
on just what has happened over the last 5 years. Gun laws are enforced 
more vigorously today than 5 years ago by nearly any measure. 
Prosecutions are more frequent than ever before. Sentences are longer, 
and the number of inmates in prison on gun offenses is at a record 
level. The number of inmates in Federal prison on firearm or arson 
charges

[[Page H4441]]

increased 51 percent from 1993 to 1998 to 8,979.
  I think it is certainly commendable of the Committee on Rules to have 
allowed just about every amendment that Republicans offered to get in, 
some good, some not. But it certainly does not speak to what we are 
trying to do here, to be responsible.
  I think my colleague made it very clear that the Brady bill is 
preventive. It is to get guns out of the hands of felons and criminals 
so that they do not commit crimes.
  I have a letter from the City of Houston, Houston Fire Department EMS 
that indicates that passing laws in and of themselves are preventive.
  I hope we will be able to pass, for example, closing the gun show 
loophole. Those provide chilling effects, as the Brady bill did, to 
prevent people from even going, when I say people, prevent those 
individuals who have criminal interests from even going into a gun 
show. I hope the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) will join us in 
passing that.
  The city of Houston EMS director wrote and said the gun safety 
legislation we passed in 1992 saw a sizable decrease in intentional 
shootings by children just by the passing of the law.
  So I would take issue with the fact that we have a problem with 
enforcement. But I would also ask my colleague if he would join me in 
supporting increasing the ATF, as I had offered in the Committee on 
Rules, by some thousand officers to increase it to 2,800.
  All of these things I think contribute to a better response to gun 
violence. But certainly I am not talking about the fact that we have 
not been enforcing the law.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just would remind the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee), who serves on the Committee on the Judiciary, that the 
Brady bill was not passed just to persuade people not to get firearms. 
It was put in place to actually enforce people who were felons. As I 
pointed out earlier to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), in the 
Federal Criminal Code, on Rule 922, unlawful acts, it is unlawful to 
attempt to buy a firearm if one is a felon.
  We have had plenty of data to show that occurred, and it was not 
prosecuted. So if that side of the aisle wants to make the case and 
excuses that they do not want to prosecute, that is their case.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Shadegg).
  (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
gentleman's amendment, and I want to make it clear what it does and 
what it does not do.
  Project Exile is a very simple project initiated by the U.S. Attorney 
in Richmond, Virginia, and it is straightforward. It simply says we 
will have zero tolerance for two things: crimes committed with guns and 
possessing a gun when one commits a crime.
  The U.S. Attorney in Richmond, Virginia said, ``You know what? We 
have got lots of criminals committing crimes with guns and lots of 
criminals, indeed many of them previously convicted felons, who cannot 
possess a gun, committing crimes while they possess a gun; and we are 
going to adopt a policy that says we will tolerate that not one iota, 
zero tolerance for crimes committed with guns and for possessing a gun 
while committing a crime.''
  So they decided to aggressively prosecute those two crimes. What was 
the net effect? Three hundred ninety defendants have been prosecuted in 
Federal court. But that is the shocking result. The shocking result is 
that the crime, the homicide rate in the city of Richmond, Virginia was 
cut by one-third.
  Let us talk about what this amendment says. The amendment says 
straightforward, findings about what has happened, and says ``enhanced 
punishment and aggressive prosecution for crimes committed with 
firearms, or possessing a firearm during the commission of a crime, are 
common-sense solutions to deter gun violence.''
  Who can argue with that? We need to prosecute those crimes as 
aggressively as possible and should hope we can achieve the results 
that Richmond, Virginia has achieved.
  I urge Members to support the amendment.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, so that the other side of the aisle is not confused, no 
one on this side of the aisle is not encouraging prosecution. The 
statement that has in fact been made is that the Brady bill's intention 
was to take guns out of the hands of criminals.
  Now, it is important that since my colleagues think it is important 
to set forth findings in the record in this juvenile crime bill with 
regard to the Richmond case, why not set forth some findings that, in 
fact, if we had a trigger lock on the gun, people would not be able to 
kill other people so quickly? Why not set forth a finding that, if, in 
fact, we had a waiting period on the purchase of a gun, people might 
not have opportunity to shoot people so quickly?
  My colleagues talk about common-sense solutions. The common-sense 
solutions, as I said, Mr. Chairman, would, in fact, set forth the 
finding that, if, in fact, this Congress would find that gun control 
and gun safety were important, we would have less homicides and less 
killings in this country.
  So when we talk about common-sense solutions, let us get some common 
sense in the House and pass gun control right here, right now, today.
  But let us go back to findings as we call common-sense solutions. In 
fact, prosecutors throughout this country, both Federal and State 
prosecutors, have done a great job at prosecuting all types of 
offenses. Crime in this country is down as a result of the prosecution 
by numerous prosecutors throughout this country. Homicide rates are 
down as a result of numerous prosecutions by prosecutors, both State 
and Federal.
  Mr. Chairman let me state to my colleagues that I rise in opposition 
to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the time.
  I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), Mr. Chairman, 
although I do wish with parliamentary decorum she would address her 
remarks through the Chair.
  As former President Reagan said, facts are stubborn things. The fact 
is, Mr. Chairman, 300,000 convicted felons have not been prosecuted 
under the Brady law.
  Project Exile and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Stearns) is a common-sense solution to say that criminals who 
commit crimes with firearms and with firearms in their possession will 
go to jail.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. The 
fact is that, if one is a felon and one goes to buy a gun anywhere or 
possess one, one has committed a crime and one ought to be prosecuted.
  Under the Bush administration, under what they call Operation Trigger 
Lock, that was happening all over the country so that we could take 
felons who committed the crime of having a gun on their person after 
they have been convicted previously off the streets. This 
administration has been unwilling to do that.
  Sure we have State prosecutions that may be up on gun crimes, but we 
sure as heck do not have Federal prosecutions. The gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns) has a very good amendment to point that fact out.
  We should be prosecuting these folks. We should be locking them up. 
Notwithstanding that Brady may have other purposes as well that are 
good, this is a very important one, and it should be done.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to, for the record, make it clear that I 
have addressed all of my remarks to the Chairman and will continue to 
do so because I understand decorum on the floor as well.

[[Page H4442]]

  Let me suggest that, under the Bush administration, we did not have 
the Brady bill. So, surely, they had to do trigger lock.
  Under the Clinton administration, we have had in fact had the Brady 
bill, and trigger lock is still operating throughout many of the 
jurisdictions throughout this United States.
  It is important again, I say, that if in fact we are making findings, 
let us make findings that, without guns, people cannot kill. Without 
the NRA pushing so many of my colleagues on the floor to vote against 
gun controls, we would not have guns in our streets.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) has 45 seconds 
remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) has 1 minute 
remaining.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I have the opportunity to close, as I 
understand.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I am raising the question of his right to close 
with the entire time, Mr. Chairman.
  We are defending the committee position, so I am raising the 
parliamentary inquiry as to why he has the opportunity to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that the gentlewoman is not a 
member of the committee. It is only a member of the committee 
controlling time in opposition to the amendment who has the right to 
close.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 
the balance of my time to a member of the committee and that that 
individual be allowed to control the time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) has 45 seconds remaining, and 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) has 1 minute remaining and 
reserves the right to close.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  I find it interesting that during the course of this debate we are 
talking about enforcement, and yet earlier, when I asked the chair of 
the subcommittee whether he had authorized $8 million to fund the 
additional or designated assistance, the answer was ``No, we will do it 
someplace else.''
  I just want to close by saying just imagine if we are reluctant to do 
that what the cost would be to prosecute 10 percent of 400,000 cases. 
This is absurd. These cases are prosecuted, as the gentlewoman has 
indicated, at the State level. Crime is down. Homicides are down. Why? 
Because of the Brady bill.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and 
would respond to my good friend from Massachusetts, who was not here 
earlier, that my colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) 
did offer an amendment to provide $50 million additional money for 
prosecution.
  At any rate, let me close, Mr. Chairman, by saying if the general 
public understood the truth about crime and guns, there would be 
virtually no support for the gun control measures that are continually 
posed here in Congress. Crime and criminals are what the public is 
really concerned about. And the uncomplicated truth is that under 
existing Federal laws any violent felons or drug dealers who pick up 
any firearms are committing serious Federal crimes, crimes punishable 
by long prison terms.
  The law can work, but only, I say to my colleagues on that side, if 
it is enforced. It has been, with great success, enforced in Richmond, 
Virginia, under a program we talked about earlier, Project Exile. 
Project Exile adopts a zero tolerance for Federal gun crimes with 
Federal, State and local law enforcement.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 printed in part A of 
House Report 106-186.


                 Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Latham

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Latham:
       Add at the end the following new title:

                    TITLE __--DRUG DEALER LIABILITY

     SEC. __. FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DRUG DEALER LIABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Part E of the Controlled Substances Act is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 521. FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DRUG DEALER 
                   LIABILITY.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     any person who manufactures or distributes a controlled 
     substance in a felony violation of this title or title III 
     shall be liable in a civil action to any party harmed, 
     directly or indirectly, by the use of that controlled 
     substance.
       ``(b) Exception.--An individual user of a controlled 
     substance may not bring or maintain an action under this 
     section unless the individual personally discloses to 
     narcotics enforcement authorities all of the information 
     known to the individual regarding all that individual's 
     sources of illegal controlled substances.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for the 
     Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 
     is amended by inserting after the time relating to section 
     520 the following new item:

``Sec. 521. Federal cause of action for drug dealer liability.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to take the opportunity to 
thank the Committee on Rules and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum) for giving me the opportunity to offer my amendment to this 
very important bill addressing juvenile crime in America.
  Unfortunately, juvenile crime is a growing trend across this Nation. 
For years, the rural States thought themselves immune from serious 
juvenile crime and drug problems that were affecting America's coasts 
and the big cities. However, this is no longer the case. In fact, 
nowhere is juvenile crime growing faster than in America's heartland. 
This, of course, is directly related to the incredible growth in drug 
use.
  According to the U.S. Department of Justice's latest statistics, 
juvenile drug arrests across the Nation have more than doubled since 
1988. My home State of Iowa is experiencing an unprecedented influx of 
methamphetamines. Just last week in Storm Lake, Iowa, with a population 
of just 8,769 people, 10 were arrested for trafficking and drugs. Four 
of those arrested were only 18 years old. Those kids are probably just 
finishing high school and pushing that poison on other students.
  Clearly, our children are the most innocent and vulnerable to those 
affected by illegal drug use. The very nature of drug abuse makes this 
an epidemic that has severe monetary costs as well, creating 
significant financial challenges for parents, law enforcement and human 
service providers. For many of the juvenile addicts, who are 
increasingly female, by the way, the only hope is extensive medical and 
psychological treatment, along with physical therapy or even special 
education. All of these potential remedies are expensive. Very, very 
expensive. In fact, the most recent figures estimate the annual cost of 
substance abuse in the United States to be nearly $100 billion.
  Juveniles, through their parents or through court-appointed 
guardians,

[[Page H4443]]

should be able to recover damages from those in the community that have 
entered and participated in the sale of the types of illegal drugs that 
have caused those injuries. The amendment I am offering today would 
provide a civil remedy for the people harmed by drugs, whether it be 
the actual user, the family of a user, or even the clinic or the 
community that provides treatment to hold drug dealers accountable for 
selling this poison that is tearing apart the very fabric of our 
society.
  There are drug pushers in all of our congressional districts who 
profit from this culture of death, pain and dependency that must be 
taken to task. Many of them elude the authorities by getting off on 
technicalities in criminal actions or through their positions as 
affluent members in the community. However, that should not make them 
immune for paying for the destruction they cause.
  This amendment would empower victims to take action, like the Utah 
housewife who sued her husband's drug dealer ``friend'' of 6 years 
under that State's drug dealer liability law. Her husband actually 
shared a vacation cabin with the dealer until after years of abuse her 
husband lost his job and ruined his family. Other States, such as 
California, Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan, Georgia, Louisiana, Indiana, 
Hawaii, South Dakota and Oklahoma, have enacted similar laws.
  The first lawsuit brought under a State drug dealer liability law was 
brought by Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services in Michigan on 
behalf of a drug addicted baby and its siblings. The suit resulted in a 
judgment of $1 million in favor of the baby. The City of Detroit joined 
in on the suit and received a judgment of more than $7 million to 
provide drug treatment for inmates in the city's jails.
  This legislation, while not as comprehensive as those State laws, 
which incorporate a broad reaching liability, does provide a simple 
tool to empower victims. In fact, this amendment is perfectly suited to 
go after the white collar drug dealers whose clientele includes their 
professional friends, who are less likely to be the subject of a 
criminal investigation.
  As we all know, parents who abuse drugs are more likely to have 
children that abuse drugs as well. It is my hope the prospect of 
substantial monetary loss, made possible by my amendment, would also 
act as a deterrent to entering the narcotics market. Dealers pushing 
their poison on our children and other family members may think again 
when they consider that they could lose everything, even without a 
criminal conviction. In addition, this amendment would establish an 
incentive for users to identify and seek payment for their own drug 
treatment from those dealers who have sold drugs to the user in the 
past.
  While this legislation is not meant to be a silver bullet, it is 
another tool to combat and deter drug abuse and trafficking. Current 
law allows for a producer of a legal product that injures a customer to 
be held liable for injuries resulting from the use of that product. 
However, most States do not provide compensation for persons who cause 
injury by intentionally distributing illegal drugs. The Latham drug 
liability amendment fills the gap to make drug dealers liable under 
civil law for the injuries to the victims of the drug.
  Finally, I hope I will be able to work with the chairman, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), and ranking member, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), on a more comprehensive 
liability measure in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Latham amendment 
and give the victims of illegal drugs an opportunity to hold the drug 
dealers of this poison accountable under criminal and civil law.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) may control the time otherwise reserved for the 
opposition.
  Is there objection?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. In its present form, Mr. Chairman, I will 
stand in opposition to the amendment and I exercise the reservation at 
this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) objects. 
Does the gentlewoman from Texas seek to control the time in opposition?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I 
think this is an excellent amendment that is being offered by the 
gentleman on the opposite side of the aisle, the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Latham). And let me tell my colleagues why.
  This amendment, as I understand it, is an amendment that would make 
drug dealers liable for the poison that they put out on the streets and 
the harm that is perpetrated on those who end up being the victims of 
these drug sales. And it does not matter who is doing it, but if they 
are found to be guilty and liable for selling these drugs, then that 
creates a cause of action.
  The reason that I am supporting this is because I have been working 
for some years trying to help unfold what happens in the intelligence 
community as it relates to trafficking and drugs and covert operations. 
What we have discovered is that the CIA, as one of the intelligence 
agencies, knew very well about the trafficking in drugs, particularly 
as it related to getting profits from the drugs that went to support 
the Contras in the war between the Contras and the Sandinistas.
  For many months now we have had people who have been working on this, 
and they have said to us that all of the damage that was caused by 
these drugs, the crack cocaine that was let loose in these communities 
in an effort to fund the Contras, is directly the fault of the CIA and 
those intelligence agencies that were involved in these covert 
operations.

                              {time}  2045

  So this gentleman is absolutely correct. They should be made liable 
for what they have done. They have admitted now that there were drug 
traffickers in their midst. They have said they were not responsible 
directly, but they have said they had a memorandum of understanding, 
which some of us question. Well, there is no longer a memorandum of 
understanding, and this amendment would take care of that.
  I am thankful to the gentleman for offering this amendment. Because 
it does not matter who it is, whether it is a drug dealer on the 
streets, in the cornfields of Iowa, or a drug dealer up in New York or 
the Midwest, wherever it is, or the intelligence community, if they are 
dealing in drugs for any reason, they should be liable for the 
devastation and the harm that is caused to the individuals who end up 
being the victims of those drug sales.
  So I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to embrace 
this amendment, to support this amendment, to vote ``aye'' on this 
amendment. It is very important that we finally have an opportunity to 
seek justice for those victims that were created as a result of 
trafficking drugs by our own intelligence community.
  We have some young people who are actively working on a lawsuit 
coming out of the San Francisco area on this very issue. This will 
support that. This will help them to be able to get all of the victims 
to come forth, some of them who will be able to comply with the 
conditions of this amendment.
  As I understand it, the conditions of this amendment would have those 
victims identify those persons who were responsible for selling the 
drugs. We have people who are claiming to be able to identify people in 
the intelligence community who were involved.
  Also, we have people who are able to identify the assets of the 
intelligence community, many of them still in this country, some of 
them have fled to Nicaragua and down in Guatemala and other places, who 
should really be extradited and brought back here for the harm that 
they caused.
  I would ask support for this amendment. I think it is a good 
amendment. I think it is a sound amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, finally, I would say to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham) that he is doing the work that is needed to be done to get at 
the drug dealers

[[Page H4444]]

who would dare dump this poison on our children and in our midst.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham) for this excellent amendment and remind our colleagues that 
Carroll O'Connor, a noted actor and TV star, lost his son to cocaine. 
He has led a fight to bring that gentleman who sold him the drugs to 
justice because he believed that man infected his son with a drug 
addiction that caused his untimely demise.
  I strongly support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same. This amendment should serve as a retribution for every individual 
whose life has been destroyed by drug use and for every family who has 
had to suffer the pain and turmoil of a loved one being addicted to 
drugs.
  The drug dealers must learn that their evil trade is more than a 
business. They must be held accountable not only by the justice system 
but by society for the tragic consequences of their business. They must 
be forced to see the faces of the mother, the father, the brother, the 
sister of the teenager who overdosed on cocaine that they sold.
  A successful drug dealer can make thousands of dollars a week 
practicing their illegal trade. In fact, they encourage young people to 
do this same type of business because they can buy all the fancy cars 
and fancy toys. And do not be misled to thinking it is only in the 
inner city where we have drug problems. It is in Palm Beach, in Beverly 
Hills. It is in the richest enclaves around America.
  Drugs have permeated our society. They are destroying our families 
and our youth. Every drug dealer who is arrested and jailed for 
possession and the sale of drugs should also be held accountable for 
the physical damage, the medical bills, the cost of drug treatments, 
for the funerals that they are responsible for.
  So I ask my colleagues to please pass this amendment. Send a message 
to drug dealers that their profitable trade should stop and, more 
importantly, if they inflict their dangerous drugs on other people, 
they will pay a high price not only in prison but the hopeful 
forfeiture of their assets so that those assets can be conveyed to the 
families who have lost loved ones.
  Again, the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) will 
hold persons who manufacture and distribute illegal, controlled 
substances liable for civil action for those harmed by the use of the 
controlled substance.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I indicated my reservation of 
objection in its present form. I would like to ask the author of the 
amendment an inquiry if I could to be clear on the position that this 
amendment now takes.
  Does the liability provision enhance existing tort opportunities, if 
you will, the fact that we can go into court on tort issues? Does this 
narrowly define them? Are these as relevant to a drug-related incident?
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would yield, what it 
does is empower the family or the community somehow to go after the 
dealer, the manufacturer of illegal drugs to recover damages for 
rehabilitation for any kind of help that they need in the future.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, does it extinguish in any way 
any tort liability or rights that they may have under existing tort 
law?
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, 
no, it would not be my understanding. No.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, then let 
me say to the gentleman, I thank him for his explanation and want to 
say to him that we want to offer our support for this amendment, 
frankly because it goes to the very problem of so many in our community 
who have seen their houses burned because, for example, they have a 
crack house next to their home and, in order to destroy the evidence, 
what happens is that the dealers destroy the property.
  Some instances we will find that people have lost their life because 
of those tragedies that have occurred, drive-by shootings because of 
drug deals, and innocent victims who are sitting in their home enjoying 
their dinner or looking at television have lost their life and have 
left these families in our inner city neighborhood and elsewhere 
without any remedy.
  If this legislation and amendment would answer these questions and 
particularly give them an enhanced opportunity to sue, then I believe 
that, alongside of the opportunities they may have under tort law, then 
this is an amendment that we can certainly support and encourage the 
passage of.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Riley).
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the drug dealer liability 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  In my view, this is a law that should have been on the books a long 
time ago. The reason is simple. In many cases, there is just not enough 
evidence to convict a dealer or a manufacturer of illegal drugs in 
criminal court.
  Worse yet, many individuals simply get off on a technicality and, as 
a result, too many peddlers of this poison slip through the cracks and 
are never punished for the harm they inflict on our children and our 
families and our society.
  When we know that these people are dealing drugs but we cannot 
convict them in criminal court, does it not make sense to provide any 
other judicial remedy possible?
  Mr. Chairman, that is the point of the Latham amendment. If we cannot 
convict them in criminal court, then we will get them in civil court 
and we will hit them where it hurts them the most, we will hit them in 
their pocketbook.
  This type of legislation has worked well at the State level, and 
there is absolutely no reason that it will not work at the Federal 
level.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment. Very few votes that we 
will make today will have as much impact on reducing drugs in our 
society and in this country this year.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire, do 
we have the right to close in defending the committee's position?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) does, and 
all time of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) has expired.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will as soon as I determine 
how much time I have remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield such time 
as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman very much 
for her support, all the people that have worked so hard on this bill, 
and the DEA, which has helped craft this bill to take out some fine 
points that really I think will be of great assistance to us in the 
future to tackle this most serious problem.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I thank the gentleman very much for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say to the Chair, it is these bipartisan 
efforts that I think shows the House in its best light.
  I would simply hope that, as we move throughout this legislative 
initiative trying to deal with juvenile crime, that we not only find an 
opportunity to have bipartisan agreement on important legislative 
initiatives, such as providing protection to those who have been 
civilly damaged by the tragedies of drug use and drug abuse, but that 
we can also be straightforward in our response to the protection, if 
you will, of necessary gun laws.
  I indicated earlier that I had received a letter from my EMS director 
who indicated just the passage of gun protection laws provides a 
chilling effect for those who may want to use guns recklessly or 
promote more guns on the streets of this Nation.

[[Page H4445]]

  And so, this legislation dealing with civil liability, Carroll 
O'Connor was cited, but I can cite many, many people in our respective 
communities who have suffered time and time again.
  I would hope that we would have the opportunity to work in a 
bipartisan way on other legislative initiatives.
  I hope as well, Mr. Chairman, and I heard my colleague the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) speak eloquently on this, that 
we would expand the reach of dealing with the liability question to 
drug kingpins and gun kingpins.
  This gun running has been a problem and it has made a terrible blight 
on all that we are trying to do to protect our children. Drug kingpins 
have been prominent in our respective communities, controlling drug 
cartels. We need to reach out and do something about them, as well.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I do want to conclude and not take away from 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) because I thank him for his 
kindness in working in a bipartisan manner, but I do believe that gun 
trafficking is something that we need to attack.
  We also need to promote and increase the numbers of ATF officers. 
Eighteen hundred compared to some 50,000 FBI officers. Eighteen hundred 
ATF officers. And the money that has been allotted so far is not enough 
to assist in making cases with our local jurisdiction.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Latham).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) will 
be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 23 printed in Part A of 
House Report 106-186.


                 Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Rogan

  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Rogan: 
       At the end of the bill, add the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):

     SEC. 3. SAFE SCHOOLS.

       (a) Amendments.--Part F of title XIV of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8921 et seq.) is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) Short title.--Section 14601(a) is amended by striking 
     ``Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994'' and inserting ``Safe Schools 
     Act of 1999''.
       (2) Requirements.--Section 14601(b)(1) is amended by 
     inserting after ``determined'' the following: ``to be in 
     possession of felonious quantities of an illegal drug, on 
     school property under the jurisdiction of, or in a vehicle 
     operated by an employee or agent of, a local educational 
     agency in that State, or''.
       (3) Definitions.--Section 14601(b)(4) is amended to read as 
     follows: ``For purposes of this part--
       ``(A) the term ``1 weapon'' means a firearm as such term is 
     defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code;
       ``(B) the term `illegal drug' means a controlled substance, 
     as defined in section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 802(6)), the possession of which is unlawful under 
     the Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or under the Controlled 
     Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.), but 
     does not mean a controlled substance used pursuant to a valid 
     prescription or as authorized by law; and
       ``(C) the term `illegal drug paraphernalia' means drug 
     paraphernalia, as defined in section 422(d) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 863(d)), except that the first 
     sentence of that section shall be applied by inserting `or 
     under the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 
     U.S.C. 951 et seq.)', before the period; and
       ``(D) the term `felonious quantities of an illegal drug' 
     means any quantity of an illegal drug--
       ``(i) possession of which quantity would, under Federal, 
     State, or local law, either constitute a felony or indicate 
     an intent to distribute; or
       ``(ii) that is possessed with an intent to distribute.''.
       (4) Report to state.--Section 14601(d)(2)(C) is amended by 
     inserting ``illegal drugs or'' before ``weapons''.
       (5) Repealer.--Section 14601 is amended by striking 
     subsection (f).
       (6) Policy regarding criminal justice system referral.--
     Section 14602(a) is amended by--
       (1) striking ``served by'' and inserting ``under the 
     jurisdiction of''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``who'' the following: ``is in 
     possession of an illegal drug, or illegal drug paraphernalia, 
     on school property under the jurisdiction of, or in a vehicle 
     operated by an employee or agent of, such agency, or who''.
       (7) Data and policy dissemination under idea.--Section 
     14603 is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``current'' before 
     ``policy'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting before ``engaging'' the following 
     ``possessing illegal drugs, or illegal drug paraphernalia, on 
     school property, or in vehicles operated by employees or 
     agents of, schools or local educational agencies, or''; and
       (B) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (3).
       (b) Compliance Date; Reporting.--(1) States shall have 2 
     years from the date of enactment of this Act to comply with 
     the requirements established in the amendments made by 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Education shall submit to Congress 
     a report on any State that is not in compliance with the 
     requirements of this part.
       (3) Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Education shall submit to Congress 
     a report analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of approaches 
     regarding the disciplining of children with disabilities.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rogan) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan).
  (Mr. ROGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as parents and as legislators, nothing is more 
important than supporting safe productive schools.
  Today our children face unprecedented threats from drugs and violence 
in our Nation's schools. It is time to enact bipartisan legislation to 
correct this horrible situation.
  The President, in his State of the Union Address, called for zero 
tolerance for guns and drugs in schools. The President is right. It is 
time for the House to signal its commitment to eliminating drugs from 
the public schools.
  I am pleased to offer this amendment, Mr. Chairman, to help us 
achieve our goal of drug-free schools. This amendment gives State and 
local school officials the weapons they need to strike a major blow in 
the war on drugs. The amendment requires that any school accepting 
Federal education funds must adopt a zero-tolerance policy regarding 
felonious possession of drugs. It applies the same standards to drugs 
as are currently applied to guns. Those who come to school to use or 
sell illegal drugs simply should not be allowed to attend.
  This amendment also addresses the next concern, which is, what next? 
Current law provides for the education of those expelled in an 
alternative facility and provide for a case-by-case appeal with a local 
school official. This amendment would continue that same policy with 
respect to drugs as we currently have on the books with respect to 
guns.
  Zero tolerance for illegal drugs can work. In a national survey by 
the Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 
they reported that more than 80 percent of those on the front lines in 
the war against drugs, teachers, principals and, yes, even students, 
believe that zero-tolerance policies are effective and will reduce 
drugs in their schools.

                              {time}  2200

  What is more, about the same percentage support adopting similar 
standards in their school. Nothing underscores this crisis and our need 
for definitive action more than the news reported by the students in 
Columbine that I just mentioned. According to their survey, more than 
three-fourths of the students said drugs were kept, used and sold in 
their schools. We owe students, parents and teachers decisive action to 
wipe out drugs in the schools. Our amendment will do for them just 
that. Zero tolerance for illegal drugs in the schools, Mr. Chairman, 
will mean just that, zero tolerance.
  Mr. Chairman, today we have an opportunity to act in a bipartisan way 
to

[[Page H4446]]

help build a safer America. I urge my colleagues to support this 
important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) seek 
recognition to control the time in opposition?
  Mr. SCOTT. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is another example of a need for deliberation. If 
we had had deliberation and had a hearing on this, we would have found 
that all of the available research shows that a suspension is the last 
thing that we would want to do.
  The gentleman from California mentioned the requirement that services 
be continued for someone that is expelled from school. That is only 
true for those who are designated as special education students under 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and of course an amendment 
to remove that provision is coming up later. In fact, the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act that was passed, is present law, provides 
that in cases of expelling a student nothing in the title shall be 
construed to prevent a State from allowing the local education agency 
that has expelled a student from such student's regular classroom from 
providing educational services in an alternative setting. They are not 
prohibited from doing it, but there is nothing that requires them to do 
it.
  Now, if we had had a hearing, we would have known that threatening a 
kid with a 1-year suspension or 1-year vacation, a kid that did not 
want to go to school anyway would not be much of a threat. We would 
have known that without an alternative education that that person would 
be much more likely to get in trouble. As a matter of fact, he has got 
nothing constructive to do, so he is much more likely to be committing 
crimes because he is on the street, nothing to do, crime and drug use.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment offers no counseling on why the child 
was using drugs, no mental health assistance, just a year on the 
street. Now we know that there is a strong correlation between crime 
and graduation and graduation rates. People who do not graduate from 
our school are much more likely to be committing crimes. With a 1-year 
suspension we make it much less likely that they will ever get out of 
school.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we have a situation where if this amendment passes 
and allows children to be kicked out of school without any services, we 
will actually be increasing the crime rate. If we are serious about 
crime, Mr. Chairman, we will defeat this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just in brief response to my friend from Virginia.
  I am somewhat nonplused by the suggestion that this bill is a bad 
idea because it will remove drug sellers from the public schools, and 
instead it would put them on the street. With all due respect, although 
I do not agree with the gentleman's suggestion that that is the only 
alternative, either in the schools or in the streets; if that, in fact, 
were the case, I would respectfully suggest that most parents with kids 
in school would rather have those people selling drugs or with guns 
removed from the school than in school to terrorize the children.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the gentleman's 
amendment. I think that if one is selling felonious quantities of drugs 
in a school or possessing felonious quantities of drugs in a school, 
they have no business being there because they are providing harm to 
the other students.
  Now I am very sympathetic to the concern that that person who is 
doing the selling in some way be diverted into some other program. I 
think there are agencies of the government that can and should handle 
that, but the reality is that if a kid is in school with this kind of 
quantity of drugs, that is a jeopardizing factor for every child of 
every parent who has a child in that school, and I think this is a very 
fine amendment, and we need to have this amendment adopted. It makes 
every bit of sense in the world if we are going to have that with 
respect to the gun issue.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. All right. What is meant by felonious 
quantities? Is it the same thing in every State? Is a felonious 
quantity in Florida the same as a felonious quantity in California?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, it is Mr. Rogan's amendment, but my 
interpretation is that would be a felonious quantity depending upon the 
State or Federal law since he has made it in the alternative. But I 
would yield back to him to let him discuss it with the gentlewoman.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I would invite the gentlewoman's attention to page 2, lines 21 
through 25 of the amendment and going into page 3. It says the term 
felonious quantity means any quantity of an illegal drug possession of 
which quantity would under Federal, State or local law quantify for 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, in 1994, when we reauthorized the 
Elementary Secondary Education Act, I was a member of the minority. A 
gentleman from suburbia in the majority at that time proposed an 
amendment that said any student bringing a weapon to school would be 
suspended for a year.
  First I asked him what he is doing in relationship to defining a 
weapon. He then said: Make it a gun. I then reminded him that he also 
offered an amendment that said one can only suspend a special ed 
student for 10 days, and because he was micromanaging State and local 
responsibility for elementary secondary education, he was also 
micromanaging it when he did the 10 days, and now he puts the school 
district in a real situation. The lad comes with a gun who is a special 
needs child along with his neighbor who is not a special needs child 
who also has a gun, and one goes out for 10 days, and one goes out for 
a year.
  Of course what does that do? That brings a lawsuit immediately to the 
school. They are discriminating against someone's child, they are 
sending someone's child out for a year.
  The point I am trying to make is that consistently I have said that 
it is the responsibility, public education is the responsibility, of 
local and State government, which is exactly what my philosophy and my 
party's philosophy has always been, and so I think we really have to be 
consistent.
  We are micromanaging State and local government responsibility. It is 
their responsibility to determine what the rules and the regulations 
should be, and as I indicated, we have gotten ourselves into real 
trouble by this micromanaging, a 10-day suspension versus a year's 
expulsion.
  Now I want to make it clear that the statute does not say that they 
must provide an alternative education under the 1994 statute. They may 
if they wish. There is nothing in the statute that says they must 
provide an alternative education. Some States require an alternative 
education on a suspension or an expulsion. Nothing in the elementary 
secondary education statute does that.
  So I think we must be awfully careful. No matter how good the idea is 
and how appealing the idea appears, we have to be consistent. 
Elementary secondary education is the responsibility primarily of the 
State and local government.
  Now colleagues can argue and say, but wait, they are taking Federal 
dollars, and they do not have to take Federal dollars. Oh, one can 
argue that for IDEA, for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 
But let me tell my colleagues, if we do not provide that education, I 
will guarantee they will have

[[Page H4447]]

a lawsuit, whether it is mandated or whether it is not mandated. So we 
cannot use that argument to cover us.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, let me start by commending the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for his consistency. It is not always 
that we see such consistency in this House, and I must say that I agree 
with him.
  Now it strikes me that it is very difficult politically to vote 
against any bill or amendment that says in the name of the war on drugs 
let us have zero tolerance, let us expel someone from school, let us 
keep our children safe. But the fact of the matter is that one can 
easily imagine situations where that might not be the most intelligent 
thing to do.
  If someone has a 13 or 14-year-old kid who has some marijuana in 
school, he should be punished. But a year's expulsion? Maybe, depending 
on the circumstances. Has it happened before? Has he had other 
delinquencies? Is this the first offense? What is the story?
  This amendment makes no distinctions. This amendment says never mind 
the wisdom or the familiarity of the local school board or local school 
authorities with the situation. Throw this kid out on the street for a 
year, let him spend this time in the company of drug dealers and 
crooks, but in any event not in school because Congress says so.
  We always hear, especially from that side of the aisle, about local 
control. This is quintessentially the time, the situation for local 
control, and what this amendment says is if a local school board of the 
City of New York or the City of San Francisco wants Federal money, it 
had better expel that kid for a year. Maybe it should, maybe it should 
not, we should not. We should not tell them.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just in response to my colleague and friend from New York. I would 
simply suggest that this amendment is limited to an individual that 
possesses a felonious quantity of drugs in school or possesses a 
quantity sufficient for distribution or sale. This amendment also 
allows local schools and school districts to maintain a case-by-case 
review. If there was some bizarre or unusual circumstance that 
warranted appropriate review, it would allow for a case-by-case review, 
and that would be done with a local school district official, and it 
would not be done from Washington.
  The question is simply this, as I see it, Mr. Chairman: Do we in 
Congress have a right when appropriating Federal funds to schools to 
expect that those particular school districts are going to maintain a 
safe environment for the children that are attending those schools, and 
I would simply submit that having children in school who are known to 
be in possession of felonious quantities of drugs, just as children who 
are known to be in possession of firearms, present a clear and present 
danger to the health and safety of every child in that school and every 
teacher in that school, and that is not an appropriate environment for 
either parents, teachers or schoolchildren.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Is the gentleman aware that under this amendment we may 
have, depending on any local ordinance, and we do not know what every 
local ordinance is in the country, a felonious amount that may be a 
very tiny amount and that may not have been enacted by that local 
community with the idea that possession of that small amount would 
result in the automatic expulsion of a student for a year?
  Mr. ROGAN. Again, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for the inquiry. I think that addresses the question that the 
gentleman raised a few moments ago, that it is up to the local 
communities and to the State legislatures to define what is or is not a 
felonious amount.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and I think after the Littleton, Colorado, we all are 
asking ourselves questions, what should we do and how should we act to 
make sure we reduce the act of crimes by our young people, and I think 
the gentleman certainly has a well intending goal of having zero 
tolerance for violence and drug dealing in the school. But to 
micromanage to achieve that is not only inconsistent with his party's 
view, but I would like to understand is the gentleman suggesting that 
the California school districts are not able to determine what they 
should do to have a zero tolerance for drugs? I mean could the 
gentleman answer that for me?
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROGAN. I am more than happy to yield to California or any other 
State to decide on a statewide level what should be the appropriate 
toleration level for possession of drugs or guns in their school.

                              {time}  2215

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I am thinking about what should be done 
to have zero tolerance is not necessarily just expulsion of kids from 
school. It could be a variety of things.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield to me so that 
I can finish answering her question.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman could do it quickly, I 
would appreciate it.
  Mr. ROGAN. I am not sure that comes with the nature of a politician, 
Mr. Chairman.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman cannot answer quickly, I 
will answer it for him.
  Indeed, it is inconsistent with your party's position, and I would 
think that California, like North Carolina, could say what they would 
want to do with a variety of issues, perhaps expulsion would be one. 
But to mandate that I think is inconsistent, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote against this well-intended, but ill-conceived amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, do we on this side have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct; the gentleman from Virginia 
has the right to close.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of my colleague, does he have 
any further speakers, or is he prepared to yield back?
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have two speakers, including myself, to 
close.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  The gentleman's amendment should be killed, because he is submitting 
this amendment about felonious quantities, but it is not in line, there 
is no reference. When he made this, the school system did not know 
about this amendment. The people who were making these laws back home 
did not know that this amendment would come up saying to them, any 
felonious quantity. Because if they had known that, this amendment, 
this particular thing would not qualify. It is going to force them to 
change everything for this one amendment.
  This amendment should not pass because of that reference.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
simply suggest to my colleague from Florida that I would be very 
surprised if there was going to be a rush within the State legislatures 
of America to increase the definition of what is a felonious quantity 
of drugs to allow drug dealers and drug users to remain in the public 
schools. I do not think that is what most school board members, I do 
not think that is what most principals and teachers are looking for.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no quarrel with the philosophical objections of 
my friends on the other side. That is something that we deal with in 
this Chamber on a regular basis. I would simply urge them to revisit 
this issue and take a look and search their hearts and make a 
determination, if they could

[[Page H4448]]

see their way clear to voting for an amendment that will take a 
positive step forward from removing dangerous drugs from the public 
schools. This is an opportunity to do it. I have submitted the 
amendment for that purpose. I ask for an aye vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, in terms of what amount we are talking 
about, if it is any amount for sale or even small amounts of something 
like crack, it could easily constitute a felony. Our community is not 
better off with students roaming around with nothing to do; no 
education and no services. These students will not disappear; they are 
going to be in the community and they are not going to be up to 
anything constructive. This amendment, if it does anything, will 
increase the likelihood that our communities will be more dangerous and 
more crime-ridden. We need to continue educational services for these 
students and kicking them out on the street will not do anything to 
reduce the crime rate.
  If we are going to be serious about crime, we need to defeat this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rogan).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 24 printed in part A of 
House report 106-186.


                Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       At the end of the bill, add the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):

     SEC. 3. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MEMORIAL SERVICES AND MEMORIALS 
                   AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress of the United States finds that 
     the saying of a prayer, the reading of a scripture, or the 
     performance of religious music, as part of a memorial service 
     that is held on the campus of a public school in order to 
     honor the memory of any person slain on that campus does not 
     violate the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, and that the design and construction of any memorial 
     which includes religious symbols, motifs, or sayings that is 
     placed on the campus of a public school in order to honor the 
     memory of any person slain on that campus does not violate 
     the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
       (b) Lawsuits.--In any lawsuit claiming that the type of 
     memorial or memorial service described in subsection (a) 
     violates the Constitution of the United States--
       (1) each party shall pay its own attorney's fee and costs, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law; and
       (2) the Attorney General is authorized to provide legal 
     assistance to the school district or other government entity 
     that is defending the legality of such memorial service.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, difficult as it is to believe, there are people and 
organizations that would attempt to prevent parents and students from 
seeking the comfort of their Creator when dealing with the horror of a 
situation like the one that we experienced in my hometown of Littleton, 
Colorado.
  The amendment I have sponsored clarifies the position of the Congress 
with regard to these issues. It declares that a fitting memorial on 
public school campuses may contain religious speech without violating 
the Constitution. It puts Congress on record with respect to the 
constitutionality of a permanent memorial or memorial service that 
contains religious speech. The amendment does not specify what kind of 
memorial that would be appropriate. That decision is for local schools 
and communities.
  It states that it is fitting and proper for a school to hold a 
memorial service when a student or teacher is killed on school grounds, 
and that it is fitting and proper to include religious references, 
songs and readings in such a service. Prayer, reading of scripture or 
the performance of religious music can be included in a memorial 
service that is held on the campus of a public school in order to honor 
the memory of any person slain on campus.
  The amendment also allows for the construction of a memorial that 
includes religious symbols or references to God on school property.
  Mr. Chairman, there are many examples in our government of proper and 
constitutional references to religion. Chaplains of the Armed Forces 
conduct memorial services, yet do not compromise the establishment of 
religion by the government. Both the House and Senate conduct opening 
prayers before each legislative day, and Arlington Cemetery has signs 
identifying it as a Sacred Shrine and Hallowed Ground.
  The amendment specifically mentions that religious songs may be sung 
at such memorials without violating the Constitution. Two Federal 
appeals courts that have taken up the issue both have ruled that school 
choirs may sing religious music. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 
held that it was constitutional for a public high school choir to have 
``The Lord Bless You and Keep You'' as a signature song.
  In the same way, erecting a memorial that contains religious 
references such as a quote from the scripture or a religious symbol 
from the deceased's religious tradition would not violate the 
Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
  This is not the equivalent of a daily school prayer. A memorial 
service is a very specific response to an unusual and regrettable 
circumstance.
  In either case, if a lawsuit is brought forth, parties are required 
to pay their own legal fees and costs, and the Attorney General is 
authorized to provide legal assistance to defenders.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) seek to 
control the time in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. NADLER. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there are three things wrong with this amendment. 
First, it is substantively wrong and it is obnoxious to the spirit and 
the letter of the first amendment of the religious freedom provision of 
the Constitution.
  The Congress of the United States finds that the saying of a prayer 
or the placing of a memorial which includes religious symbols and 
motifs on the campus of a public school to honor the memory of someone 
who was slain does not violate the first amendment.
  Well, the first problem is, it may very well violate the first 
amendment. The courts have held that organized prayer in a school or at 
a commencement or in a service at a school does violate the first 
amendment, and certainly the placing of a religious symbol which may 
offend some people, some future students, maybe even some current 
students or some future teachers. Imagine if there were a Muslim symbol 
that may be offensive to Christians or a Jewish symbol or Christian 
symbol offensive to others or some minority religion. Of course the 
minority religion would not get its symbol placed there because the 
local school board would not do that. That is the point. We do not 
discriminate and we do not make minority religions feel tolerated. They 
are equally American as anyone else, minority or majority, and that is 
why the Constitution prohibits an establishment of religion, and the 
courts have held that precisely what the sponsor of this amendment 
wants is an establishment of religion, and Congress saying it is not so 
does not make it not so. That is the first problem with this amendment.

[[Page H4449]]

  The second problem with this amendment is that the Congress cannot 
declare what the Constitution means and what violates the Constitution 
and what it does not. We have accepted since 1803 the case of Marbury 
v. Madison; everybody learns it the first week in constitutional law in 
law school or college. It is that the Supreme Court interprets the 
Constitution and says what the Constitution means and it is not the 
province of Congress. We determine what the law is. We write the law, 
but we do not find whether the law violates the Constitution.
  We should endeavor in making laws to try to not make laws that 
contravene the Constitution, but it is the job of the courts, not our 
job, to determine what does violate the Constitution.
  And thank God we have a judiciary to protect the individual rights of 
Americans. That is why we have a Bill of Rights. The judiciary 
interprets the Bill of Rights and protects the individual rights of 
even unpopular people, and it is not the business of this Congress to 
declare that something does or does not violate the Constitution and 
try to tell the Supreme Court you are wrong.
  The third problem is with the attorneys fees provision of this bill. 
This amendment says that any lawsuit claiming that this type of a 
memorial or memorial service violates the Constitution, each party 
shall pay its own attorneys fees and costs, notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, and the Attorney General is authorized to provide 
legal assistance to the school district.
  So because the author of this amendment wants this type of service, 
wants this type of religious prayer or memorial, if someone thinks it 
is unconstitutional, if someone thinks his or her or someone in that 
community thinks his or her religious community has been violated and 
he goes to court to sue the school district, the Attorney General is 
authorized to support the school district, the Attorney General thinks 
it is unconstitutional, he is not authorized by the terms of this 
amendment to oppose the school district to represent the plaintiff or 
to come in on the side of the plaintiff, and not withstanding any other 
provision of law, each party should pay its own attorneys fees. So even 
if the plaintiff, thinking that his, believing that his or her 
religious liberty and religious rights under the Constitution were 
violated, goes to court, the court agrees, it goes up on appeal, the 
appeals court agrees and the Constitution is upheld, he cannot get his 
attorneys fees.
  This is trying to say religious minorities have no rights and 
certainly not the rights to prevail in court and have the losing party 
pay their attorneys fees. Only the popular side can get its attorneys 
fees paid. It is a violation of fundamental American fairness and, I 
submit, unconstitutional and unworthy of this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  There are a number of differences that exist in this particular 
amendment and what it refers to in terms of the kind of religious 
liberty that it is designed to allow, or at least put the Congress on 
record that supports a particular expression of religious freedom. The 
gentleman indicates that there have been a number of cases already 
heard that have been decided against the expression of religious points 
of view in schools. That is true, but the significant difference here 
is that in each one of the court cases that have come down on that side 
of the issue, they have talked about the fact that there is a captive 
audience in a particular location in a classroom; and if that is the 
case, if this audience is held captive by the environment, by the 
situation in which they are placed, that it is indeed unconstitutional 
to advance some sort of religious preference.
  But that is not the case with anything that we are talking about here 
in terms of a memorial or a memorial service. There is no one that is 
there because they have to be there. No one is forced by any sort of 
law to participate. It is simply an expression of a religious 
preference, a religious point of view, a degree of religiosity that 
exists in a community and has every right to be expressed.
  There is nothing in the Constitution, it seems to me, or in the first 
amendment that suggests that that expression should be hampered. All 
this amendment does is to put the Congress on record that it supports 
that particular point of view.

                              {time}  2230

  In terms of it making a claim that school boards and school districts 
will automatically reject certain ``minority'' religions, whatever that 
might be, I do not know where there is proof of that particular 
statement. I do not know exactly even what the definition of ``minority 
religions'' might be, but we leave that, of course, up to school boards 
and school districts.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a right, or there is nothing in this amendment 
that restricts anyone from taking this thing to court. Of course, it 
does, as my colleague indicates, suggest that if one loses, one has to 
pay their own court costs. Again, I do not see anything really wrong 
with that.
  In general, this is not really the kind of issue that should spark a 
debate, it seems to me, over the essence of the First Amendment, 
because it is patently clear, at least to me, that we are not doing 
anything in this amendment that forces anyone to accept one sort of 
religious ideology. Again, the Constitution guarantees the freedom of 
religion, of religion, to express one's religious ideas.
  In a situation like we faced in Colorado, I must tell the Members 
that without that ability to express that particular faith, I do not 
know where any of us would be. And there were people and organizations 
that really argued against that sort of expression.
  I have a letter here that was written by a parent of one of the 
individuals who was killed in Columbine, a young lady by the name of 
Cassie Bernall. This was written by her father, Brad Bernall, in 
support of this amendment when a similar amendment was offered in the 
Senate by my colleague, Senator Allard.
  He said, ``My wife, Misty, and I both believe any Columbine incident 
memorial should memorialize each individual in a personal way. Everyone 
knows, thanks to a good job by the media, that Cassie was a very strong 
Christian. To leave this facet of her persona out would be to mis-
memorialize her and others.''
  I think the statement is accurate, and I believe that this Congress 
should go on record in support of it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking minority member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, if this amendment becomes law, those who 
complain of violations of their free exercise rights under the 
Constitution because the public authorities excluded religious 
observances, they could get their attorney's fees paid, but those who 
are complaining about excessive injection of religion would not have 
the same kinds of rights.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has significant constitutional 
implications. It needs deliberation and should not be an afterthought 
on a juvenile justice bill. I would hope it would be defeated.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentleman's effort. What is 
more precious to someone, if we are talking about their memory, than 
talking about their beliefs, the things for which they were willing to 
live and the things for which they were willing to die?
  Yes, we know about Cassie Bernall, who was asked, do you believe in 
God; yes, and because of that she was killed. For those who do not want 
the memory of the religious beliefs to be commemorated at the memorial 
that they leave behind, I invite them to go across the Potomac River to 
Arlington National Cemetery, where Members will find row upon row upon 
row of religious symbols chosen by people who were gone to mark their 
graves. Some may be crosses, most are, and some may be emblems of 
another faith, such as stars of David.

[[Page H4450]]

  But to say that when one is gone, the memory of one's faith must be 
gone, too, is not the American way. I urge Members to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague who just spoke on the floor of the House 
gave us a passionate plea. As a mother, I acknowledge that no one can 
speak to the pain of the parents who have lost a child or the tragedy 
of Columbine in Littleton, Colorado. I appreciate my good friend, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) in his attempt to bring honor to 
that memory.
  It is now 10:35 p.m. at night, and we are now seeking to amend the 
Constitution and to change the rights of Americans throughout this land 
who have come to understand that the First Amendment indicates that 
Congress will make no law respecting the establishment of religion.
  I am unsure of the intent of this initiative, inasmuch as communities 
can come together and express themselves and their religious beliefs in 
any way they so desire. It is established, however, that we cannot make 
a religious standard publicly by the government.
  So I would say to the gentleman from Colorado, it would be nice if we 
could deliberate and begin to refine his desires as it relates to 
giving honor to the deceased, but to amend the Constitution and to 
extinguish rights of those who may have opposition to the expression of 
a particular religion is unconstitutional.
  This amendment will have a chilling effect on claims that could be 
filed to challenge the constitutionality of religious displays or 
activities in public schools. Let us do the right thing, maintain the 
sanctity of the Constitution, respect those who are deceased, and not 
amend this Constitution late into the night on a juvenile crime bill.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to simply make a clarification 
of some statements that were made earlier. That is that the Congress of 
the United States does not have the authority to speak on the 
constitutionality of issues, but rather that must be left in the hands 
of the Supreme Court.
  I would simply remind my colleagues of the oath of office that each 
Member takes. That is, that I, name of Member, do solemnly swear or 
affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United 
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true 
faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, 
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will 
well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am 
about to enter, so help me God.
  At no time here does this say that Members of Congress will in fact 
support and defend the Constitution according to what the United States 
Supreme Court or any other Federal court says.
  Secondly, the issue has been brought up with regard to the 1803 
decision of Marbury vs. Madison, but as Lewis Fisher, senior specialist 
in separation of powers at the Congressional Research Service reminds 
us, Chief Justice Marshall's decision in Marbury represents what many 
regard as the definitive basis for judicial review over congressional 
and presidential actions, but Marshall's opinion stands for a much more 
modest claim.
  In fact, the specialist goes on to say that ``Marshall and the 
Supreme Court did not require Jefferson to actually seat the magistrate 
in question, not because of any constitutional problems, but because 
they simply realized that Jefferson and Madison would simply disregard 
their writ.''
  As Chief Justice Warren Burger noted, the court could stand hard 
blows but not ridicule, and the ale houses would rock with hilarious 
laughter had Marshall issued a mandamus that the Jefferson 
administration ignored. Please support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am as religious as anyone else, so I do not take a 
back seat to anyone when we talk about religion. But I do stand up for 
the Constitution. It is amazing what I have heard here today, the 
assault on the Constitution, on First Amendment rights, on freedom of 
religion; the basic First Amendment rights, the 10 amendments to the 
Constitution that hold this democracy in good stead.
  The gentleman can talk about the Constitution all he wants, but he 
cannot amend it on this floor tonight, on this piece of legislation. 
Even the most right-wing of Supreme Court Justices will not allow what 
the gentleman is trying to do. This speaks to the heart of religious 
freedom.
  No, we do not want to intrude on anybody's rights by having religious 
memorials and symbols on our schools. The gentleman would not like it 
if someone denigrated his religion or tried to dominate school property 
with their religion. The gentleman can speak all he wants to tonight on 
this crime bill, and the gentleman can assault the Constitution if the 
gentleman would like, but I guarantee Members, even if the majority of 
this Congress votes for religious symbols on memorials any time, 
anyplace, anywhere, they are going to lose in the Supreme Court, 
because no matter how right-wing those Justices are, they respect the 
Constitution. They know the Constitution, and they are going to hold 
that Constitution up and keep it from being defied and dismantled by 
the likes of Members who do not understand what a democracy is all 
about.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, despite the good intentions of the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) in offering this amendment, I 
cannot believe at 10:30 in the evening, with more staff members than 
Members on the floor of the House, the gentleman from Indiana just 
rewrote the Constitution of the United States.
  I would suggest that Article III, Section 1 and Section 2 are very 
clear, that this body, this House, has no right to declare any action 
or law constitutional or unconstitutional. If the gentleman can show me 
where in this Constitution right now we have the authority to declare 
something as constitutional or unconstitutional, I will support this 
amendment. But I am confident it does not. We cannot rewrite 200 years 
of history in 5-minute debates on the floor of the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson 
spent 10 years debating the important principles of the separation of 
church and State because they realized how fundamental it was to the 
law of this land.
  Yet, late at night, with so few Members on this floor, we are 
debating that same principle, given not 10 years, not 10 months, not 10 
weeks, not even 10 hours of committee hearings, but 10 minutes per side 
to debate this fundamental issue. That kind of short-shrifting of the 
Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the first 16 words of the 
Bill's amendments leaves numerous unanswered questions, not the least 
of which are who decides how many memorials can be on a public school 
campus, government employees? Who decides what those symbols can be, 
which religions are okay? Are wiccan symbols okay? How about satanic 
symbols?
  This does not do respect to our Constitution and Bill of Rights, no 
matter how well-intended the author is.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. With all due respect to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) regarding Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Jefferson was 
actually no party to the United States Constitution nor the 
ratification of the Bill of Rights, because he was in service in France 
at the time.
  But with regard to what the gentleman said about Article III of the 
Constitution, actually it says nothing with regard to the 
constitutionality itself. In fact, Chief Justice John Jay, the original 
Supreme Court Justice, relinquished his Chief Justiceship because he 
did not believe the Supreme

[[Page H4451]]

Court would actually carry the weight of the debate with regard to 
separation of powers and the importance of the issue of the Supreme 
Court and the judicial system.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) said something with 
which I can agree. She referenced the first amendment, and she said 
that it guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of religion.
  What does that mean? How much more clear could it have been put: 
Freedom to express one's own religious ideas, freedom to practice one's 
religion.

                              {time}  2245

  It is a statement so clear that it is difficult for me to understand 
how people can put obstacles in the way of that freedom, and yet that 
is exactly what has been done. Even in Colorado, that is what has been 
suggested should be done in cases where the most horrific tragedies 
have occurred, that we should put obstacles in the way of people 
expressing their own religious preference and seek God's help.
  This amendment hopes to change that experience.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the memory of the victims' religious beliefs can 
certainly be commemorated and eulogized without offending the 
Constitution.
  The prayer can be said at a memorial on school property after school 
hours if attendance is voluntary but not if attendance is compulsory.
  The legal fees clause of this amendment is clearly aimed at biasing 
the legal systems against people with a different view of the First 
Amendment than that held by the sponsor of this amendment. For these 
reasons, especially the last one, this amendment offends the 
Constitution, offends the Bill of Rights, offends religious liberty and 
ought to be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 printed in Part A of 
House Report 106-186.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 printed in part A of 
House Report 106-186.


                Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. De Mint

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. DeMint:
       Add at the end the following:
   TITLE _--LIMITATION ON RECOVERY OF ATTORNEYS FEES IN CERTAIN CASES

     SEC. _. LIMITATION ON RECOVERY OF ATTORNEYS FEES IN CERTAIN 
                   CASES.

       Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United States 
     (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``In'' and inserting ``Except as otherwise 
     provided in this subsection, in'';
       (2) by striking ``, except that'' and inserting ``. 
     However,''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:``Attorneys' fees 
     under this section may not be allowed in any action claiming 
     that a public school or its agent violates the constitutional 
     prohibition against the establishment of religion by 
     permitting, facilitating, or accommodating a student's 
     religious expression.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my freedom of expression in schools 
amendment is to ensure that a student's First Amendment right to 
freedom of religious expression is protected. This amendment is 
important to school safety, because what we value and believe, as 
children and adults, directly impacts how we act. It is, therefore, 
essential that students not be discouraged from participating in 
positive, faith-based activities or exercising their freedom of 
religious expression.
  As many of us know, public schools are being intimidated into 
suppressing religious expression by the threat of costly litigation. 
This litigation often arises from a confusion between a school allowing 
religious expression by a student, which is protected, and a school 
sanctioning and endorsing religion, which violates the establishment 
clause.
  Only a few weeks ago, with graduation exercises having been completed 
around the country, there were valedictorians and class presidents who 
were actually physically removed from the stage, their speech censored, 
not because it contained vulgarity or obscenity but because it 
contained constitutionally protected, student- initiated religious 
expression.
  This has taken place in both California and Minnesota this year. The 
Indiana Civil Liberties Union wrote a letter threatening to sue any 
high school or college in the State if they allowed prayer at 
graduation ceremonies. The letter said, you will pay your own and our 
attorney's fees, an amount that could run as high as $250,000.
  How can schools take this risk? It is much easier just to tell the 
students not to pray than to risk spending this amount of money.
  In cases from Michigan to Maryland to Indiana, so-called civil 
liberties groups have threatened principals and school boards with 
lawsuits because of legitimate student religious expression. This is 
happening because such cases were made exempt by Congress from the 
common legal practice of each side paying its own attorney's cost. 
Schools that are accused must face the additional threat, if they lose, 
that they must also pay the other side's legal fees. This provides a 
perverse incentive for schools to silence the speech of students rather 
than to face a punitive lawsuit.
  Congress created the one side loser pays exception to the normal 
practice in order to encourage the defense of civil liberties. However, 
this exception is now being used as a weapon to suppress these very 
liberties. The current incentive is for schools to silence student 
religious expression rather than fight for student constitutional 
rights. My amendment simply corrects the mistake and returns such cases 
to the normal practice of each side paying its own fees. Such cases 
should be decided on the merits, on a level playing field, not by 
threats and bullying.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress has set a clear precedent for this amendment. 
In 1996, Congress passed and the President signed the Federal Courts 
Improvement Act. This bill included a provision that exempted certain 
cases brought against judicial officers from the attorney's fees 
requirement. It amended the identical section I am amending. The bill 
passed the Senate by unanimous consent, was brought to the House floor 
by unanimous consent and passed on a voice vote.
  Let me quote a portion of the rationale provided by the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary report on the bill. The risk to judges of 
burdensome litigation creates a chilling effect that threatens judicial 
independence and may impair day-to-day decisions of the judiciary in 
close or controversial cases. The same risk of burdensome litigation is 
threatening our public schools and more. It is threatening the First 
Amendment rights of our students.
  I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable and well-crafted 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) seek to 
control the time in opposition?
  Mr. SCOTT. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has a very clear and 
pernicious purpose. Put simply, if one agrees with the sponsor of this 
amendment on the role government should

[[Page H4452]]

play in religion and the government violates their rights, they get 
their day in court and if one wins the government that violated their 
rights can be ordered to pay their attorney's fees, but if someone 
disagrees with the sponsor's views and the government violates their 
rights and they win their case, that is to say a court finds that their 
constitutional rights are violated, then the court may not under any 
circumstances order the local authorities to pay attorney's fees.
  It does not matter how extreme the violation of one's rights. It does 
not matter how much it costs to protect one's rights in court. It does 
not matter how much the local authorities drag their feet or drag down 
the case to make it more costly or burdensome for someone. None of that 
matters. A person has to pay the costs and pay a dear price if one 
disagrees with the sponsor of this amendment.
  There is only one effect this amendment will have, and that is to 
silence dissent against the local majority. Perhaps some people like 
that idea. Perhaps it is politically popular to stick it to religious 
minorities, but that is not what this country is supposed to be about. 
Perhaps the proponents of this amendment should go back to school and 
do a little homework on the First Amendment.
  Both of the religion clauses of the First Amendment were put there to 
protect religious freedom. The establishment clause, as unpopular as it 
is in some circles, protects all of our rights to religious liberty to 
those who would commandeer the power of the State to promote mere 
particular religious views. Where those views are the views of the 
majority, that may be politically popular but it is not a stand in 
defense of religious liberty.
  Remember, we are not talking here, despite what the sponsor of the 
amendment said, about frivolous lawsuits. We are talking about 
victorious lawsuits, lawsuits which persuaded the courts that they were 
right, that the plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated by the 
local government. The judge said, they were right and now this 
amendment says, but one cannot get their attorney's fees anyway; only 
the people who agree with the sponsor or with the local majority can 
get their attorney's fees.
  This is not right. It is an attempt to bias the courts, to bias the 
courts financially against people who would sue on the basis of the 
establishment clause, and frankly the courts ought to be neutral. They 
ought to interpret the Constitution, and if someone's rights are 
violated and they win that fact in court, if the law provides for 
attorney's fees, then they ought to get it. We should not bias the case 
one way or the other, as this amendment would try to do, to stifle 
dissent and to stifle minority religious views.
  Again, this amendment is obnoxious to the First Amendment and ought 
to be defeated.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  (Mr. Hostettler asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I am intrigued by the comments of the 
earlier gentleman saying that he was deadly opposed to the fact that 
the United States Congress should not impose its will on local 
authorities but it is quite well enough for the United States Supreme 
Court to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeMint amendment. It is 
time that America stop the making of constitutional law by extortion. 
Let me give an example. In 1992 the Supreme Court in Lee v. Wiseman 
decided, wrongly I believe, that local graduation prayer conducted by 
schools was unconstitutional.
  In March of 1993, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union wrote to 
educators in Indiana threatening a lawsuit should the school have any 
type of prayer at graduation. Let me quote from that letter:

       We know that a few school boards are trying to find a way 
     around the Supreme Court ruling. If you decide to hold 
     graduation prayer anyway, as a matter of principle, four 
     things will probably happen. We will sue both the school 
     corporation and any individuals who approved and authorized 
     graduation prayers. We will win. The Supreme Court has 
     already decided the issue. You will pay your own and our 
     attorney's fees, an amount that could run as high as a 
     quarter of a million dollars. Your insurance will not cover 
     it because it is a deliberate violation of law so the money 
     will come directly from property taxes.

  That is not what our founders intended. It was wrong in 1976 to give 
an incentive for coercing public officials to act in opposition to the 
wishes of their constituents. It is right to put some sanity back into 
this legal process. Constitutional law should be by deliberation and 
not extortion.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first I want to say that I 
am sorry that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) decided not to 
offer the second amendment he had a right to offer. I think he must 
have realized that offering that amendment, which he had put in there, 
to circulate the pamphlet put out by the Department of Education on 
religious rights would have undercut much of the argument we get from 
the other side, because we were eagerly looking forward to supporting 
his amendment. Somebody probably tipped him off and that is why he 
decided to not to offer it, because that pamphlet from the U.S. 
Department of Education makes clear how broad the right of children is 
in the schools to engage in appropriate religious exercise within the 
framework of the Constitution. So they thought better of it and they 
must have read the pamphlet and realized that it strengthens the case 
of the other side.
  Now I did also want to bring poor Thomas Jefferson back from France, 
to which he was exiled by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), 
while he was Secretary of State. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler) said Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with the 
ratification of the Bill of Rights because he was serving in France.
  If he was serving in France during that period, he was serving as 
Secretary of State because he was not the ambassador to France while he 
was Secretary of State and that is when they did the Bill of Rights. So 
the gentleman's history is not much not better than his constitutional 
law. His constitutional law seems to misunderstand the principle. Yes, 
we take an oath that we are bound by the Constitution. We should not 
transgress it. I wish that oath meant more to people around here 
sometimes.
  But when there is a decision by the Supreme Court, it is binding on 
us. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) appears to want to 
disregard that. A Supreme Court opinion is binding.
  Finally, I want to note that the author of this amendment does not 
appear to have much faith in the amendment before him of the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo). It does exactly the same thing.
  Now apparently what we have here is the Republican leadership has 
found a way around the FEC, not the Constitution. They found a way to 
help people with their campaigns.
  The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) offered an amendment, 
thanks to the Committee on Rules, and it included the very same 
provision of this amendment, but this gentleman also wanted to offer 
it.
  So what is two amendments that say the same thing in a bill that is 
kind of crazy anyway?
  Now, of course, if we had a functioning Committee on the Judiciary 
which could contemplate these issues, we would not have this kind of 
scramble.
  That is the final point. Should we or should we not have a situation 
where public officials deliberately violate the Constitution to have to 
pay in a lawsuit? Well, maybe they should be allowed not to have to do 
that, but why pick and choose?
  The Republican Party controls the Committee on the Judiciary. If the 
gentleman thinks it is wrong that we have a situation where public 
officials who have violated the Constitution have to pay the legal fees 
of those whose constitutional rights they violated, and were so found 
by the Supreme Court, why did not the gentleman have a hearing, why did 
not the gentleman have a subcommittee markup, all these exotic things 
we used to have?
  This is a politically constructive process that is putting together a 
Rube Goldberg of a bill.

[[Page H4453]]

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana, to 
bring Thomas Jefferson back.

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Massachusetts 
tell me where the Secretary of State was serving as a Member of the 
House of Representatives or a Member of the Senate while the amendments 
to the Constitution were being offered?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the 
gentleman from Indiana said he was in France. The gentleman from 
Indiana needs a lot of explaining. He said that Thomas Jefferson was in 
France during the ratification of the Bill of Rights. He was not in 
France during the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, he was in France.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, he had, in fact, been 
serving as the Secretary of State. I did not say he was in the House or 
the Senate. I was contradicting the statement of the gentleman from 
Indiana that he had nothing to do with the ratification of the Bill of 
Rights because he was in France.
  As a matter of fact, Thomas Jefferson here in the United States as 
Secretary of State and James Madison as a Member of Congress talked to 
each other.
  It was the gentleman's statement, and, again, I understand the 
gentleman wanted to change the subject, he said, among his many errors, 
that Thomas Jefferson was in France during the ratification of the Bill 
of Rights; and he was wrong by about 4,000 miles which, by his 
standard, is not so bad.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I just want to be clear for the Record, is 
it the intent of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) that 
his amendment, when he uses the term ``students' religious 
expression,'' that the term ``students' religious expression'' includes 
student prayer?
  Mr. DeMINT. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of the students 
whose first amendment right to religious freedom is being suppressed 
because his or her school is intimidated by the threat of a costly 
lawsuit.
  I support the DeMint amendment for children like first-grader Zachary 
Hood who was told by his teacher that he could read his favorite story 
to his class.
  Zachary was extremely excited about the chance to read to his class, 
and he chose Jacob and Esau, a story about two brothers who quarrel and 
then make up. The story never even mentions God. However, because it is 
from the Bible, the teacher would not allow Zachary to read.
  What kind of society do we live in that allows the Columbine killers 
to produce a class video of themselves in trench coats gunning down 
athletes in a school hallway, yet young Zachary is not allowed to read 
a story about two brothers, which happens to be from the Bible, to his 
class?
  A member of our own staff shared with me her experience a few years 
ago as a 10th grade student. She was assigned to write a fictional 
account of an historical figure. Horror of all horrors, she chose Jesus 
Christ as her subject. While the English teacher admittedly could not 
find one single grammatical error in the entire 17-page paper, she 
claimed she had to fail this student for choosing Jesus as her 
historical figure.
  For many students, faith is an essential part of who they are. Why 
are we asking them to leave this part of themselves outside the door to 
the school? Why? Because schools are bullied by big organizations which 
are suppressing student religious expression at taxpayer expense.
  I urge my colleagues to support the DeMint amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to observe that all of 
the preceding discussion of the preceding speaker and much of the 
discussion of the preceding speakers on the other side is irrelevant to 
this amendment.
  This amendment, unlike the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo), does not deal with what happened in Columbine, does not 
deal with memorial services. It is even more brazen. All it says is 
that someone who complains in court that his constitutional rights were 
violated on the establishment of religion clause dealing with school 
prayer, if he wins that suit, cannot have his legal fees paid for.
  So all it says on one side of the issue, one can have one's legal 
fees paid for; on the other, one cannot. It is simply biasing the 
courts, and, therefore, it is against the Constitution.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment, and I want to continue along what the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) talked about.
  This first grader was promised, because of the ability to read well 
and because the child worked hard, that he could read as a reward 
whatever story he wished to read. Now, there is no question in my mind 
that the teacher committed two serious problems. First of all, she 
reneged on her promise. Secondly, she missed a golden opportunity to 
have them discuss what it means to take advantage of someone who is 
disadvantaged. She had a golden opportunity to talk about greed and 
have them discuss greed.
  All of these thing could have been done. There is no question in my 
mind that she could have done it, and any court would have said that 
was perfectly all right, even if he included the word ``Bible'' and the 
word ``God,'' which he did not.
  But it is the fear, it is the fear of the school district, not only 
must they pay if they lose for their own expenses, they must pay for 
the other expenses. They do not have any money for books. They do not 
have any money for buildings. They do not have any money for anything 
because they are constantly in court. With the Supreme Court ruling of 
a week or 2 ago, they will be in court all the time.
  So let us level the playing field. Either both sides pay each other, 
or one side pays theirs, the other pay side pays theirs, but do not 
make it double indemnity for them.
  Again, she missed a golden opportunity. I am sure the courts would 
have said she was perfectly in her right to allow the child to read 
that. But it is the fear, it is the intimidation. It appears to me that 
if we want to be fair about this, we will level the playing field so 
everybody has an equal opportunity.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), my 
freshman colleague this evening.
  I did not want to miss this golden opportunity. See, this is a golden 
opportunity for the gentleman's side of the aisle to encourage 
litigation. As we talk about tort reform, as we talk about not lifting 
the caps to allow people to litigate about tort issues, we want to give 
people the opportunity to go into court to litigate something that the 
Supreme Court has already decided. Usually, when we want to go into 
court and decide an issue, it is an issue that has not already been 
litigated by the Supreme Court.
  This is a golden opportunity this evening for us to waste our time 
instead of getting on to the issues that we ought to be getting on to 
this evening, which are dealing with gun control, dealing with gun 
safety.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion, because it is a 
waste of time to discuss the issue. I am a religious person just like 
anyone else, but I learned about God, Jesus Christ at Bethany Baptist 
Church, 10518 Hampton Avenue, through the support of my minister and my 
mother; and every one else can do the same.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes, the balance 
of the time.

[[Page H4454]]

  Mr. Chairman, I think this discussion has pointed out the need for 
the amendment that we skipped. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo) had an amendment that would have required parents to be 
notified of the availability of the Education Department's brochure, 
``Religious Expression in Public Schools: A Statement of Principles.'' 
Had that been taken up, that information would have gone out, and 
people would know what they can do and what they cannot do.
  This amendment right now does not require everyone to pay his own 
legal fees. It requires that those who agree with the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) can get their attorney fees paid; but if 
one disagrees with the issue, then one cannot.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I know of no provision in the current law 
that would allow the school district to recover attorneys fees from a 
plaintiff who sued them challenging religious expression by the 
student. Is it not correct that the current law only allows the 
plaintiff to recover fees, but does not permit the school district 
which is defending the suit to make a recovery of legal fees?
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is exactly right. 
But Congress does not decree that one can get one's attorneys fees if 
one sues under a premise that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) agrees with. But if one sues on something he disagrees with, 
one cannot get one's attorneys fees. It does not say that.

                              {time}  2310

  Mr. Chairman, this kind of amendment has significant constitutional 
implications. We ought not be taking it up as an after-thought to a 
juvenile justice bill that started out as a noncontroversial, 
bipartisan, constructive, research-based bill. Yet here we are, after 
11 o'clock at night, talking about complex constitutional issues, 
trying to make law, and trying to make law in an unprecedented fashion, 
where we get attorneys fees if we agree with the gentleman from South 
Carolina but we do not get attorneys fees if we do not.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, just a quick clarification. Congress 
created this exemption, and it is certainly within our right to change 
it.
  This is an exemption. All we are asking for is a level playing field 
when two parties go to court. Right now, it is set up that if the 
schools lose, they pay both. If they win, they pay their own. There is 
no way for them to win. They are under a threat that is too big a risk. 
We just want it to be the standard normal practice.
  The CHAIRMAN. Time of the gentleman from Virginia has expired. All 
time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: Amendment No. 21 offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns); amendment No. 22 offered by the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham); amendment No. 23 offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rogan); amendment No. 24 offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo); and amendment No. 26 offered by the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Stearns

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 15-minute vote followed by four 5-minute 
votes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 293, 
noes 134, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 216]

                               AYES--293

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--134

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey

[[Page H4455]]


     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brown (CA)
     Dicks
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     Martinez
     Thomas
     Weiner

                              {time}  2333

  Ms. PELOSI and Mr. CROWLEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GANSKE, Mr. FORD, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. 
BALDACCI, Ms. SANCHEZ, Mr. DEUTSCH and Mr. REYES changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement By The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings. The Chair requests 
all Members to remain within the Chamber.


                 Amendment No. 22 Offered By Mr. Latham

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) on 
which further proceeding were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed 
by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 424, 
noes 3, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 217]

                               AYES--424

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--3

     Ehrlich
     Gonzalez
     Paul

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brown (CA)
     Dicks
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     Martinez
     Thomas
     Weiner

                              {time}  2340

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 23 Offered By Mr. Rogan

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 243, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 218]

                               AYES--184

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     English
     Everett

[[Page H4456]]


     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Morella
     Myrick
     Ney
     Norwood
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--243

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Archer
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brown (CA)
     Dicks
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     Martinez
     Thomas
     Weiner

                              {time}  2349

  Messers. QUINN, DOGGETT, BERRY, BENTSEN, CAMP, PORTMAN, HILL of 
Montana, and Ms. PRYCE of Ohio and Mrs. CUBIN changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2350


                Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 300, 
noes 127, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 219]

                               AYES--300

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--127

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)

[[Page H4457]]


     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Porter
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stark
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brown (CA)
     Dicks
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     Martinez
     Thomas
     Weiner

                              {time}  2357

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. DeMint

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238, 
noes 189, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 220]

                               AYES--238

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--189

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brown (CA)
     Dicks
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     Martinez
     Thomas
     Weiner

                              {time}  0003

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 27 printed in part A in House Report 106-186.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the next scheduled amendment to be offered 
was one which I was to offer. However, I do not intend to offer it 
because the previous amendment, the DeMint amendment, was adopted by 
the House.
  My amendment had some similarities with the DeMint amendment. It 
would have stated that a plaintiff who sued to try to stop voluntary 
student prayer in public schools would not be entitled to collect 
attorney fees from the school district. However, since the DeMint 
amendment concerned religious expression, and certainly prayer is one 
of those religious expressions, my amendment is unnecessary because my 
objective was covered in fact in a broader way by the DeMint amendment.
  Therefore, I do not wish to offer my amendment at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 28 printed in part A of House Report 106-186.


                Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Aderholt

  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 28 offered by Mr. Aderholt:
       Add at the end the following new title:

                 TITLE __--RIGHTS TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

     SEC. __. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Declaration of Independence declares that 
     governments are instituted to secure certain unalienable 
     rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
     happiness, with which all human beings are endowed by their 
     Creator and to which they are entitled by the laws of nature 
     and of nature's God.
       (2) The organic laws of the United States Code and the 
     constitutions of every State, using various expressions, 
     recognize God as the source of the blessings of liberty.
       (3) The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States secures rights against laws respecting an 
     establishment of

[[Page H4458]]

     religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof made by the 
     United States Government.
       (4) The rights secured under the First Amendment have been 
     interpreted by courts of the United States Government to be 
     included among the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
       (5) The Tenth Amendment reserves to the States respectively 
     the powers not delegated to the United States Government nor 
     prohibited to the States.
       (6) Disputes and doubts have arisen with respect to public 
     displays of the Ten Commandments and to other public 
     expression of religious faith.
       (7) Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants the 
     Congress power to enforce the provisions of the said 
     amendment.
       (8) Article I, Section 8, grants the Congress power to 
     constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, and 
     Article III, Section 1, grants the Congress power to ordain 
     and establish courts in which the judicial power of the 
     United States Government shall be vested.

     SEC. __. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY RIGHTS DECLARED.

       (a) Display of Ten Commandments.--The power to display the 
     Ten Commandments on or within property owned or administered 
     by the several States or political subdivisions thereof is 
     hereby declared to be among the powers reserved to the States 
     respectively.
       (b) Expression of Religious Faith.--The expression of 
     religious faith by individual persons on or within property 
     owned or administered by the several States or political 
     subdivisions thereof is hereby--
       (1) declared to be among the rights secured against laws 
     respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the 
     free exercise of religion made or enforced by the United 
     States Government or by any department or executive or 
     judicial officer thereof; and
       (2) declared to be among the liberties of which no State 
     shall deprive any person without due process of law made in 
     pursuance of powers reserved to the States respectively.
       (c) Exercise of Judicial Power.--The courts constituted, 
     ordained, and established by the Congress shall exercise the 
     judicial power in a manner consistent with the foregoing 
     declarations.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the recent shootings in Littleton, Colorado, provide an 
unfortunate picture of the terror infested in our schools today, 
children killing children in the halls of our schools, children who do 
not understand the basic principles of humankind.
  Today, I offer the Ten Commandments Defense Act amendment. This 
amendment would protect America's religious freedom by allowing States, 
and I repeat that, allowing States to make the decision whether or not 
to display the Ten Commandments on or within publicly owned property.
  As Members of Congress, we have the privilege and the weighty 
responsibility to make laws for our country which honor the individual, 
laws that foster value and establish basic guidelines of right and 
wrong; do not steal, do not lie, do not kill. We are fortunate to live 
in a country in which the very First Amendment of our Constitution 
guarantees the freedom of religion.
  This does not mean freedom from religion. Rather, it means that we 
are free to live as we choose; we are free from the tyranny which 
stifles our expression of faith.
  The founders wisely realized that in a free society it is imperative 
that individuals practice forbearance, respect and temperance. These 
are the very values taught by all the world's major religions and the 
Ten Commandments and our Constitution underscore these values.
  While this amendment does not endorse any one religion, it states 
that a religious symbol which has deep rooted significance for our 
Nation and its history should not be excluded from the public square.
  As I look behind me in the House Chamber here tonight, I see other 
religious symbols. In the balcony there are reliefs of great lawgivers 
throughout history. Blackstone, Jefferson, Hammarabbi, and the list 
goes on. However, on the main door to this Chamber is the relief of 
Moses, the most prominent place in the Chamber. He looks directly at 
the Speaker.
  Above the dais, are the words, in God we trust and each day in this 
Chamber we open with prayer by our Chaplain. Religious expression is 
not absent from this public building, and it is not fair to say that 
public buildings in each of the States are precluded from recognizing 
this heritage.
  The Ten Commandments represent the very cornerstone of Western 
civilization and the basis of our legal system here in America. To 
exclude a display of the Ten Commandments and suggest that it is in 
some way an establishment of religion is not consistent with our 
Nation's heritage. This Nation was founded on religious traditions and 
they are integral parts of the fabric of American culture, political 
and societal life.
  This amendment today is not just about the display of the Ten 
Commandments. It is also about our Nation's children and the role that 
values play in our national life. Our Nation was founded on Judeo-
Christian principles and by our Founding Fathers.
  I realize that many things need to happen to redirect this 
overwhelming surge toward a violent culture. I also understand that 
simply posting the Ten Commandments will not change the moral character 
of our Nation overnight. However, it is one step that States can take 
to promote morality and work toward an end of children killing 
children. The States we represent deserve the opportunity to decide for 
themselves whether they want to display the Ten Commandments. This is 
consistent with the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which says 
those powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved for the 
States.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in giving the States the power to 
decide whether to display the Ten Commandments, which are the very 
backbone of the values and the nature of our society.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0010

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, our rich tradition of religious diversity is a 
cornerstone of American constitutional rights. Rather than trying to 
honor and promote that tradition of religious diversity by focusing on 
the Ten Commandments, this amendment seeks to elevate one particular 
religion over all others. This singling out of one religion is contrary 
to the American ideal of religious tolerance and is blatantly 
unconstitutional.
  By contrast, the Chamber of the Supreme Court, one of the best 
traditions of our religious diversity, the Ten Commandments, depicts 
Hammurabi, Moses, Confucius, Augustus, Mohammed and others as those who 
have given the philosophy and law, and does so in a manner that honors 
the diversity of our religious experience.
  The amendment before us today is unconstitutional because it is 
inconsistent with the first amendment. The case law clearly establishes 
that placing religious articles such as the Ten Commandments outside 
the context of other secular symbols, in a government establishment is 
a violation of the Establishment Clause.
  In Stone v. Graham, in 1980, the Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky 
law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools. 
Another case, in 1994, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found a 
courtroom display of the Ten Commandments to be unconstitutional.
  For more than 200 years, we have survived as a government of laws and 
court interpretations of those laws, and now is not the time on a 
juvenile justice bill to be debating complex constitutional principles 
that have nothing to do with juvenile crime.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, we have awoken to a day in which hatred is 
overlooked, violence is glorified, and random acts of indecency are 
tolerated. I fear that this has led to a generation

[[Page H4459]]

that no longer understands the difference between right and wrong.
  This segment of our youth population has abandoned the notion that 
human life should be treasured. It saddens me to conclude that many of 
these youth are, by their own account, morally destitute. Regrettably, 
Americans have witnessed a series of heart-wrenching incidents of youth 
violence, casting light on the magnitude of our Nation's problem.
  I do not support the Aderholt amendment because I want to impose 
religion in our schools. I strongly support this amendment because our 
States should have the opportunity to expose their students to a 
timeless code which, I believe, could instill ageless values.
  I have given much thought to why some of my colleagues are so 
resistant to the proposal of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), 
and, frankly, I remain incredulous. Do some truly believe that teaching 
our children that lying, stealing, and killing is wrong? Listening to 
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, one might 
conclude that the amendment of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Aderholt) would tear at the fabric of our Nation.
  It is amazing to me that many of these same Members will, no doubt, 
vehemently defend the right of commercial vendors who wish to 
distribute pornography, filth, and violence to our children, and yet 
rail against States that wish to allow their school districts the right 
to post the 10 basic tenets of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
  Mr. Chairman, when will we as a Congress humbly acknowledge that this 
Nation was founded on a simple principle of trust in God? We need to 
get our priorities straight. I support the freedom of religion, and I 
support this amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment again attempts to say that 
the Congress finds what is constitutional and what is not. It finds to 
be constitutional what the courts of the land, which have the power and 
the duty under our system of finding what is constitutional, this says 
what they have found to be unconstitutional is constitutional. It is 
usurpation of the power of the courts, number one.
  Number two, it says the courts, constituted and ordained and 
established by the Congress, shall exercise the judicial power in a 
manner consistent with the foregoing declarations. God forbid, the 
courts should exercise the judicial power in accordance with the 
courts' understanding of the Constitution, first of all; and, second of 
all, with the laws, not with opinions expressed and findings of 
Congress.
  Third, public buildings shall have the Ten Commandments. The Ten 
Commandments say a number of things. I think most people who talk about 
them do not really know what they say. It says, ``I am the Lord, thy 
God, who has brought thee forth from Egypt. Thou shalt have no other 
Gods before me, for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the 
sins of the fathers on the children even unto the third and fourth 
generations.''
  Do most religious groups in this country really believe that God 
visits the sins of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth 
generations? I think not.
  ``Thou shalt not work on Saturday.'' Most Christian denominations 
have changed it to Sunday. Do we want to say they are wrong, with the 
power of the State behind them, the Christian groups are wrong, they 
ought to be changed back to Saturday? That is what the Ten Commandments 
seems to say.
  I am not expressing a view on religion, but the States should not 
take a position on that by putting that in the courtroom or the 
schools.
  Let me ask a different question: Whose Ten Commandments? Which 
version? The Catholic version? The Protestant version, or the Jewish 
version? They are different, you know. The Hebrew words are the same, 
but the translations are very different, reflecting different religious 
traditions and different religious beliefs.
  Are our public buildings to be Catholic because the local Catholic 
majority votes that the Catholic version found in the Douay Bible 
should be in the public buildings? Or perhaps they should be Protestant 
because the local majority decides that the Saint James version of the 
Ten Commandments, which is very different from the Catholic version. Or 
maybe the Jews have a majority in the local district, and they decide 
the Messianic version should be in the public buildings.
  It was precisely to avoid divisive questions like this that the first 
amendment commands no establishment of religion; and that is what this 
ignorant amendment would overturn. I urge its defeat.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this is a copy of the Ten 
Commandments that hangs on the wall of the office of the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr), Representative from the Seventh District. This has 
been hanging on our wall for close to 5 years now, since I was sworn in 
as a Member of this Chamber.
  Not one time have we had somebody that has walked into that office, 
seen these Commandments, fallen down on their knees and say, I must pay 
homage to whatever religion the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) is. 
There is nothing in these Ten Commandments that reaches out and grabs 
somebody and forces them to abide by any particular religious belief.
  I challenge anybody on the other side to tell me what in these Ten 
Commandments they find so objectionable. Do they find so objectionable 
that it says, Thou shalt not kill? Would they object to having those 
words, and no more, inscribed on the halls of our schools so that our 
children are reminded that thou shalt not kill? I dare say no.
  It mystifies me what they find so objectionable in the Ten 
Commandments. They say, oh, this is not the time, Mr. Chairman, this is 
not the time in this bill about youth violence. I challenge them, if 
this is not the time, what in God's name is the time? When in God's 
name, Mr. Chairman, is it time; when we have children killing children 
in our schools, killing teachers in our schools is the time?
  Is it the time when we have another tragedy in schools? Will it be 
time when we have more teachers killed? Will it be time when we have 
more weapons of destruction being taken into our schools? Maybe then it 
would be time. But I say, Mr. Chairman, it is time now.
  As was spoken eloquently in testimony before the House of 
Representatives Subcommittee on Crime on May 27, 1999, in a poem penned 
by one of the parents of the victims of two of the Columbine High 
School shootings victims, Darrell Scott, he sent a poem which now hangs 
on our wall next to the Ten Commandments. He says in closing, ``You 
fail to understand that God is what we need!'' We do need God. I urge 
the adoption of this amendment.
  In the past, America had one room school houses where moral teaching 
and strong discipline were a part of each day's lesson. At the same 
time, we had very few gun control laws on the books. In those days, 
violence in schools was largely limited to playground scuffles.
  Today, we have numerous gun control laws. We also have schools where 
students are forbidden to pray in class or refer to the Lord, where 
Bible stories cannot be read, and where teachers cannot discipline 
students. At the same time, we are forced to fight a rising tide of 
juvenile violence that would have been unthinkable a few short years 
ago. Coincidence? Not likely.
  One of the most egregious examples of the disconnect between common 
sense and government is the policy many governments have been forced to 
adopt, banning public display of the Ten Commandments.
  Mr. Chairman, some on the other side of the aisle keep saying that 
Republicans are working on behalf of the NRA. Their irrational argument 
against something as simple and non-sectarian as displaying the Ten 
Commandments proves that many in the Democrat party have been bought 
and paid for by the trial lawyers. And, those lawyers are getting what 
they paid for judging from the lengths some are willing to go to in 
order to keep moral teaching out of our schools.
  Frankly, I'll take protecting the rights of law abiding citizens over 
working to protect the views of special interests any day. What kind of 
society allows its students to make videos about violence, but won't 
allow teachers to put a poster on a wall with the words ``Thou shalt 
not kill'' written on it? Trial lawyers and intimidating federal 
bureaucrats have dictated school policies for too long. Enough is 
enough.

[[Page H4460]]

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, after hearing the last statement on the 
floor, I am reminded of a statement made by the 18th Century American 
Baptist preacher, John Leland, who fought mightily for a religious 
liberty amendment in the Bill of Rights when he said, ``Experience has 
informed us that the fondness of magistrates to foster Christianity has 
done it more harm than all the persecutions ever did. Persecution, like 
the lion, tears the saints to death, but leaves Christianity pure. 
State establishment of religion, like a bear, hugs the saints, but 
corrupts Christianity.''
  Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with this picture? Our Founding Fathers 
decided that the issue of religious liberty, the concept of separating 
church and State in America was so important it should be the first 16 
words of the Bill of Rights.
  But here we are, after midnight, more staff people on this floor than 
Members of this House, debating with the gracious allowance of 10 
minutes on each side, 10 minutes to debate an issue that is fundamental 
to the point. It is the very beginning of the foundation of our Bill of 
Rights and the first amendment.

                              {time}  0020

  That is wrong.
  Now, I would suggest it is absolutely disingenuous to suggest that 
tonight is a debate about the goodness of the Ten Commandments. I am a 
Christian, I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Barr). I am not going to debate my level of Christianity versus anyone 
else's. It is not my place in my Christianity to judge anyone else. But 
that is not what this debate is all about. This debate is whether 
government has the right to use its resources to push its religious 
views on other free citizens of this land.
  And do not listen to my words tonight. Listen to what the Supreme 
Court said. The Supreme Court has clearly stated in its cases that the 
preeminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on the schoolroom 
walls is plainly religious in nature.
  This debate does disservice to the Bill of Rights and the principle 
of religious liberty.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Aderholt) for yielding me this time and for his leadership.
  This debate is about what is going on with our kids in America, and 
that is why it is part of the juvenile justice bill. And there are 
millions and millions, probably the overwhelming majority of Americans, 
who believe part of this is the lack of moral teaching and the moral 
influence which we have sucked out of our system in this country.
  I am tired of hearing tonight on the floor about how neutral our 
Founding Fathers were and this and that. The fact is we have lawgivers 
all around this body, and all their heads are sideways on this side, 
and all their heads are sideways on that side, except for one. Moses is 
looking straight down on the Speaker of the House. And up above the 
Speaker of the House it says ``In God We Trust.'' And it is Moses 
looking here, not all these on this side and not all these on this 
side. They are part of a tradition, but this is the central tradition. 
We have denied and sucked out the central tradition.
  We now have diversity, and in the schools we allow posting of posters 
from the Hindu background, from the Mexican background, prayers from 
Indian faiths, but not the Ten Commandments. In Congress, Members who 
are interested can get and have the different plaques, the stone 
plates, and I hope we do not drop these because I do not want to bring 
any bolts of lightning down on us, of the Ten Commandments. We can put 
these in our offices. We can have Moses staring down here, but these 
things apparently are dangerous for our children. We would not want 
them to have other gods. We would not want them to learn about killing 
and stealing. Apparently, this is more dangerous than whether they can 
wear Marilyn Manson T-shirts, whether they can have posters in the 
schools advertising rock concerts. Anything goes pretty much in the 
schools as long as it is not the Ten Commandments.
  That is what we are concerned about, is the stripping of the 
religious freedom for the central part of our culture, not trying to 
deprive other people of their rights. I am fine with posting different 
versions of the Ten Commandments, if that is what it takes. We are not 
trying to restrict other people's rights. We are trying to bring the 
rights back for the central faith of this country.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I am a protestant, a Baptist in particular. 
I am not of the Jewish faith, I do not practice Judaism, I do not 
practice the Muslim faith, I do not know anything about Buddhists. I 
respect each of those. But when I send my child to school, I expect my 
child not to be influenced by anybody else's religion. I expect to 
teach my child in my house what I would like to teach him about 
religion. While I respect everybody's religion, I do not want it 
imposed on my child where I send him to school.
  Now, my colleague thinks it is all right to have the Ten 
Commandments. I do not know what is synonymous to that in any of these 
other religions. I know one thing. I do not want anybody else's 
religion displayed by way of their commandments in the classroom where 
my child is, maybe teaching him something different than what I would 
teach him.
  As far as I am concerned, I teach my child that God is God. It may be 
Jehovah, it may be Allah, it may be something in other religions. But 
that is the point. The point is this is a Nation where we are allowed 
to practice whatever we would like to practice. It is central and basic 
to our democracy. It is installed in our Constitution. It is 
sacrosanct. It is the most precious thing that we can have, freedom of 
religion.
  When the gentleman talks about the Ten Commandments, he is talking 
about something that is central to Christianity. Why in God's name 
would he want that to be the symbol of everybody's religion? The fact 
of the matter is, he would not like it if somebody else imposed 
something else on his child. So he has got to see it in a more 
comprehensive way.
  It is unconstitutional. It flies in the face of the Constitution of 
this land and it should not be done.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I respect the fact that there 
are Members who have come to this floor arguing the Constitution on a 
juvenile crime bill because they see no other hope for them or for the 
children of America. And I would simply say to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), although I respect his desires and his 
appreciation for the Ten Commandments, it is important to hold in high 
regard the Constitution of the United States.
  The Constitution requires that we establish no religion. The 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) has asked, ``When in God's name.'' 
Well, the gentleman has the Ten Commandments, and I would hope that 
wherever the gentleman from Georgia goes he offers to those who will 
hear him his belief in the Ten Commandments. And that is what we need 
to give our children in America, the opportunity for them to choose 
their beliefs.
  For this to be allowed, if the gentleman is attaching it to the 
juvenile crime bill, he must be saying, put the Ten Commandments in our 
schools. Well, in our schools, as evidenced by the statement of the 
Secretary of Education, that I wish the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo) would have offered, we allow our students to express 
themselves, no matter what their religion is. They can gather 
voluntarily and pray to their respective gods. If they want to 
acknowledge the Ten Commandments, do so, and I support them in doing 
so. I happen to believe in the Seventh Day Sabbath, but if someone does 
not agree with that, then they have every right to not be forced to do 
so.
  I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the Constitution is violated by that 
amendment, and I would ask it be defeated.

[[Page H4461]]

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, Amendment I of the Constitution says the Congress shall 
make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Obviously, picking 
one religious symbol establishes that religion.
  Mr. Chairman, to the extent this measure may be constitutional, if it 
is constitutional, we do not need it. If it is not constitutional, it 
does not make any difference whether we pass it or not. We are wasting 
time. We ought to get back to juvenile crime. We should not be taking 
up this measure at 12:30 at night. I would hope we would get back to 
the serious consideration of juvenile crime.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, in view of the 
importance of this subject, that the time for debate be extended by 1 
hour.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, furthers 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Aderholt) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29 printed in part A of 
House Report 106-186.

                              {time}  0030


                 Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Souder

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 29 offered by Mr. Souder:
       At the end of the bill, add the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):

     SEC. 3. RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION.

       The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 
     (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) is amended by inserting before title 
     III the following:


                     ``religious nondiscrimination

       ``Sec. 299J. (a) A governmental entity that receives a 
     grant under this title and that is authorized by this title 
     to carry out the purpose for which such grant is made through 
     contracts with, or grants to, nongovernmental entities may 
     use such grant to carry out such purpose through contracts 
     with or grants to religious organizations.
       ``(b) For purposes of subsection (a), subsections (b) 
     through (k) of section 104 of the Personal Responsibility and 
     Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 604a) 
     shall apply with respect to the use of a grant received by 
     such entity under this title in the same manner as such 
     subsections apply to States with respect to a program 
     described in section 104(a)(2)(A) of such Act.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which I 
am offering along with my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. English), to expand the principle of religious nondiscrimination 
to faith-based providers that may desire to compete for contracts and 
grants provided through juvenile justice funds.
  This principle is known as charitable choice and was first included 
in the welfare reform legislation that became law in 1996. That passed 
this House by an overwhelming margin, passed the Senate by an 
overwhelming margin, and was signed by the President of the United 
States.
  In 1998, this principle was also extended to community services block 
grant legislation. This passed the House by an even bigger margin, 
passed the Senate by an even bigger margin, was signed by the President 
of the United States.
  Today this House should extend this principle which treats faith-
based organizations fairly if they choose to compete to provide 
juvenile justice prevention services, as well.
  Unfortunately, some have raised concerns about this approach which 
treats fairly faith-based groups on the basis of a distortion of 
church-state relations.
  Now, interestingly, the leading Republican contender for President 
George Bush, the Governor of Texas, has been a leader in this. But even 
more interestingly, Vice President Gore has come to speak out on 
charitable choice, as well.
  In Atlanta, at the Salvation Army, on May 24, he said, ``I believe 
the lesson for our Nation is clear. In those instances where the 
complete power of faith can help us meet the crushing social challenges 
that are otherwise impossible to meet, such as drug addiction and gang 
violence, we should explore carefully-tailored relationships with our 
faith community so that we can use approaches that are working best.''
  If my colleagues look at his campaign home page, it specifically says 
that ``Vice President Gore and his presidential campaign supports the 
concept of charitable choice, which the President of the United States 
has signed in two other bills.''
  It is hard for me to understand why anybody would oppose this 
amendment since both parties' leading contenders, since the current 
President of the United States, since both Houses of Congress have 
adopted it. And I hope we will pass this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, it is now getting worse. Instead of having 
10 minutes on each side of the aisle to debate the fundamental issue of 
separation of church and State, we now only have 5 minutes; 5 minutes 
in the middle of the night, with very few Members here, to discuss 
something that was so important, that was embedded in the very 
foundation of the Bill of Rights, the principle of separating 
government's power from the right of citizens in this country to 
exercise their own religious beliefs.
  I would make a suggestion. If it were my intent to undermine the 
religious tolerance for which we have great pride and respect in 
America, for intent to undermine that tolerance and to create a 
Northern Ireland in the United States of America, where one religion is 
pitted against another, let me tell my colleagues how I would do it.
  I would put billions of dollars out on the table and tell churches 
and synagogues that they ought to compete now for that money to help 
administer social programs.
  Five years from now we will have the Baptists arguing with the 
Methodists, with the Catholics, with the Jews, with the Hindus, with 
the Muslims, over who got their proportional share of the almighty 
Federal dollar.
  Since we were not given the privilege of having even a 10-minute 
debate in committee on this fundamental issue, I would hope the author 
of this amendment would clarify to this House before we vote on this 
crucial point whether this will allow money to go directly to 
pervasively sectarian religious institutions.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to yield to the gentleman if he would 
answer that question.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this has exactly the same language that my 
colleague voted for in the human services authorization and that he 
voted for personally in the welfare. It is the same language.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, it is the same language that not 5 or 10 
Members of this House knew was in the welfare reform bill. And I was 
here on the floor of the House at 1 a.m. in the morning the last time 
we debated this. But would the gentleman please answer my question? It 
is a good-faith question to the gentleman.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will answer the question here. I apologize for seeming to avoid it, 
but

[[Page H4462]]

in fact it was debated. It was a major debate in conference and was 
aired nationally in the media.
  This would allow money directly to go to those groups. They cannot 
service just their groups. They do not have to change their internal 
operations. They cannot proselytize with any of the money or they would 
lose the grant.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and cosponsor, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) 
and I read what we vote for, and we are offering this charitable choice 
amendment to level the playing field for faith-based organizations by 
giving them the opportunity to compete with other private entities and 
providing juvenile justice services.
  Religious organizations we know play a critical role in every 
community and offer unique ways in dealing with young people's needs. 
These organizations should have the right to compete for these grants.
  The charitable choice amendment empowers faith-based organizations to 
participate in providing juvenile services, but at the same time it 
guarantees tolerance of the religious beliefs of individuals 
participating in those programs.
  It gives the beneficiary of services the right to object to receiving 
services from a religious organization and find an alternative 
provider. No recipients of juvenile justice services will be forced to 
accept services from a faith-based provider.
  Under current law, any organization who is eligible and receiving a 
grant from the Federal Government cannot discriminate against a 
beneficiary because of religious affiliation. And this amendment would 
apply that standard to faith-based providers, as well.
  In addition, it clarifies that a religious provider receiving grant 
money may not discriminate against an employee because of religious 
affiliation.
  This proposal respects religious diversity even as it attracts new 
perspectives for treating juvenile offenders.
  I challenge my colleagues to look into their heart and support this 
provision.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the gentleman did not yield 
to my question before because I am not sure what this language means.
  If it means only that a church or a synagogue can get money to run a 
hot lunch program or to run a housing project, so long as it does it in 
a non-sectarian and non-religious basis and does not mix religion into 
it, then that is the current law and we do not need it and we should 
vote against it because it is unnecessary if that is all it means.
  But if it means, as I suspect it means, that if the Federal 
Government runs a hot lunch program that the first whatever church of 
east Oshkosh can apply for a grant and can get that grant and can say 
to people who want to eat the hot lunch, the condition of their getting 
the hot lunch is that they listen to their religious sermon, if it 
means, as I suspect it does, that the Congress believes that faith-
based methodology, a belief in God, a belief in particular religious 
doctrines, helps cure drug addicts and, therefore, we want the churches 
to do this, then that is a per se violation of the separation of church 
and State, it is an obvious violation of the First Amendment of the 
establishment of religion, and it leads to exactly what the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) was talking about a few minutes ago.
  The most contentious thing we do here is decide what percentage of 
transit funds or highway funds New York gets as opposed to Pennsylvania 
or Indiana. We have our fights here about that.
  Can my colleagues imagine if we have the annual appropriations fight 
because the Committee on Appropriations thinks the Methodists ought to 
get 6.2 percent and the Baptists 7.8 percent, but of course the 
Baptists think they ought to get more and the Methodists think they 
ought to get more and the Baptists less?
  It is the most divisive thing I can imagine in this country and it is 
exactly why the Founding Fathers said no establishment of religion. We 
do not want to get into those religious wars that have driven Europe 
apart and have driven Asia apart, and this is the road that that 
amendment leads us down.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has 1 minute 
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) also has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that this amendment, as did the 
amendments in the previous two bills, prohibits any funds from being 
used for sectarian worship, instruction or proselytization, including 
conditional. It also specifically forbids discrimination with regards 
to beneficiaries of services.
  I would suggest that, while this is not much time to do this, this 
Congress, with 346 votes and with 256 votes, previously passed this, 
that the main differences of opinion seem to be on the other side of 
the aisle, also with their President and Vice President. And perhaps 
what they really need is a conference on their side and at the White 
House to discuss their differences.

                              {time}  0040

  This Congress has already spoken twice, and I hope we will speak a 
third time in favor of charitable choice.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:

                     [From USA Today, June 1, 1999]

    Gore Goes Public With His Faith as He Pushes Church Charity Plan

                        (By Cathy Lynn Grossman)

       Vice President Gore's recent push to expand government 
     partnerships with religious groups reflects a deep religious 
     faith not everyone knows about him, he says.
       ``I don't wear it on my sleeve,'' he told religion writers 
     in a conversation at the White House on Friday. But, he 
     added, ``The purpose of life is to glorify God. I turn to my 
     faith as the bedrock of my approach to any important question 
     in my life.''
       Gore said in a speech May 24 that he wants to expand 
     ``Charitable Choice,'' the 1996 Republican-sponsored 
     legislation that lets religious groups apply for government 
     contracts to supply welfare-to-work services. Gore wants to 
     add programs that combat drug abuse, homelessness and youth 
     violence.
       As the presidential campaign gets under way, the proposal 
     is a move to the political center for Gore. It is similar to 
     some ideas long discussed by Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the 
     front-runner for the Republican nomination. And, as Gore's 
     strategists worry about whether he carries a taint from 
     Clinton administration scandals, it is a way to showcase his 
     commitment to his faith and religious values.
       The Interfaith Alliance, a coalition of religious groups 
     that often sides with the administration, raised concerns 
     that involving religious groups in government programs could 
     lead to regulation of those groups.
       Barry Lynn, director of Americans United for Separation of 
     Church and State, is skeptical about a requirement that 
     churches separate their social services from their religious 
     services. ``I don't think there's any way you can give funds 
     to a church and tell them they cannot use them for 
     evangelism,'' Lynn says.
       Gore avoids the word ``evangelism'' as he reiterates the 
     Charitable Choice rules: Faith-based groups are not allowed 
     to proselytize or require religious participation or 
     commitment from clients, and comparable, nonreligious 
     services must be available in the area.
       Despite the objections, Gore sees a broad social consensus 
     recognizing the value of faith in guiding people's lives. 
     ``This is not any great blinding insight from moi,'' he 
     joked.
       Asked how his beliefs affect his life, Gore first responded 
     by reading rapidly from the final page of his 1992 book Earth 
     in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit: ``My own faith 
     is rooted in the unshakable belief in God as creator and 
     sustainer, a deeply personal interpretation of, and 
     relationship with, Christ.''
       Asked again, he lists his churchgoing Southern Baptist 
     childhood, education in an elite Episcopal school, a year in 
     a seminary after service in Vietnam and a life of reading 
     religious philosophers.
       Gore is known as a champion of science, but he sees no 
     separation between his cerebellum and his soul: ``You can 
     have the Earth circle around the sun and still believe in 
     God.''
                                  ____


     [From Brookings Institution, Brookings Review, Mar. 22, 1999]

                          No Aid to Religion?

                  (Ronald J. Unruh and Heidi Rolland)

       As government struggles to solve a confounding array of 
     poverty-related social problems--deficient education, un- and 
     underemployment, substance abuse, broken families, 
     substandard housing, violent crime, inadequate health care, 
     crumbling urban infrastructures--it has turned increasingly 
     to

[[Page H4463]]

     the private sector, including a wide range of faith-based 
     agencies. As described in Stephen Monsma's When Sacred and 
     Secular Mix, public funding for nonprofit organizations with 
     a religious affiliation is surprisingly high. Of the faith-
     based child service agencies Monsma surveyed, 63 percent 
     reported that more than 20 percent of their budget came from 
     public funds
       Government's unusual openness to cooperation with the 
     private religious sector arises in part from public 
     disenchantment with its program, but also from an 
     increasingly widespread view that the nation's acute social 
     problems have moral and spiritual roots. Acknowledging that 
     social problems arise both from unjust socioeconomic 
     structures and from misguided personal choices, scholars, 
     journalists, politicians, and community activists are calling 
     attention to the vital and unique role that religious 
     institutions play in social restoration.
       Though analysis of the outcomes of faith-based social 
     services is as yet incomplete, the available evidence 
     suggests that some of those services may be more effective 
     and cost-efficient than similar secular and government 
     programs. One oft-cited example is Teen Challenge, the 
     world's largest residential drug rehabilitation program, with 
     a reported rehabilitation rate of over 70 percent--a vastly 
     higher success rate than most other programs, at a 
     substantially lower cost. Multiple studies identify religion 
     as a key variable in escaping the inner city, recovering from 
     alcohol and drug addiction, keeping marriage together, and 
     staying out of prison.


                   the new cooperation and the courts

       Despite this potential, public-private cooperative efforts 
     involving religious agencies have been constrained by the 
     current climate of First Amendment interpretation. The ruling 
     interpretive principle on public funding of religious 
     nonprofits--following the metaphor of the wall of 
     separation between church and state, as set forth in 
     Everson v. Board of Education (1947)--is ``no aid to 
     religion.'' While most court cases have involved funding 
     for religious elementary and secondary schools, clear 
     implications have been drawn for other types of 
     ``pervasively sectarian'' organizations. A religiously 
     affiliated institution may receive public funds--but only 
     if it is not too religious.
       Application of the no-aid policy by the courts, however, 
     has been confusing. The Supreme Court has provided no single, 
     decisive definition of ``pervasively sectarian'' to determine 
     which institutions qualify for public funding, and judicial 
     tests have been applied inconsistently. Rulings attempting to 
     separate the sacred and secular aspects of religiously based 
     programs often appear arbitrary from a faith perspective, and 
     at worst border on impermissible entanglement. As a result of 
     this legal confusion, some agencies receiving public funds 
     pray openly with their clients, while other agencies have 
     been banned even from displaying religious symbols. Faith-
     based child welfare agencies have greater freedom in 
     incorporating religious components than religious schools 
     working with the same population. Only a few publicly funded 
     religious agencies have been challenged in the courts, but 
     such leniency may not continue. While the no-aid principle 
     holds official sway, faith-based agencies must live with the 
     tension that what the government gives with one hand, it can 
     take away (with legal damages to boot) with the other. The 
     lack of legal recourse leaves agencies vulnerable to 
     pressures from public officials and community leaders to 
     secularize their programs.
       The Supreme Court's restrictive rulings on aid to religious 
     agencies stand in tension with the government's movement 
     toward grater reliance on private sector social initiatives. 
     If the no-aid principle were applied consistently against all 
     religiously affiliated agencies now receiving public funding, 
     government administration of social services would face 
     significant setbacks. This ambiguous state of affairs for 
     public-private cooperation has created a climate of mistrust 
     and misunderstanding, in which faith-based agencies are 
     reluctant to expose themselves to risk of lawsuits, civic 
     authorities are confused about what is permissible, and 
     multiple pressures push religious organizations into hiding 
     or compromising their identity, while at the same time, many 
     public officials and legislators are willing to look the 
     other way when faith-based social service agencies include 
     substantial religious programming.
       Fortunately, an alternative principle of First Amendment 
     interpretation, which Monsma identifies as the ``equal 
     treatment'' strain, has recently been emerging in the Supreme 
     Court. This line of reasoning--as in Widmar v. Vincent (1981) 
     and Rosenberger v. Rector (1995)--holds that public access to 
     facilities or benefits cannot exclude religious groups. 
     Although the principle has not yet bet applied to funding for 
     social service agencies, it could be a precedent for 
     defending cooperation between government and faith-based 
     agencies where the offer of funding is available to any 
     qualifying agency.
       The section of the 1996 welfare reform law known as 
     Charitable Choice paves the way for this cooperation by 
     prohibiting government from discriminating against nonprofit 
     applicants for certain types of social service funding 
     (whether by grant, contract, or voucher) on the basis of 
     their religious nature. Charitable Choice also shields faith-
     based agencies receiving federal funding from governmental 
     pressures to alter their religious character--among other 
     things assuring their freedom to hire staff who share 
     their religious perspective. Charitable Choice prohibits 
     religious nonprofits from using government funds for 
     ``inherently religious'' activities--defined as 
     ``sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization''--
     but allows them to raise money from nongovernment sources 
     to cover the costs of any such activities they choose to 
     integrate into their program. Clearly, Charitable Choice 
     departs from the dominant ``pervasively sectarian'' 
     standard for determining eligibility for government 
     funding, which has restricted the funding of thoroughly 
     religious organizations. It makes religiosity irrelevant 
     to the selection of agencies for public-private 
     cooperative ventures and emphasizes instead the public 
     goods to be achieved by cooperation. At the same time, 
     Charitable Choice protects clients' First Amendment rights 
     by ensuring that services are not conditional on religious 
     preference, that client participation in religious 
     activities is voluntary, and that an alternative 
     nonreligious service provider is available.


         the first amendment and the case for charitable choice

       Does Charitable Choice violate the First Amendment's non-
     establishment and free exercise clauses?
       We think not. As long as participants in faith-based 
     programs freely choose those programs over a ``secular'' 
     provider and may opt out of particular religious activities 
     within the program, no one is coerced to participate in 
     religious activity, and freedom of religion is preserved. As 
     long as government is equally open to funding programs rooted 
     in any religious perspective whether Islam, Christianity, 
     philosophic naturalism, or no explicit faith perspective--
     government is not establishing or providing preferential 
     benefits to any specific religion or to religion in general. 
     As long as religious institutions maintain autonomy over such 
     crucial areas as program content and staffing, the integrity 
     of their separate identity is maintained. As long as 
     government funds are exclusively designated for activities 
     that are not inherently religious, no taxpayer need fear that 
     taxes are paying for religious activity. While Charitable 
     Choice may increase interactions between government and 
     religious institutions, these interactions do not in 
     themselves violate religious liberty. Charitable Choice is 
     designed precisely to discourage such interactions from 
     leading to impermissible entanglement or establishment of 
     religion.
       Not only does Charitable Choice not violate proper church-
     state relations, it strengthens First Amendment protections. 
     In the current context of extensive government funding for a 
     wide array of social services, limiting government funds to 
     allegedly ``secular'' programs actually offers preferential 
     treatment to one specific religious worldview.
       In setting forth this argument, we distinguish four types 
     of social service providers. First are secular providers who 
     make no explicit reference to God or any ultimate values. 
     People of faith may work in such an agency--say, a job 
     training program that teaches job skills and work habits--but 
     staff use only current techniques from the social and medical 
     sciences without reference to religious faith. Expressing 
     explicit faith commitments of any sort is considered 
     inappropriate.
       Second are religiously affiliated providers (of any 
     religion) who incorporate little inherently religious 
     programming and rely primarily on the same medical and 
     social science methods as a secular agency. Such a program 
     may be provided by a faith community and a staff with 
     strong theological reasons for their involvement, and 
     religious symbols and a chaplain may be present. A 
     religiously affiliated job training program might be 
     housed in a church, and clients might be informed about 
     the church's religious programs and about the availability 
     of a chaplain's services. But the content of the training 
     curriculum would be very similar to that of a secular 
     program.
       Third are exclusively faith-based providers whose programs 
     rely on inherently religious activities, making little or no 
     use of techniques from the medical and social sciences. An 
     example would be a prayer support group and Bible study or 
     seminar that teaches biblical principles of work for job-
     seekers.
       Fourth are holistic faith-based providers who combine 
     techniques from the medical and social sciences with 
     inherently religious components such as prayer, worship, and 
     the study of sacred texts. A holistic job training program 
     might incorporate explicitly biblical principles into a 
     curriculum that teaches job skills and work habits, and 
     invite clients to pray with program staff.
       Everyone agrees that public funding of only the last two 
     types of providers would constitute government establishment 
     of religion. But if government (because of the ``no aid to 
     religion'' principle) funds only secular programs, is this a 
     properly neutral policy?
       Not really, for two reasons. First, given the widespread 
     public funding for private social services, if government 
     funds only secular programs, it puts all faith-based programs 
     at a disadvantage. Government would tax everyone--both 
     religious and secular--and then fund only allegedly secular 
     programs. Government-run or government-funded programs would 
     be competing in the same fields with faith-based programs 
     lacking access to such support.
       Second, secular programs are not religiously neutral. 
     Implicitly, purely ``secular''

[[Page H4464]]

     programs convey the message that nonreligious technical 
     knowledge and skills are sufficient to address social 
     problems such as low job skills and single parenthood. 
     Implicitly, they teach the irrelevance of a spiritual 
     dimension to human life. Although secular programs may not 
     explicitly uphold the tenets of philosophical naturalism and 
     the belief that nothing exists except the natural order, 
     implicitly they support such a worldview. Rather than being 
     religiously neutral, ``secular'' programs implicitly convey a 
     set of naturalistic beliefs about the nature of persons and 
     ultimate reality that serve the same function as religion. 
     Vast public funding of only secular programs means massive 
     government bias in favor of one particular quasi-religious 
     perspective--namely, philosophical naturalism.
       Religiously affiliated agencies (type two), which have 
     received large amounts of funding in spite of the ``no aid to 
     religion'' principle, pose another problem. These agencies 
     often claim a clear religious identity--in the agency's 
     history or name, in the religious identity and motivations of 
     sponsors and some staff, in the provision of a chaplain, or 
     in visible religious symbols. By choice or in response to 
     external pressures, however, little in their program content 
     and methods distinguishes many of these agencies from their 
     fully secular counterparts. Prayer, spiritual counseling, 
     Bible studies, and invitations to join a faith community are 
     not featured; in fact most such agencies would consider 
     inherently religious activities inappropriate to social 
     service programs.
       Millions of public dollars have gone to support the social 
     service programs of religiously affiliated agencies. There 
     are three possible ways to understand this apparent potential 
     conflict with the ``no aid to religion'' principle. Perhaps 
     these agencies are finally only nominally religious, and in 
     fact are essentially secular institutions, in which case 
     their religious sponsors should be raising questions. Or 
     perhaps they are more pervasively religious than they have 
     appeared to government funders, in which case the government 
     should have withheld funding.
       The third explanation may be that these agencies are 
     operating with a specific, widely accepted worldview that 
     holds that people may need God for their spiritual well-
     being, but that their social problems can be addressed 
     exclusively through medical and social science methods. 
     Spiritual nurture, in this worldview, is important in its 
     place, but has no direct bearing on achieving public goods 
     like drug rehabilitation or overcoming welfare dependency. 
     Such a worldview acknowledges the spiritual dimension of 
     persons and the existence of a transcendent realm outside of 
     nature. But it also teaches (whether explicitly or 
     implicitly) a particular understanding of God and persons, by 
     addressing people's social needs independently of their 
     spiritual nature. By allowing aid to flow only to the 
     religiously affiliated agencies holding this understanding, 
     government in effect has given preferential treatment to a 
     particular religious worldview.
       Holistic faith-based agencies (type four), on the other 
     hand, operate on the belief that no area of a person's life--
     whether psychological, physical, social, or economic--can be 
     adequately considered in isolation from the spiritual. 
     Agencies operating out of this worldview consider the 
     explicitly spiritual components of their programs--used in 
     conjunction with conventional, secular social service 
     methods--as fundamental to their ability to achieve the 
     secular social goals desired by government. Government has in 
     the past considered such agencies ineligible for public 
     funding, though they may provide the same services as their 
     religiously affiliated counterparts.
       Some claim that allowing public funds to be channeled 
     through a holistic religious program would threaten the First 
     Amendment, while funding religiously affiliated agencies does 
     not. But the pervasively sectarian standard has also 
     constituted a genuine, though more subtle, establishment of 
     religion, because it supports one type of religious worldview 
     while penalizing holistic beliefs. It should not be the place 
     of government to judge between religious worldviews--but this 
     is what the no-aid principle has required the courts to do. 
     Selective religious perspectives on the administration of 
     social services are deemed permissible for government to aid. 
     Those who believe that explicitly religious content does not 
     play a central role in addressing social problems are free to 
     act on this belief with government support; those who believe 
     that spiritual nurture is an integral aspect of social 
     transformation are not.
       The alternative is to pursue a policy that discriminates 
     neither against nor in favor of any religious perspective. 
     Charitable Choice enables the government to offer equal 
     access to benefits to any faith-based nonprofit, as long as 
     the money is not used for inherently religious activities and 
     the agency provides the social benefits desired by 
     government. Charitable Choice does not ask courts to decide 
     which agencies are too religious. It clearly indicates the 
     types of ``inherently religious'' activities that are off-
     limits for government funding. The government must 
     continue to make choices about which faith-based agencies 
     will receive funds, but eligibility for funding is to be 
     based on an agency's ability to provide specific public 
     goods, rather than on its religious character. Charitable 
     Choice moves the focus on church-state interactions away 
     from the religious beliefs and practices of social service 
     agencies, and onto the common goals of helping the poor 
     and strengthening the fabric of public life.


                           A model for change

       Our treasured heritage of religious freedom demands caution 
     as we contemplate new forms of church-state cooperation--but 
     caution does not preclude change, if the benefits promise to 
     outweigh the dangers. Indeed, change is required if the 
     pervasively sectarian standard is actually biased in favor of 
     some religious perspectives and against others.
       For church and state to cooperate successfully, both must 
     remain true to their roles and mission. Religious 
     organizations must refrain from accepting public funds if 
     that means compromising their beliefs and undermining their 
     effectiveness and integrity. Fortunately, Charitable Choice 
     allows faith-based agencies to maintain their religious 
     identity, while expanding the possibilities for constructive 
     cooperation between church and state in addressing the 
     nation's most serious social problems.
                                  ____


              [From the Georgetown Journal, Winter, 1997]

  Charitable Choice: Texas and the Charitable Choice Provision of the 
        Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996

                         (Lillemor McGoldrick)

       (Summary: * * * In Texas, contracting with faith-based 
     organizations to provide social services is nothing new. . . 
     . For example, at the Texas Department of Human Services 
     (TDHS) approximately 10% of all contracts for delivery of 
     services to clients are already with faith-based 
     organizations * * * One of the primary barriers to working 
     with faith-based organizations is the common perception that, 
     by either contracting with the state or accepting publicly 
     funded vouchers, the faith-based group will have to sacrifice 
     aspects of its religious integrity. . . . TDHS has held many 
     local town meetings to encourage partnerships with smaller, 
     locally-based charities, examined its contract language for 
     potential bias and barriers, assessed its current contracts, 
     and worked to connect grassroots organizations with one 
     another. . . . While the effect of the new laws and agency 
     efforts to promote Charitable Choice in Texas is not yet 
     measurable, the intent is clear. Texas is embracing its 
     tradition of working with faith-based organizations to help 
     those in need receive assistance. Depending on who you talk 
     to, this could be a partnership made in . . . . well, 
     Heaven.)
       In Texas, contracting with faith-based organizations to 
     provide social services is nothing new. Well before the 
     Charitable Choice provision of the Personal Responsibility 
     and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 was introduced, Texas has 
     been making the choice to involve faith-based social service 
     providers in its welfare system. For example, at the Texas 
     Department of Human Services (TDHS) approximately 10% of all 
     contracts for delivery of services to clients are already 
     with faith-based organizations. In some categories of 
     contracts, this number has consistently been much higher. 
     Forty percent of contracts for Refugee Assistance programs, 
     and 50% of contracts for Repatriation programs, are with 
     faith-based vendors. While the recent Charitable Choice 
     provision did not introduce Texas to a new way of looking at 
     social service distribution, it did emphasize the need to 
     pursue and nurture new and existing partnerships with faith-
     based groups and to renew Texas' commitment to work with 
     these organizations.
       On December 17, 1996, in direct response to both the 
     Charitable Choice provision and the release of the Governor's 
     Task Force on Faith-Based Community Service Group Report, 
     Faith in Action, Texas Governor George W. Bush, Jr. issued an 
     Executive Order directing state agencies to take affirmative 
     steps to use faith-based organizations to provide welfare-
     related services. The Governor, asserting that ``government 
     does not have a monopoly on compassion,'' encouraged state 
     agencies to welcome the participation of faith-based 
     organizations in the distribution of welfare-related care. At 
     the TDHS, the response was immediate. On January 30, 1997, 
     the TDHS Charitable Choice Workgroup was formed to assess the 
     current status of TDHS contracts and faith-based groups, to 
     identify barriers to contracting with these groups, and to 
     recommend the most effective ways to fully implement 
     Charitable Choice. Less than four months later, on April 9, 
     1997, the TDHS Workgroup hosted the Statewide Working 
     Conference on Charitable Choice, which was attended by over 
     200 individuals from faith-based, community and state 
     organizations.
       From its own investigations and from input received at the 
     Statewide Conference, the Charitable Choice Workgroup 
     promulgated recommendations to ensure that no real or 
     perceived barriers exist that could discourage faith-based 
     organizations from working with the state in the distribution 
     of social services. One of the primary barriers to working 
     with faith-based organizations is the common perception that, 
     by either contracting with the state or accepting publicly 
     funded vouchers, the faith-based group will have to sacrifice 
     aspects of its religious integrity. The Charitable Choice 
     Workgroup has sought to assure faith-based organizations that 
     religious social service providers are not required to 
     secularize their programs when working with state agencies. 
     TDHS has held many local town meetings to encourage 
     partnerships with smaller, locally-based charities, examined 
     its contract language for

[[Page H4465]]

     potential bias and barriers, assessed its current contracts, 
     and worked to connect grassroots organizations with one 
     another.
       In June 1997, Governor Bush further promoted Charitable 
     Choice by signing four bills into law that encourage 
     religious organizations to provide welfare-related social 
     services to needy Texans by quelling fears that the presence 
     of state money will destroy the religious mission of faith-
     based organizations. One of the new laws authorizes the 
     private accreditation of religious childcare centers, so that 
     these childcare centers do not have to be licensed by the 
     state. The accrediting agency does, however, have to be 
     approved by the State Department of Protective and Regulatory 
     Services. Another law encourages prisons, juvenile detention 
     centers and law enforcement agencies to use the services of 
     faith-based organizations in rehabilitation programs. The 
     Governor also signed a bill exempting chemical dependency 
     programs run by religious groups from state licensure and 
     regulations. The final law provides legal immunity to 
     individuals who donate medical supplies and equipment to 
     nonprofit medical providers.
       While the effect of the new laws and agency efforts to 
     promote Charitable Choice in Texas is not yet measurable, the 
     intent is clear. Texas is embracing its tradition of working 
     with faith-based organizations to help those in need receive 
     assistance. Depending on who you talk to, this could be a 
     partnership made in * * * well, Heaven.
                                  ____


              [From the Georgetown Journal, Winter, 1997]

 Charitable Choice: Maryland's Implementation of the Charitable Choice 
              Provision: The Story of One Woman's Success

                          (James D. Standish)

       (Summary: . . . As ``charitable choice'' funding has become 
     available, faith-based welfare-to-work programs have had to 
     make difficult choices. . . . While the church community has 
     been generous in its support of these charitable efforts, 
     Payne Memorial was the first faith-based program in Maryland 
     to apply for state funding under the charitable choice 
     program. . . . One of the first clients to benefit from 
     Maryland's charitable choice program was Marsha Beckwith. . . 
     . The staff at Payne even assisted her in setting up 
     interviews. . . . Despite these concerns, Maryland is 
     committed to charitable choice as part of its overall effort 
     to decentralize welfare-to-work programs. Connie Tolbert, a 
     spokesperson for the Maryland Department of Human Resources, 
     says that Governor Parris Glendening is very enthusiastic 
     about the charitable choice program. . . . Because Maryland's 
     goal is to place the administration of the charitable choice 
     program at the local level, the State divides the federal 
     grant into mini-block grants to each county which then 
     decides how best to use the money. . . . According to Ms. 
     Tolbert, charitable choice funding helped the State to meet 
     the federally mandated goal of getting 25% of its base year 
     welfare recipients employed or into work training by the end 
     of 1997. . . .
       Jonathan Friedman's Note, ``The Charitable Choice Provision 
     of the Federal Welfare Act and the Establishment Clause,'' 
     addresses the many constitutional issues implicated by the 
     Charitable Choice Provision of the Welfare Act of 1996. Under 
     the new Welfare Act, Charitable Choice not only permits 
     states to provide social services through contracts and 
     voucher arrangements with charitable and religious 
     organizations, but also allows these organizations to 
     maintain their religious character while administering social 
     services.
       The following three essays look at Charitable Choice as it 
     is, or may be, implemented. Through these essays many voices 
     emerge: the voice of a benefit recipient who receives social 
     services through a faith-based provider, the voices of 
     directors of charitable organizations that provide social 
     services, the voices of states embracing Charitable Choice, 
     and the voice of a grassroots advocate cautioning against the 
     Charitable Choice movement. Hopefully, these essays will 
     provide a fuller understanding of what Charitable Choice 
     means in practice.)
       As ``charitable choice'' funding has become available, 
     faith-based welfare-to-work programs have had to make 
     difficult choices. Two such programs in Baltimore, both 
     working to transfer people from the welfare rolls onto 
     corporate payrolls, have made different choices. Accepting 
     state funds under ``charitable choice'' has allowed at least 
     one organization to create remarkable successes.
       The Payne Memorial AME Church has an active ministry 
     providing food, clothing, emergency loans, child care, and 
     assistance with job placement to Baltimore's poor residents. 
     While the church community has been generous in its support 
     of these charitable efforts, Payne Memorial was the first 
     faith-based program in Maryland to apply for state funding 
     under the charitable choice program. According to Marilyn 
     Akin, the Executive Director of the Payne Memorial Outreach 
     program, the church's program fits right in with the state 
     program's goals; ``The state does not know how it [can move 
     enough] people off welfare . . . to reach its goals. In 
     addition, everyone has been disappointed with past jobs 
     programs. There is now a feeling that faith-based 
     organizations may be able to provide . . . a dimension that 
     the state programs were unable to provide.''
       So far the application and administration process of the 
     program does not appear to be entangled in bureaucracy. Payne 
     Memorial's application for funds was less than twenty-five 
     pages in length, far less burdensome than applications to 
     other programs with which Ms. Akin has had experience. The 
     application was sent to the Baltimore City Department of 
     Social Services, then on to the State Board of Public Works 
     which approved the proposal. The program operates under a 
     contract model: the church receives a payment for each person 
     who finishes the Payne Memorial job training process, an 
     additional payment for each trainee it places in a community 
     job for thirteen weeks, and a further payment if the trainee 
     is still in that job after twenty-six weeks. The only 
     frustration Ms. Akin reports is the delay between the time 
     that the church invests in the recruitment and training, and 
     the time of the payment. As with most charities, she notes, 
     Payne Memorial does not have a large cash reserve so the time 
     delay creates cash flow problems.
       In sum, however, Ms. Akin and the church staff are very 
     excited about the program. They view it as one more way in 
     which the church can achieve its mission of helping those in 
     need, by helping people who cannot be effectively served by 
     any government program. The charitable choice funds have 
     enabled the program to expand dramatically in size. Denise 
     Harper, Assistant Director of the program, notes that 
     although church members have invested an impressive $150,000 
     in the program to date, this amount is dwarfed by Payne's 
     $1.5 million, two-year contract with the state.
       One of the first clients to benefit from Maryland's 
     charitable choice program was Marsha Beckwith. Ms. Beckwith 
     came to Payne Memorial after completing another faith-based 
     program. She had spent five years on public assistance, and 
     needed help in moving back into the work world when a friend 
     told her about the new program at Payne Memorial AME Church. 
     Although the program was so new that no one at the social 
     services office knew about it, Ms. Beckwith managed to obtain 
     a referral and enrolled in the program.
       Ms. Beckwith knew she needed to improve her skills, 
     especially her computer skills, in order to re-enter the 
     workforce. The program at Payne not only gave her computer 
     instruction, but also provided her with instruction on how to 
     approach the job search process, on how to behave on the job, 
     and general training related to the workplace and the type of 
     self-discipline necessary to find and keep a job. The staff 
     at Payne even assisted her in setting up interviews. Ms. 
     Beckwith interviewed with a dean at Johns Hopkins University, 
     explained Payne Memorial's program, and noted that she was 
     its first graduate. The dean was enthusiastic about the Payne 
     Memorial program and Ms. Beckwith's success. In offering her 
     the job, the dean commented that Marsha would have to ``set 
     an example of what graduates of the program can do in the 
     workplace.'' Ms. Beckwith has now been working for over two 
     months at Johns Hopkins University, and is setting just the 
     type of example the people at Payne hoped for. Not only is 
     her work progressing well, but she now also volunteers at 
     Payne, helping and encouraging others who are going though 
     the process she has completed. She is pleased that she can be 
     a role model, but gives the credit to God.
       Before enrolling at Payne, Ms. Beckwith had gone through a 
     Christian rebirth. ``I had strayed away from God, but He 
     directed me to Payne Memorial. He has opened many doors for 
     me. It has not been easy, but I always know who to call 
     now,'' she says. She is emphatic, however, that the program 
     at Payne does not push religion on its participants. ``I 
     benefited from the faith-based principles. But many of the 
     clients are worldly people with little religious interest. . 
     . . Religion isn't pushed on you at Payne--faith is there if 
     you want it. But you can go through the program without being 
     a Christian. As Payne receives state money, they can't force 
     the religion on clients.'' She notes that some participants 
     may feel uncomfortable with the standards of the program, 
     though, which include strict dress requirements and a ban on 
     the use of profanity.
       Ms. Beckwith's story may help others make the transition 
     from welfare to work more easily. She has been asked by the 
     Transportation Research Board, a think-tank based in 
     Washington, D.C., to participate in a conference on the 
     transportation problems faced by people seeking to leave the 
     welfare rolls. It is an issue with which Ms. Beckwith is 
     intimately familiar; she presently takes eleven buses twice a 
     week to get to work, visit her church and assist at Payne. 
     Waiting for buses eats up much of her day. The wasted time 
     and the cost of public transportation are problems facing 
     many people who attempt to join the workforce.
       While the staff at Payne Memorial are very encouraged by 
     Ms. Beckwith's story, they realistically note that she is an 
     exceptionally motivated participant. It is unclear how many 
     more clients will share Ms. Beckwith's success, but as 
     welfare funding and availability are reduced, Ms. Beckwith's 
     success story will need to be replicated thousands of times. 
     The ability of welfare participants and organizations like 
     Payne Memorial to ensure this replication is speculative at 
     best, particularly if the economy declines in the future. But 
     for now, this one woman's remarkable transition to 
     independence provides hope that charitable choice can help to 
     break the pattern of welfare dependency.
       Despite the positive experience of Payne Memorial, not all 
     faith-based providers are ready to take the plunge into state 
     funding. Genesis Jobs is a multi-faith organization

[[Page H4466]]

     that specializes in training unemployed people and placing 
     them in jobs. Emily Thayer, Director of the program, says 
     that Genesis Jobs has not applied for any state funding. 
     ``When we look for funding,'' she states, ``we look for 
     support from private donors. We have had fifteen other 
     organizations call us to ask whether we would partner with 
     them in their application for the charitable choice funding. 
     We have agreed to help them, but we are not looking for any 
     funds ourselves.'' Ms. Thayer acknowledges, though, that the 
     new charitable choice provisions open the door to public 
     funding for organizations like hers. ``Until now, if we were 
     faith-based, the government had an allergy to us . . . this 
     releases us from the bondage of never taking public funds.''
       Ms. Thayer's reasons for staying away from state funds are 
     practical. The extra funds would boost an organization 
     attempting the mammoth task of meeting the needs of 
     Baltimore's unemployed, but state funds come with strings 
     attached. ``We simply don't have the resources to make the 
     grant applications. Maybe more importantly, with any state 
     program, there are always compliance issues,'' she notes. 
     With only five full-time employees at Genesis Jobs, it is not 
     surprising that Ms. Thayer is unwilling to divert staff 
     attention to the application process, and to ensuring 
     compliance with program rules that may constantly be in flux. 
     She also feels that focusing the attention of her small 
     organization on applying to governmental programs and 
     complying with their regulations will dim its focus on moving 
     people from welfare into work. She states simply ``We're here 
     to do what government can't.'' For Genesis Jobs, that means 
     relying exclusively on funding from the private sector.
       Along with the practical difficulties of accepting state 
     funds, there are concerns that the use of state dollars to 
     support church-based organizations will blur the separation 
     of church and state. In time, state funding may corrupt 
     churches that become dependent on state money, and may draw 
     religious groups into politics to ensure that the money 
     supply does not disappear. Churches that take state money may 
     need to make difficult choices down the road, either to 
     reduce dramatically their social programs, or to compromise 
     their religious beliefs to accommodate state regulations. 
     Critics of charitable choice also point to examples of 
     churches being forced to rename their programs, or to turn 
     pictures of Jesus to face the wall, as evidence that state 
     regulations may force programs to compromise their religious 
     convictions. But proponents of charitable choice insist that 
     with the new law, and with a new appreciation for what 
     church-based programs can do for welfare recipients, states 
     will accommodate some religious expression in government-
     funded programs.
       Despite these concerns, Maryland is committed to charitable 
     choice as part of its overall effort to decentralize welfare-
     to-work programs. Connie Tolbert, a spokesperson for the 
     Maryland Department of Human Resources, says that Governor 
     Parris Glendening is very enthusiastic about the charitable 
     choice program. ``In the past,'' she notes, ``we've never 
     really placed any expectation on welfare recipients. The 
     churches are in the communities, they know the welfare 
     recipients and they are able to work with them. By partnering 
     with these community based programs, we can be much more 
     effective.'' Because Maryland's goal is to place the 
     administration of the charitable choice program at the local 
     level, the State divides the federal grant into mini-block 
     grants to each county which then decides how best to use the 
     money. Along with providing for job development centers, like 
     the one run by Payne Memorial, charitable choice funds are 
     being used by church-based groups to administer child-
     specific state benefits and transitional-support benefits. 
     According to Ms. Tolbert, charitable choice funding helped 
     the State to meet the federally mandated goal of getting 25% 
     of its base year welfare recipients employed or into work 
     training by the end of 1997. By October 1997, the state had 
     already reduced its welfare rolls by 36%. Despite the 
     controversy and practical hurdles, charitable choice seems to 
     offer a new hope to Maryland's policy-makers and its poor. 
     Whether that hope will be fulfilled remains to be seen.

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would ask the gentleman from Indiana if the legislative intent is 
to overturn the present state of Supreme Court law or to read this 
amendment in the light of the present state of the Supreme Court law in 
terms of pervasively sectarian programs.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to confess up front that I do not 
understand all the details and implications of what the gentleman is 
saying.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, my question is whether the gentleman wants 
this amendment read under the present state of the Supreme Court 
interpretations or whether the amendment is designed to try to overturn 
Supreme Court decisions in funding religious organizations.
  Mr. SOUDER. The amendment speaks for itself, and that will obviously 
be determined by who this administration and others would make the 
grants to, and their potential would be challenges if, in fact, people 
believe it is not within the current interpretations of the Supreme 
Court.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, considering the important nature of this 
issue, I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed an additional 30 
minutes to try to answer the questions that the author of the amendment 
just said he could not?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 30 printed in part A of 
House Report 106-1-86.


                 Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Souder

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 30 offered by Mr. Souder:
       At the end of the bill, add the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
       

     SEC. 3. NONDISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGIOUS OR MORAL 
                   BELIEFS.

       The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 
     (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) is amended by inserting before title 
     III the following:


        ``nondiscrimination based on religious or moral beliefs

       ``Sec. 299J. None of the funds appropriated to carry out 
     this Act may be used, directly or indirectly, to discriminate 
     against, denigrate, or otherwise undermine the religious or 
     moral beliefs of juveniles who participate in programs for 
     which financial assistance is provided under this Act or of 
     the parents or legal guardians of such juveniles.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very straightforward and 
simple, speaks for itself. My amendment reads simply:
  None of the funds appropriated to carry out this act may be used 
directly or indirectly to discriminate against, denigrate or otherwise 
undermine the religious or moral beliefs of juveniles who participate 
in programs for which financial assistance is provided under this act 
or of the parents or legal guardians of such juveniles.
  I believe that we have had cases that are marginal and difficult to 
sort through, but that in our enthusiasm to fix some problems often we 
go to the other extreme, and in the case of the juvenile justice bill, 
some programs designed to reduce the potential for youth violence by 
promoting tolerance have the effect of undermining the religious 
beliefs of children and their parents. Sometimes the promotion of 
tolerance overrides the religious beliefs of students and their 
parents. Instead of merely encouraging people of all backgrounds and 
preferences to get along in a civil society, the programs attempt to 
actually change the moral beliefs that are taught at home. My amendment 
protects the religious freedom of young people and their parents or 
guardians by simply stating that none of the funds used to carry out 
this act may be used to discriminate against or otherwise undermine the 
participant's religious beliefs.

[[Page H4467]]

  I also want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), 
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), who have worked for the past month to try 
to work out compromise language. I am not unhappy with the compromise 
language we have. I reserve my right to offer an amendment, which I 
have. I believe that the compromise that is in the base bill is an 
acceptable compromise. I believe this is a little more direct, and that 
is why I offer this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Virginia opposed to 
the amendment?
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment and claim the 
time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, allow me to speak briefly on my opposition 
to this amendment.
  ``The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention from 
producing literature which would discriminate against, denigrate or 
otherwise undermine the religious or moral beliefs of any juvenile or 
adult in the programs authorized in this bill'' is certainly just 
simply too broad and too vague, it is too equivocal. The nature of this 
amendment could be construed to admit any category, race, religion, 
gender, sexual orientation from inclusion in hate crimes. At a time 
when violence against gays and minorities is becoming more frequent 
there is no place for benign legislation. We must have strong and 
direct legislation in an effort to rid our Nation of hate crimes.
  And I would also like to say that I add my remarks regarding the 
previous amendment that undermines the major precepts that our Nation 
was founded on, the separation of church and state. The previous 
amendment seeks to incorporate religion into our justice system. Both 
of these entities have distinct places in our society and are not to be 
combined. Religious freedom is a core of our Nation and must be 
preserved at all costs. Charitable choice is simply going to be 
divisive.
  With that I express my opposition to both of these amendments.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, someone will say, ``But, Bill, tomorrow 
morning at 8 o'clock you will be in the Congressional prayer breakfast. 
How can you oppose this amendment?''
  Mr. Chairman, the reason I oppose this amendment is because, God 
willing, I will be in the Congressional prayer breakfast tomorrow 
morning, and my religion tells me that when we make an agreement, 
whether it is with the minority or with anyone else, it is a good faith 
arrangement, and if it is going to be broken, then I should have the 
opportunity to tell the minority as a matter of fact before their 
opportunity to offer amendments is precluded because they are not 
printed in the Record.
  I understand that apparently this was going to be made in order by 
somebody a week ago. Well, if that is true, then I should have had the 
courtesy of knowing so I could tell the minority that what we agreed to 
in good faith is now broken. Therefore they should go and offer all 
their amendments.
  What the minority agreed to was that they would not offer gun 
language, they would not offer hate language, if as a matter of fact we 
settled on something that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) agreed to and I 
modified which said materials produced or distributed using funds 
appropriated to carry out this act for the purpose of preventing hate 
crime should be respectful of the diversity of deeply held religious 
beliefs and shall make it clear that for most people religious faith is 
not associated with prejudice and intolerance.
  That is what they agreed to, and, as I said, my religion tells me 
that I should be here right at this particular time opposing this 
amendment because we are breaking an agreement that we had with the 
minority in the committee. I cannot operate a committee that way. I 
have to lose all my respect on either side of the aisle if, as a matter 
of fact, I do not keep my word.
  So I would ask everyone to oppose the amendment simply because we are 
breaking faith with an agreement that we negotiated in good faith.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. We had a 
number of speakers earlier in the day, but at this point I have no 
additional speakers, but I reserve the balance because I may want to 
talk.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, among the allowable uses of funds of the 
Juvenile Justice Act are funds that can be used to create programs to 
prevent hate crimes, to prevent crimes that are based on prejudice. It 
is a good program. The Federal Government, the Office of Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, contracted with an organization to 
create a curriculum, and some of my friends in the various religious 
communities looked at some of that curriculum, and they said, ``You 
know, we think they went a little bit too far. In this curriculum they 
were meant to say that there are ways that religious organizations can 
become intolerant and promote intolerance, and it appeared to some that 
that curriculum was generalizing in a way that some folks felt offended 
by, as if religion implied some kind of intolerance and bias.

                              {time}  0050

  So I worked very hard with the Traditional Values Coalition, with the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and with my good friend, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), and we crafted language, language in the Goodling 
amendment that we will offer tomorrow. It has been accepted by the 
Republican side, it has been accepted by the Democratic side, and it 
has been accepted by the administration. It is only marginally 
different than the language that the gentleman from Indian (Mr. Souder) 
offers, and the gentleman is gracious in his comments to acknowledge 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, we think that we need a ``no'' vote on this Souder 
amendment tomorrow, because we think that eliminating that amendment 
and taking the agreed-to language to conference is the simplest and 
most direct way to resolve this very contentious issue, and so we will 
be asking Members on both sides of the aisle tomorrow to vote in the 
negative.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an impossible amendment 
to know what it means or to enforce. It says, no funds should be used 
directly or indirectly to discriminate against, denigrate, or otherwise 
undermine the moral beliefs of juveniles who participate in these 
programs. Who knows what the religious or moral beliefs of the 
juveniles that participate in these programs are.
  When I went to school, I was taught the Declaration of Independence 
in school, that all men are created equal. I was taught that we should 
not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color or sex, and that we 
should not denigrate other people because of their religious views. The 
Reverend Louis Farrakhan says that whites are devils and that Judaism 
is gutter religion. Suppose adherents of his religion are juveniles 
that participate in these programs. Are we to use funds that would 
undermine their beliefs by teaching that all men are created equal, 
that we should respect each other because his adherents are among those 
who participate in these programs? That is what this says.
  The fact is, it is impossible to know whose beliefs we are offending, 
because no one inquires, nor should we inquire, of the beliefs of 
juveniles who come into these programs.
  So this amendment is simply nonsense in what it says. I do not know, 
it

[[Page H4468]]

may have a well-intended purpose, but the way it is written, it is 
impossible of enforcement, impossible of understanding, and perverse in 
its operation, and ought to be rejected.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I would hope that even if my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle do not agree with those of us who believe that this is a real 
infringement, and we believe that it is confusing, and we believe that 
this is an attempt by some to get rid of the values that we have built 
up dealing with intolerance, et cetera. Just do it because the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) asks you to do it, and he 
says that you are breaking faith with Members on this side of the aisle 
when you said you would not do this kind of thing.
  I too do not know what you mean about the religious beliefs of any 
juvenile or adult in the program. I do know that at one time there was 
a religion that taught that black people did not have souls. So I do 
not know what the gentleman is talking about. He is tinkering with 
something that he does not know what he is doing.
  I would suggest that the gentleman needs to get out of the business, 
number one, of trying to interject religion into government and trying 
to get it paid for by government, your teachings, et cetera. I would 
suggest that the gentleman back off all of this, because he is placing 
us in the kind of situation where there will be confrontation around 
these kinds of issues.
  I would simply say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
that they have gone too far, and they are treading on the dangerous 
realm of the unknown and they should not do that. I would hope that my 
colleagues would take the wise advice of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and drop this amendment this evening.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me reiterate here that I am not simply going to stand in front of 
this body and say that this is an extremely clear amendment, and it 
will obviously go to conference, and we have been working on this 
language. But I had an uncomfortability, though I signed off on the 
amendment, as to what exactly people were objecting to on this, because 
the inverse of this is that one believes that one can discriminate 
against, denigrate, and undermine the religious and moral values. I am 
not arguing exceptionalism, and I understand the danger here is that 
this could protect exceptionalism.
  What we are concerned about, many Americans of many different faiths 
is that, in fact, there is an overt attempt on a number of very 
difficult issues in our society where there has not been a moral 
resolution or unlike what has happened in racism, unlike what has 
happened with sexual abuse or different things, but where there has not 
been resolution to therefore use in the name of neutrality the 
imposition of other people's moral views. I do not understand, as I 
asked in the hearing, why we have to take a stand and why we cannot say 
people morally differ on this, but regardless of one's moral views, one 
has no right to harass, to physically assault, to do anything to 
denigrate another individual, even if one believes their behavior is 
immoral. Because what we need is a civil society that understands and 
respects individuals, but we do not need a school system or a society 
that undermines those basic principles.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate, as I said, the negotiations that went on, 
and I want to make it clear. I never gave up my right to offer an 
amendment, though I did not think my amendment would be made in order, 
and we do have some confusion. But I did not break any word in the 
process of the negotiations.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has said that he really does 
not know what this amendment does, is that correct?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I know exactly what the amendment does, but 
I agree that it could be falsely interpreted by some people.
  Ms. WATERS. Would the gentleman agree that the Constitution of the 
United States of America basically protects religious freedom?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I believe the Constitution was designed to 
do that, but it is not currently doing so.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
does the gentleman believe that if that is what the Constitution is 
designed to do, that we should all respect that, not try and rewrite 
the Constitution, not try and recreate ways by which we can basically 
say some religion is all right, and some is not all right?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, I absolutely do 
not believe we should ever say as a person who grew up in an 
evangelical church, and I understand the wall of separation was meant 
to protect the evangelicals from a State church. I have no interest in 
a State church.
  But I also believe that it did not mean to exclude religion from the 
public arena, and I view it as trying to reclaim the religious freedom 
that our Founding Fathers gave us, not to impose any one sectarian 
approach. And, with the diversity of religion in this country, which we 
did not necessarily have at the beginning of our Nation to the same 
degree, we need to respect that. But part of that respect is to say, we 
also have a majority religion that is being stomped on.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield to me once 
again, would the gentleman agree that if we kept religion out of our 
public schools, we would not have this worry? If we followed the intent 
of the Constitution for separation of church and state where we were 
not in any way teaching, imposing religion on anybody at any time, we 
would not have this worry?
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is a difference 
between imposing and saying we meant to exclude it. The Founding 
Fathers all debated religion at all times. It is a fundamental part of 
all of us, and should be. What we should respect is the diversity of 
other people's points of view. It was not meant to exclude from the 
public arena, or in fact we do have a religion which is secular 
humanism.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  We do not need to restate all of the examples of hate crimes that 
have been perpetrated over the last few years, or even few weeks and 
months. Hate crime prevention programs constitute an allowable use of 
the money under the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act. We 
ought not sabotage the hate crime prevention programs by getting into a 
situation where one has to have anyone's religion that believes that 
certain groups are not to be respected or to be disrespected, in fact. 
That is where some of the hate comes from.
  What these programs do is to try to teach people, as the gentleman 
from New York mentioned, that people are equal and ought to be 
respected. If one's religion tells us something different, we still 
ought to be able to have hate crime prevention programs so that we can 
reduce the incidence of hate crimes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that this amendment would be defeated. We 
have language in there that orders us to be respectful of people's 
religion, but if we have religions that just hate people, then we ought 
to be able to go along with hate crime prevention programs anyway.

                              {time}  0100

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired on the amendment.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder) will be postponed.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

[[Page H4469]]

  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
McCollum) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1501) to provide grants to ensure increased accountability for juvenile 
offenders, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________