[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 86 (Thursday, June 17, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H4476-H4573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            CONSEQUENCES FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1501.

                              {time}  1027


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on the legislative 
day of Wednesday, June 16, 1999, a request for a recorded vote on 
amendment No. 30 printed in part A of House Report 106-186 by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) had been postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32 printed in part A of 
House Report 106-186.


                Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mrs. Emerson

  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H4477]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 32 offered by Mrs. Emerson:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS WITH REGARD TO VIOLENCE AND 
                   THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Incidents of tragic school violence have risen over the 
     past few years.
       (2) Our children are being desensitized by the increase of 
     gun violence shown on television, movies, and video games.
       (3) According to the American Medical Association, by the 
     time an average child reaches age 18, he or she has witnessed 
     more than 200,000 acts of violence on television, including 
     16,000 murders.
       (4) Children who listen to explicit music lyrics, play 
     video ``killing'' games, or go to violent action movies get 
     further brainwashed into thinking that violence is socially 
     acceptable and without consequence.
       (5) No industry does more to glorify gun violence than some 
     elements of the motion picture industry.
       (6) Children are particularly susceptible to the influence 
     of violent subject matter.
       (7) The entertainment industry uses wanton violence in its 
     advertising campaigns directed at young people.
       (8) Alternatives should be developed and considered to 
     discourage the exposure of children to violent subject 
     matter.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the entertainment industry--
       (1) has been irresponsible in the development of its 
     products and the marketing of those products to America's 
     youth;
       (2) must recognize the power and influence it has over the 
     behavior of our Nation's youth; and
       (3) must do everything in its power to stop these 
     portrayals of pointless acts of brutality by immediately 
     eliminating gratuitous violence in movies, television, music, 
     and video games.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and a Member opposed each will control 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting to note that Leslie Moonves, 
the President of CBS television, recently said that while it is not 
fair to blame the media for the rampage at Columbine, anyone who thinks 
the media has nothing to do with this is an idiot.
  I think Mr. Moonves' comment really sums up why we are offering this 
amendment today. We have heard a lot about gun shows, pawn shops and 
ammo clips over the months since the violence at Columbine. We have 
been told that if we tweak the law a little bit here, or add a new 
provision to make something else illegal, somehow people who recklessly 
and purposely gun down others in cold blood will not do it.
  Thirty years ago, we had very few gun laws and surprisingly no high 
school shooting sprees to report every few days or weeks or months, but 
30 years ago we also had stricter discipline in schools. School 
officials did not worry about lawsuits if they expelled a violent 
child, and parents exerted more control and discipline over their 
children. They were not afraid to say no to their kids.
  Now we have a new gun law every year. We have school officials who 
are afraid of being sued and we have a Federal law which seems designed 
to keep violent kids in classrooms, not out of them.
  We have an industry that in the name of entertainment produces images 
of violence that are so graphic and at a pace that makes one dizzy. Why 
is anyone surprised that in these modern days that some students plan 
mass murders instead of graduation parties?
  I stand here not just as a Member of Congress, I stand here as a 
mother who is deeply, deeply concerned about the safety and well-being 
of my children.

                              {time}  1030

  I stand here as a neighbor and as a parent of a high school junior 
who is concerned about the safety and the well-being of my neighbors' 
kids and my daughter's friends.
  The tragedy at Columbine High School and the violence close to 
schools and close to my district in Paducah, Kentucky, and in 
Jonesboro, Arkansas, should be a real wake-up call for all of us.
  We have got to work together. We have got to work together to give 
back families a sense of security and control over their own lives. 
That is what our amendment to the juvenile justice bill seeks to do. It 
seeks to generate a serious dialogue in our Nation about the negative 
images that our children are exposed to when they watch television, 
when they go to the movies, when they play video games, and when they 
listen to CDs. This dialogue needs to take place in our homes, in our 
communities; yes, it also needs to take place in the Halls of Congress.
  Specifically, our amendment calls on the entertainment industry to 
recognize the power and the influence it has over our Nation's youth. 
We ask that the industry does everything in its power to eliminate 
gratuitous acts of violence in movies, on television, in music lyrics, 
and in video games.
  If we invest the time and the energy to have this discussion, I think 
we can discover ways to address the factors that contribute to youth 
violence in America. Now, there may be some things that we can do 
legislatively, but the bottom line is, quite frankly, much of the 
solution cannot be legislated.
  Our amendment does not create any new laws. It does not create any 
new regulations. Our amendment does not fund yet another study on the 
already well-documented impact that violence as entertainment has on 
our Nation's youth.
  I hope that our amendment sends a very clear message to the 
entertainment industry that Congress and the American people do hold 
them responsible for the desensitizing images that they market to our 
children. After all, we would really, really have to be idiots if we 
think the entertainment industry does not have anything to do with 
youth violence in America.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) seek to 
control the time in opposition?
  Mr. BERMAN. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 20 
minutes.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition 
to the amendment. I do not think anyone in today's modern society can 
deny the power of the entertainment industry, of the movie industry, of 
the TV media. We know that this is an industry that can make us cry, 
that can raise goose pimples on our skin. It can make the hair on the 
back of our neck stand up. The industry should never deny its power.
  In conversations with many executives, they have thought from time to 
time it was rather foolish for an industry that can convey all of these 
emotions, that can change the direction of society with uplifting 
movies, can repeat the history in realistic movies, to deny that power.
  But we also know that where we run into trouble with the media 
industry is where the media industry has access to our children in a 
vacuum, where the media, the entertainment industry has access to our 
children in a disproportionate number of hours during the day, when the 
media and the entertainment industry become substitutes for what 
families should, in fact, be doing.
  Because the same research that tells us rather convincingly that the 
media can have a very powerful impact on our children, that the 
entertainment industry can help desensitize our children to violence, 
to the acts of violence, that it, in fact, can teach them how to 
perpetrate violence, the same research and additional research makes a 
very important point.
  Where they have strong family bonding, effective teaching of moral 
values and norms, and effective monitoring of behavior, the effective 
exposure to violence on TV is probably negligible.
  So, really, what this amendment is about is about whether or not we 
are prepared to choose, whether or not we as families with children and 
grandchildren are prepared to choose. We can let the media, we can let 
the entertainment industry become a substitute for our families. We can 
let our children have access to it without guidelines, without some 
sense of discipline. We

[[Page H4478]]

 can let it become the teacher of our children, or we can choose to 
become the teacher of our children. We can let it baby-sit de facto, 
become the baby-sitter for our children, provide day care for our 
children; or, in fact, we can spend time with our children.
  We can decide whether or not it becomes a substitute for our reading 
to our children. We can decide whether it becomes a substitute for our 
conversations with our children on values, on ethics, on sex. That is 
the decision that we have to make.
  Because it is not the media in and of itself, it is not the 
entertainment industry in and of itself that creates this problem. It 
is in combination with the vacuum that is created by families that 
creates a vacuum, because they, in fact, have made other choices in 
their life, some out of necessity, some out of neglect, and some 
because simply that is what they want to do.
  But they have made choices, as we have documented time and time 
again. They are spending less time with their children. They are having 
fewer conversations with their children. They are spending less time at 
the breakfast table, at the dinner table, some because they have very 
long commutes, some because I guess they choose not to spend time with 
their children.
  That is where the problem in this intersection of this very powerful 
industry comes into play. I do not think they can solve that by having 
a blanket condemnation of that industry. I do not think they can do 
that, because I do not think, then, it is realistic to the children who 
they are trying to address.
  They understand the differences between uplifting movies, movies like 
``Schindler's List,'' movies like ``Star Wars,'' movies like ``Notting 
Hill,'' movies that portray life as they see it, and movies that have 
nothing to do but pursue the exploitation of women, sex, and violence.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) 
to take a look at the language of the amendment. It does not, in fact, 
condemn the industry. It simply asks them to admit that it has a 
responsibility for the power that violence has on television and its 
impact on children, but also asks them to sit down with us in serious 
dialogue.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman 
will yield, I thank the gentlewoman. I think that conversation and 
responsibility also has to take place in our families. That 
conversation has to take place.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri for 
yielding me this time.
  As a member of the committee and on behalf of the subcommittee 
chairman and committee chairman, both of whom support the gentlewoman's 
amendment, I would say that our children are being desensitized by the 
increase of violence shown on television and in movies and in video 
games.
  According to the American Medical Association, by the time an average 
child has reached the age of 18, he or she has witnessed something like 
200,000 acts of violence on television, including over 16,000 murders. 
Children are particularly susceptible to the influence of violent 
subject matter.
  The entertainment industry must recognize the power and influence it 
has over the behavior of our Nation's youth. The entertainment industry 
should do everything in its power to stop these portrayals of pointless 
acts of brutality, pointless, by eliminating gratuitous acts of 
violence in movies and in television and in video games.
  Again, on behalf of the committee, I want to very much support and 
thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) for offering this 
amendment. I think it is appropriate.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  We are in the middle of a historic national dialogue on how to reduce 
violence in our society and make America a safer place for children to 
grow up. I believe that the more this dialogue is about finding 
solutions, and the less it is about fixing blame, the more productive 
the dialogue will be.
  Simply blaming the entertainment industry for youth violence is not 
productive any more than simply blaming schools or blaming young people 
in general is productive. Our job is to find practical, effective 
solutions to the problems of youth violence.
  The debate today has largely focused on movies, television, and the 
Internet and video games. Yes, we should encourage the entertainment 
companies to take any and all steps to prevent objectionable, violent 
material from getting into the hands of children. Certainly we should 
support policies that empower parents to know the contents of movies 
and video games and help them to steer their kids away from violent, 
debasing entertainment and towards wholesome and productive pursuits. 
But we must not fail to address issues that I strongly believe strike 
nearer to the root of the problem of youth violence.
  I am deeply saddened that the Committee on Rules struck down an 
amendment that would have made a giant step in the right direction. I 
join my fellow Democrats in urging that the juvenile justice bill do 
more to help our local communities and local districts to help our kids 
keep out of trouble when they are most at risk, immediately after 
school. Yet the Republican leadership said no to providing the 
resources that will help our kids by providing wholesome and productive 
after-school activities for our children.
  Democrats called for tripling the amount of Federal support for 
after-school programs, including tutoring and mentoring and healthy 
recreational activities. We called for filling in the risky hours of 
the days, the hours after school while the opportunity for more 
youngsters to improve their schoolwork, grow as responsible citizens, 
learn values, and build stronger minds and bodies. To me, that seems 
like a practical and effective solution to the pathology that leads to 
youth violence. But the Republican leadership said no.
  Now I fear that we are on the verge of a marathon demonization of the 
entertainment industry, a tactic of limited value, especially compared 
to the real-world practical and effective strategies such as tutoring 
and mentoring, counseling, and wholesome recreation.
  We can rest assured that if we do not make it a national priority to 
provide for our young people activities that are wholesome and 
necessary for them to grow into strong, healthy adults, that they will 
be prey to the temptations of the streets and to other destructive 
influences.
  I urge my colleagues to rein in the urge to simply assess blame to 
the entertainment industry. Let us all work together as parents. Let us 
instead focus on protecting our youth by providing the resources they 
need, especially in the high-risk after-school hours.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I might add quickly here that, while the people in 
opposition to this amendment keep saying, do not blame any industry, do 
not blame any industry, we all have to work together, I would ask what 
they all have been doing blaming the gun industry, then, for all these 
weeks?
  Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment expressing a 
sense of Congress on this very most important topic.
  I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) 
for her leadership on this issue, because she has pushed, I think, 
something that needs to be touched; and she has hit it very, very well. 
I appreciate her leadership in many ways, but particularly here.
  Mr. Chairman, while we must take a long, hard look at all aspects of 
our juvenile justice system, can there be any doubt, any doubt at all, 
that the entertainment industry is contributing to the culture of 
violence that manifested itself in Colorado; in Georgia; in Jonesboro, 
Arkansas; and Paducah, Kentucky?

[[Page H4479]]

  These senseless acts of schoolhouse violence committed by children 
against children have rightfully captured the Nation's attention, and 
it is time for Congress to move forward with comprehensive legislation 
that addresses the growing epidemic of violent juvenile crime.
  Part of this response must include a strong statement against often 
senseless and graphic violence being peddled by the so-called 
entertainment industry. They do bear responsibility for what comes out. 
The point has been made, but it bears repeating. By the age of 18, the 
average child in the United States will have witnessed 200,000 acts of 
violence and some 16,000 plus murders through our popular culture.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. Chairman, to call this entertainment stretches the definition of 
the English language. What it really is is mindless brutality, having 
the effect of coarsening our culture, with the devastating impact on 
impressionable young people. The effect of this media is a slow and 
steady erosion of our fundamental values of decency, honor and respect.
  As the elected representatives of this great country, those of us 
fortunate enough to have the privilege of speaking for our constituents 
have a duty, I think, and an obligation, to use the bully pulpit that 
this House affords to say to the entertainment industry ``Stop, think, 
change.''
  The Emerson amendment calls upon those responsible for our popular 
culture to acknowledge the enormous influence they have over America's 
children, to exercise some responsibility and just a little bit of 
decency when making and marketing their product. We have a duty to 
enforce and defend the first amendment. Likewise, the entertainment 
industry has a duty to use judgment, decency and restraint when it 
comes to our children.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to report this very common-sense 
amendment.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, to this language, not 
because I have any doubts about the sincerity and good intentions of 
the sponsor, and not because I have any particular disagreement with 
the substantive words contained in the resolution, but because I 
believe it is both woefully imbalanced and terribly inappropriate.
  The gentlewoman, through her amendment, seeks to select out one 
industry, excluding a variety of other industries that do the exact 
same thing, in part, and then chastises that industry in a fashion that 
she may not intend. She may not be intending to condemn an industry, 
but I assure my colleagues the passage of this amendment will be 
reported as a condemnation of an industry.
  And what is this industry? This is an industry that produces some of 
the most powerful teaching instruments available to the people of this 
country and to the world. And let us talk about them.
  Where is the recognition that this is an industry that produced and 
distributed Saving Private Ryan, teaching Americans and the world about 
the courage of American soldiers, the commitment to the country's 
patriotic ideals, to the brutality of war?
  Where is the recognition that this is the industry that produced 
Amistad, revealing a very important segment of the history of slavery 
in this country?
  Or Schindler's List, which told the story of the holocaust in a 
fashion so powerful that people who had never before contemplated what 
that meant had a new understanding of it?
  Where is the recognition that this is an industry that has produced 
for our children movies like The Little Mermaid, The Lion King, Beauty 
and the Beast?
  Where is the recognition that there is music that has uplifted the 
spirits and souls of millions and millions of people all around the 
world?
  This is an unbalanced and unfair resolution. Sure, there are 
irresponsible actors, absolutely there is inappropriate marketing, 
absolutely there are cases of pointless and senseless brutality being 
depicted. To select out one industry and exclude all other industries 
who engage in the same kind of conduct, and to treat it in such an 
unbalanced fashion is not worthy of this House.
  It is no more fair than my offering a resolution attacking the 
pharmaceutical industry because one drug company marketed a drug they 
knew to be harmful to people, or condemning the entire construction 
industry for the role of asbestos. Where do we get off going after an 
industry in this kind of a fashion without recognizing the good as well 
as the bad?
  These are people that employ hundreds of thousands of people in this 
country, that contribute tremendous amounts to the education and the 
inspiration of the American people, as well as the negatives that the 
gentlewoman points out.
  Why does this amendment exclude books and other powerful means of 
communication that perhaps at times, with specific authors and certain 
publishers, might engage in pointless acts of brutality? Where do we 
come off as a Congress of the United States, as the House of 
Representatives, memorializing and institutionalizing this kind of 
unbalanced frontal attack on an industry without recognizing the good 
along with the bad?
  I think it is a bad amendment, and even as I agree with specific 
substantive points in the language, I do not think this body should be 
adopting this kind of proposal.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, if the gentleman 
from California would be willing, to extend our time 7\1/2\ minutes on 
each side, because we have numerous speakers and not enough time, 
unless the gentleman from California would like to yield us some of his 
time. This is an important discussion and I think it is a good one that 
is worth having.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, how much 
time does each side have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) has 9 
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) has 
11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) is recognized under his 
reservation.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I might inquire of the gentlewoman, the 
unanimous consent request would allow how much more time?
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERMAN. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, my unanimous consent request would allow 
each side to have 7\1/2\ additional minutes, 15 minutes total.
  Mr. BERMAN. That is a lot more time on a very busy day.
  Mrs. EMERSON. I think the gentleman would agree it is worthwhile.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) shall each have 7\1/2\ 
additional minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and I come to the well today as a Member of the House, but more 
importantly as the father of a 12-year-old and a 10-year-old stating 
that there is no more important domestic issue that we could focus our 
undivided attention on than this issue of children killing other 
children and what the causes and effects are of this terrible sign in 
our society.
  Almost a thousand studies since 1971 document that mass media 
influences children who cannot differentiate between reality and 
fantasy, causing them to be more violent, even causing them to do what 
does not come natural, and that is to kill another human being. Even 
rattlesnakes do not kill other rattlesnakes.
  Our military had a problem, Mr. Chairman. Colonel David Grossman, a 
psychologist, a renowned expert in the

[[Page H4480]]

 field of killology, a part of psychology, says that in World War II 
our soldiers would not even pull the trigger when an enemy was in front 
of them. Only 20 percent, at most, would actually pull the trigger. It 
does not come naturally. So they took the bulls off the firing range 
and put a human figure and they began desensitization techniques and 
therapy, and by the Korean War it got up to 40 percent. And then 
technology set in and they used simulators, much like we have today, 
and by the time of Vietnam, 90 percent of our soldiers would actually 
kill. It does not come natural.
  My colleagues, our children, by the age of 6, are experiencing the 
same desensitization therapies. Video games, Karmageddon. The video 
game Doom is used by our military to train soldiers how to kill, and 
our children are being inundated with these violent products.
  Let me tell my colleagues that this week, in a shameless way, the 
entertainment and mass media industry is working this hill over like no 
one can believe, around the clock, trying to push back any kind of 
common-sense approaches, like uniform labeling, so parents will know 
what is going on. That amendment will be up in an hour and a half, and 
the entertainment industry is working around the clock to try to defeat 
any common-sense approaches so that informed parents can make 
responsible decisions.
  But this is unequivocal. These influences are taking our children in 
the wrong direction. Splatter movies are not responsible. The 
entertainment industry has a responsibility. We do not want to place 
blame, but we want people to be responsible. Industries are profiting 
from trash going into the minds of our children. If it was alcohol or 
drugs going into our bodies, we would not stand for it, but the same 
kinds of evil influences are going into the minds of children, so we 
should not be so surprised when they turn around and act the way they 
do.
  Something needs to be done. Somebody has to stand up for parents and 
families, not these big special interests with all the money.
  Mr. BERMAN. 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, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I am happy to join in this discussion.
  I had some talk with the maker of this particular amendment and we 
had not reached much of a conclusion, but now I have. There are several 
problematical things behind a well-intentioned resolution. First of 
all, this may be, in the 175 amendments that have been submitted to the 
Committee on Rules, the only sense of Congress resolution in a huge 
bill.
  In other words, all of these other measures that are approved have a 
lot to do with something very, very specific. We have measures, and 
have debated them, to create increased protection for communities and 
holding juveniles more accountable; we have created entire new systems 
of punishment for juveniles. We have done a lot of things, but we have 
not done a sense of the Congress resolution against anybody yet except 
the entertainment industry.
  Now, it is my view that what the entertainment industry really needs 
is some specific direction from us as to what it is we want them to do. 
I will shortly have the results of some hearings held in the Committee 
on the Judiciary in which we had a number of experts, academic, people 
in the industry, people who are critics of the industry, and industry 
spokesmen themselves, which I would like to make my colleagues the 
beneficiary of in terms of the nature of the kinds of things that we 
can do.
  And so a sense of Congress resolution would be great if we were not 
here dealing with the amendments made in order for the Juvenile 
Offenders Act of 1999. In other words, this is showdown time. The 
question is not how we feel about the industry or what we do not like 
about it, the question is what are we going to do about it. And it is 
to that idea that a sense of Congress resolution is not what we need. 
What we need are something like the hundreds of amendments that have 
come forward out of the dozens of hours of debate on this subject.
  The next thing that I think we ought to put in to some kind of 
perspective is that the gentlewoman mentioned that there are people 
that do not want to condemn the entertainment industry but they do want 
to condemn the gun industry. Well, that may be so. There are probably 
people that want to do one thing or the other, but this is not 
condemnation time. This is showdown time. This is what we do about the 
problems that we believe to exist. The Committee on the Judiciary has 
debated and discussed this for many, many hours, and what we want is 
not a sense of Congress resolution but something quite specific.
  And so I want to point out that we do have an amendment to create an 
anti-trust exemption so that we will be able to work industry-wide in 
any corrective action that we need.

                              {time}  1100

  We also have other recommendations that I will be reporting back to 
my colleagues.
  But for sense of Congress resolutions, I am sorry to say the time has 
come and gone. We are now in the put up or shut up phase. What is it, 
assuming that everything you say in the resolution is correct, then 
what do we do? And that is what the amendments that were granted by the 
Committee on Rules, the substitute that I will shortly be offering 
today, all try to do.
  It is in that sense that I wanted to make clear the reservations that 
I have about a sense of Congress resolution at this point in time in 
these proceedings.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a friendly 
question?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, yes, I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, although my colleague cannot support 
this, I do appreciate what he is doing through the format of hearings 
and looking into it. And I think that he will find, while we all have 
reservations about one thing or the other, we do want to work any way 
we can to protect children, give them more positive messages.
  I want to say, I think my colleague will find the authors of this 
amendment are certainly willing to help his committee any way we can in 
a positive sense.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, we welcome that.
  This is not an easy problem. It is a very intractable problem. It is 
deep within our culture. If we could just single out a couple of people 
and spank them on the hands or pass a condemnation resolution, I guess 
my colleagues would feel better about it. But it will not change 
anything.
  What I am here for yesterday and last night, today and tonight and 
tomorrow, is to try to come to closure with the entertainment industry 
as to what it is precisely we want them to do. And in that regard, I 
would welcome the comments of the gentlewoman and working together with 
her and everything else that we can.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth).
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Emerson 
resolution.
  Because, Mr. Chairman, before completing the sixth grade, the average 
American child has seen 8,000 homicides and 100,000 acts of violence on 
television and in the movies.
  Now, how can we possibly say that this massive exposure to murder and 
to violence no way influences the minds of young men and women? There 
is no way we can. And in fact, a recent survey of young American males 
found that 22 to 34 percent of those young men who had been exposed to 
this kind of violence and murder actually tried to perform the same 
crime techniques.
  Mr. Chairman, I was deeply moved by the testimony given in the House 
Committee on the Judiciary by Darryl Scott, the father of a slain 
daughter in the Littleton, Colorado, massacre. This remarkable father 
testified in part, ``I am here today to declare that Columbine was not 
just a tragedy, it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to 
look at where the real blame lies.'' ``Men and women are three-part 
beings,'' he testified.
  He continued, ``We all consist of body, soul and spirit. And when we

[[Page H4481]]

refuse to acknowledge a third part of our makeup, we create a void that 
allows evil, prejudice and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc.''
  Mr. Chairman, what the entertainment industry is doing through the 
mass production of murder and mayhem is destroying the spirit of our 
children. So we must send a very strong message to this entertainment 
industry that they must stop the violence that they are thrusting into 
the minds and the spirits of our children. It is time that the 
Hollywood elites take the responsibility for the consequences of their 
actions.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like very much to see parents whose children 
have been killed because of the destructive and violent material have a 
remedy against profiteers of such material in Federal court.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The Chair would take this 
opportunity to inform the managers that the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Berman) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I am amazed when I sit over here and 
listen to people stand up here after the tragedies that we have 
experienced in this country and say, let us not assess any blame. Mr. 
Chairman, how do my colleagues think we are going to find a solution?
  I used to be a police officer. And when we came up to the scene of a 
car accident, we did not stand there and say, well, let us not assess 
any blame. We put a lot of resources into trying to figure out who made 
the mistake. Was it because of a mechanical problem in the car? Is it 
because we had a drunk driver? We always assessed the blame. How are we 
going to find the solution? How are we going to get the bad drivers off 
the road?
  Are my colleagues afraid to stand up? I ask the Democrats, are they 
afraid to stand up to these kind of video games and tell them it is 
wrong? The previous speaker said we should not condemn anybody. Well, I 
am standing here today telling my colleagues, I am condemning this 
particular game.
  We ought to take a look at this, my colleagues, take a look at the 
game titled ``You're Gonna Die.'' It is made by Interplay Corporation.
  Let me go through this in a little more detail. This specific game, 
and by the way, it is advertised in a magazine. We can find it in any 
magazine store we want to.
  Now, my colleagues may not want to condemn this. But I condemn it. 
``You're Gonna Die.'' Six pages centerfold. Do my colleagues know what 
this game allows us to do? This game allows us to zoom in, take a look 
at the body parts so that we can observe the exit wounds. My colleagues 
do not want to condemn this? It is interesting.
  Before the President went to Hollywood, he stood in front of the 
Nation and he condemned Hollywood. Then he goes to Hollywood and he 
raises millions of dollars. Then he comes back from Hollywood and he 
condemns Hollywood.
  Republicans stand up here today with the resolution of the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) which, by the way, does not 
put on more laws, does not create new Federal agencies, and does not 
create a new movie police force outside there. It calls for peer 
pressure. It says to the industry they have community responsibility.
  We stand up here and express concern, and I am surprised that my 
colleagues are condemning us for this. Do they have another trip going 
to Hollywood to raise more money in Hollywood?

  Let me tell my colleagues, it is interesting about this game. Do my 
colleagues know what the company that made this game did for the 
Democratic National Party? They sent them $10,000, the maximum 
contribution.
  These games are nothing but murder simulators. Do my colleagues know 
what these games are like? Do they want a comparison? Do they want 
something to condemn? It is like giving the keys to a drunk driver, 
giving him the keys to a car knowing he is drunk. That is what they are 
doing with these games.
  I urge the Democrats, I urge them from the bottom of my heart, stand 
up here today and condemn these games with me.
  And do my colleagues know what? The industry has been responsive. 
Disney Corporation voluntarily, and I commend them, stepped forward and 
said no more of these games in our facilities. Six Flags stepped 
forward, no more of these games in our facilities. The City of Denver 
went throughout their airports, their arcades, and said, get those 
games out of our arcades.
  So the key here, the industry will be responsive. But we have got to 
be willing to stand up to those people. I am asking the Democrats to 
put their entertainment bias, whatever, aside and stand up with the 
Republicans and say, we do condemn these kind of games. We do assess 
some blame.
  Obviously, as the Republicans have stated time and time again, it 
comes to family responsibility. But there is community responsibility 
which is a contributing factor.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) if he 
would remain at the lectern and answer questions on my time.
  Does the gentleman know the name of the manufacturer of that video 
game?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I do. It is 
Interplay Corporation, based out of California. Just for the 
information of my colleagues, the web site is ``www.kingpin.corpse''.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I say to the gentleman, 
then offer a resolution condemning the company that produced this game. 
Do not give a speech talking about the emptiness of condemnations 
coming out of the White House when the emptiness and broad-brush 
condemnations coming out of the Congress are no less offensive and 
perhaps more so.
  The fact is that the gentleman sits here and correctly points out 
responsible actions taken by members of the entertainment industry, 
whether it is the Disney company in the context of pulling certain 
shows off, whether it is ABC not showing R-rated movie commercials 
before 9 o'clock, whether it is the National Association of Theater 
Owners taking a voluntary rating system that has been in effect for 30 
or 40 years and deciding that they are going to ID every single 
youthful appearing person who comes to a theater to make sure that no 
one is getting into R-rated movies without parental consent.
  Do not condemn a whole industry for the irresponsible actions and 
products of a specific company. Mr. Chairman, where does this blanket 
guilty by association broad-based defamation come from? Get specific. 
Tell us what they do not like and condemn what they do not like.
  Do not sweep a lot of good people under this, a lot of people who 
work in an industry and produce positive products for America. Do not 
destroy the manufacturer of a digital game like Tetris because they do 
not like this particular digital game. Start getting specific and 
meaningful.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from 
California.
  I agree with him. I think it would be despicable to condemn an entire 
industry for the actions of people. We have got to get to personal 
responsibility. I am so proud that the Democrats would never condemn an 
entire industry just based on the actions of people. And I am sure they 
will not do that when it comes up to the gun issue.
  Frankly, when the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) asked me 
to come here and to talk about this, I said she was not going to need 
me. This is incredulous. A simple resolution calling on Hollywood to 
work with the Congress to work with the American people to help 
families to stave off the violence, not in a condemning way, to ask 
them to work with us. I told her you are not going to need me.
  My colleagues have to be brain dead to oppose this kind of amendment. 
Anybody who raises children, anybody who is not from some other solar 
system has got to understand that the impact of violence in the media 
is harming our children. And so, I appreciate this opportunity.

[[Page H4482]]

  But think with me, if my colleagues will, some of the things that 
impact the mind. Has anybody ever seen the bumper sticker ``Visualize 
World Peace''? Do my colleagues know why that sticker has so much 
impact? Because before we can realize anything, we have got to 
visualize it.
  Think about the golf videos. I took up golf a couple years ago with 
my son, and we rent these videos so we can perfect our golf swing 
because we visualize ourselves on the video taking that perfect swing 
and then we go out on the golf course and we realize it. Well, the same 
thing happens when we watch something over and over and over again.
  The Bible says, ``As a man thinketh, so is he.'' Unless my colleagues 
are brain dead or bought off, they cannot disagree with that.
  The fact is what we see has a direct impact with what we do. And if 
we immerse ourselves in it enough, soon we become desensitized. And, 
no, it does not make us do anything. I am not Flip Wilson saying, ``The 
devil made me do it.'' But the fact is, the more we see something, the 
more we become desensitized.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. Since all of 
us are brain alive and have not been bought off, now that we are 
outraged and we place blame and condemnation, what does the gentleman 
think else we might want to do today since we are dealing with this 
juvenile justice bill? Is there something besides just condemning and 
blaming?
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I do not see this as a condemnation. I see 
this as thoughtful discussion. Because frankly, I think the gentleman 
would agree, there are no quick-fix solutions. This is a problem within 
our society that is going to take a lot of hard work, a lot of rolling 
up our sleeves, a lot of bipartisan work, a lot of work out in the 
trenches, in the churches, in the neighborhoods, in the families.
  Frankly, we ought to look at all options, all options.

                              {time}  1115

  That is all I am asking. Let us not close our eyes simply because we 
want to defend one particular industry.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the remaining time on 
both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Berman) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his leadership in opposing this amendment.
  I rise to oppose it, and reluctantly, because of the high esteem that 
I have for the maker of the motion and for her cosponsors of it.
  My colleagues from California are tired of hearing my stump speech 
when I say to people when they ask me, what are the three most 
important issues facing our Congress and our country, I always say the 
same thing: The three most important issues we face are our children, 
our children, our children. Everything we do should be about their 
well-being and the future that we are providing for them.
  That is why it is very interesting for me today to come to the floor 
and see this blanketed condemnation of the entertainment industry being 
discussed on the floor. Certainly in the problems that we have in our 
country and the challenges that our children face, and in the aftermath 
of Littleton, Colorado, there is enough blame to go around everyplace. 
I know it is not the intention of the maker of the motion, but to some 
this amendment might seem like an attempt to deflect the blame from the 
gun industry and the easy accessibility of guns to another source of 
the violence in our country.
  As a politician, and I use that word with great pride, I myself am 
very offended at the way the public in a blanket way condemns us. The 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) said that we are either brain dead 
or bought off. I do not think that that was an accurate 
characterization of anybody in this body on either side of the aisle, 
but I think that the American people may think that of the Congress, 
and so when we hear Congress mocked, criticized and condemned for 
insatiable appetite for campaign funds, we are accused of being bought 
off across the board, I certainly do not think that they are referring 
to me or to my colleague, or to any individual in this body. Blanket 
condemnations really, as they say, all generalizations, are false, 
including this one.
  The condemnation of the entertainment industry, I think, is grossly 
unfair. Should we look into and do research on the impact of violence 
in the media on children and how they react to it? Certainly. I think 
if everybody had the goal in mind that this amendment ostensibly has, 
the Committee on Rules of this body would have allowed the Obey 
amendment to be considered on the floor as part of this bill. The Obey 
amendment, the Obey safe schools amendment, talks about safe schools, 
healthy students, community action grants to prevent violence, 
alternative schools for at-risk and delinquent youth, 21st century 
community learning centers, the National Academy of Sciences study on 
mental health. We have to be looking into the mental aspects of this as 
well.
  The violence that the industry puts out is market-driven. I think 
that we must look to all of the root causes of the violence in our 
society. We must look into the home, we must look into how children's 
consciences are developed, but we cannot, when we are delinquent in all 
of the other areas, then decide to make life easy on ourselves by 
giving a blanket condemnation of the entertainment industry.
  I do not want to go into the number of jobs it creates and into what 
it does for the balance of payments and all that, because if they were 
doing the wrong thing, even that would not justify it. But I will say 
that our colleagues should oppose it; however good it sounds, it comes 
to us at the price of freedom.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say to the gentlewoman with all due respect, whom I consider a good 
friend and for whom I have great respect, there have been a thousand 
studies in the last 45 years on the issue of violence and its impact on 
aggressive behavior with children, most all of which have shown a 
positive correlation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman from 
California and his colleagues that we appreciate the sincerity of this 
debate. As my colleagues know, this is an element in society today that 
we are concerned about, and maybe this is not the best vehicle to 
correct the problem. But I do want to say, it does not condemn the 
motion picture industry or the entertainment industry. It does have 
some very positive language in here.
  We recommend that alternatives be developed concerning discouraging 
the exposure of children to violent subject matter. We do think that 
industry has been irresponsible, and that could be tightened up. We say 
we want the entertainment industry to recognize its power and influence 
over the Nation's youth and their behavior, and we want them to do 
everything in their power to stop the portrayals of pointless acts of 
brutality.
  So while it is too broad for my colleague, it is not as broad as it 
has been accused of being. But let me say this. While we are discussing 
it, positive things are happening. I was in the State legislature in 
Georgia when we debated a mandatory seat belt law. We debated that for 
8 years before it was passed, but during the debate the awareness was 
heightened, and usage of seat belts went up.
  I think as long as we are talking about it, as long as the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is having hearings about it, we are saying, 
let us bring this up, talk about it, and let us do it freely. This 
language has been structured by us to make sure that we do not violate 
the first amendment. This is an urging kind of thing. And it might be 
too broad for my colleague, but maybe we should come back and do it as 
a freestanding resolution that could give us a little more leeway on 
the language.

[[Page H4483]]

  In recognition, though, the children are watching 20 hours of TV 
every week and countless hours listening to CDs, computers and videos 
and so forth, and we are worried that the influences that they are 
having from them can be negative. By the time a child is a senior in 
high school, he or she has seen 200,000 acts of violence on TV and 
16,000 murders. Research shows overwhelmingly that there is a 
measurable increase in aggressive behavior from individuals who have 
been watching violent TV.
  Let me just say to my colleagues, I have young children; actually, 
not so young anymore, a 16- and a 14-year-old, and the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee)'s son and mine played together at the 
bipartisan retreat. But Proximity Mines, a video game, this is how the 
makers of that game describe it in their own advertisement: A wave of 
shrapnel that can cut a man off at the knees and slice smaller enemies 
into a pulpy goo. This is what they are bragging about. Another video 
game, The Firestorm Cannon, delivers a literal rain of firepower.
  Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the boys who were the perpetrators of 
Columbine, they were accomplished players of the video game Doom. Well, 
now there is a new video game Doom, but Doom II, which the promoter and 
the manufacturer advertises as being bigger, badder and bloodier than 
the original; this sequel extends the carnage started in Doom.
  It is something that we are very concerned about, as I know my 
colleagues are concerned. I never thought I would be quoting Marilyn 
Manson, but Marilyn Manson, whose CD, among other things, on his album, 
AntiChrist Superstar, has these words: The housewife I will beat, the 
prolife I will kill. I throw a little fit, I slash my teenage wrist, 
get your gunn, get your gunn.
  Yet, what does he have to say after Columbine? He has to say that the 
media makes heroes out of Klebold and Harris. Didn't be surprised if 
people get pushed into believing that these people are idols. From 
Jesse James to Charles Manson, the media has turned criminals into folk 
heroes.
  There is a broad enough spectrum of philosophy here that we can look 
into this and not be afraid to talk about it.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), our ranking member.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and let him know that I think out of this 
discussion we may be justifying even why we had a sense of Congress 
resolution in a bill this complex. But I would like to turn my 
colleagues' attention, as along with the author of this measure, to 
hearings we held in the Committee on the Judiciary on May 13 on youth, 
culture and violence, and what a panel it was. Well, there were several 
panels. But involved were Michael Medved, the film critic; Jack 
Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Association of America; Dr. 
Dewey Cornell, professor of clinical psychology, University of 
Virginia; and we are reproducing these hearings.
  What Michael Medved, at the same panel with Jack Valenti, suggested 
is that we desperately need a ratings, universal rating system to cover 
all elements of pop culture, a clear and consistent means of labeling 
movies, television, CDs, video games, so that consumers can make much 
more informed choices on the marketplace. He said, ``Even Hollywood's 
most shameless apologists must face the fact that the current situation 
with ratings and parental warnings amount to a chaotic incomprehensible 
mess.''
  It is from there that I would like to throw this out to the author of 
the amendment and my friend from Georgia to see if this resonates at 
all with my colleagues in terms of where we may go from the sense of 
Congress resolution.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I think what the gentleman is saying is 
very important and a very good idea. I think what I want my colleagues 
to understand is the purpose of this amendment is really to begin the 
dialogue on this issue. We do not legislate, we do not make any new 
laws within the resolution, because it is my personal opinion that this 
is a huge issue that we must address, and what the gentleman is telling 
us is definitely an important part of that.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly where I want to go from 
here. I want to legislate. I want to make laws. We do not make 
doughnuts; that is all we have here, and to me these hearings that we 
have already had provide a very important way for us to move forward.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform the managers that the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Berman) has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining; and the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, the entertainment industry and the academic 
community in study after study really documents this problem. There is 
no disagreement that this is a problem. I think this debate has been 
helpful today, and what it calls attention to is the interest of the 
Congress in seeing the industry do something about the facts they have.
  We could give all sorts of studies that show that youth violence does 
increase, aggressive behavior does increase when viewing, or a 
preference for violent television alone is part of their lifestyle. 
According to the national television violence study funded by the cable 
TV industry itself, who really with that report say to the country, we 
have a problem here, TV violence has continued to grow, since 1994, 
violence has increased in prime time broadcasts and basic cable 
programs. They also say that the way TV violence is depicted encourages 
children toward aggressive behavior. Sixty-seven percent of the 
programs carried by the network programs in prime time for cable 
included violence; 64 percent of those programs included violence in 
the 1996-1997 season. That violence is often glamorized.
  As my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said, 
our business here should be about children, and however we solve this, 
it should be with the best interests of the children in America. 
According to a 1995 Mediascope study, perpetrators of violence go 
unpunished 73 percent of the time. The consequences of the violent 
action are almost never apparent. Thirty-nine percent of the time 
violence is depicted as part of humor.
  The facts can best be changed by the industry itself. That is what 
the gentlewoman from Missouri's amendment says. The best solution here 
is not a government solution, if the industry will take their steps to 
solve this first. This resolution calls on them to do that. I call on 
them to do that, and I ask my colleagues to include this important 
resolution in the legislation that we vote on today.

                              {time}  1130

  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, as the mother of four children, and soon to be 8 
children actually, I can think of no greater love, no more profound or 
pure love than that which I have for my children. There is nothing in 
the world I would not do to protect them to keep them safe. I will do 
everything in my power to make sure that happens.
  This debate, as everyone has so eloquently said, really goes to the 
heart and soul of this country. It is about the kind of place that we 
make for our kids and for their children.
  I do not think one of us, not as legislators, not as parents, the gun 
lobby, the entertainment industry, our community leaders, priests, 
rabbis, ministers, no one, no one can shirk their responsibility and 
lay the blame at someone else's doorstep and say it is someone else's 
fault that our kids are killing kids today.
  We live in the greatest country in the world and I think we have to 
all join hands, put aside our political differences and come down and 
sit at the table and figure out what is wrong in our society today. It 
is far more important to do this than to play politics. It is far more 
important than winning elections.
  Quite frankly, I am embarrassed. I am embarrassed that we, as the 
greatest law-making body in the world, would try to make political 
points with

[[Page H4484]]

an issue that is so important and so fundamental to the well-being of 
our country, and that is the safety and security of our children. I 
think we should be ashamed of ourselves. We do not need more studies. 
We do not need more laws. We need to talk. We need everyone at the 
table. All we are doing with this amendment is asking the entertainment 
industry to sit down with us.
  I will thank my colleagues for their eloquent words, both on my side 
and their side.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say I have a better understanding of 
the gentlewoman's motivations from the debate and appreciate them. I 
feel that this would be a better and more appropriate resolution if it 
focused on the bad actors or, in the alternative, recognized the 
tremendous good that the industry has brought.
  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 all of the 
participants and debaters on this issue. First of all, I want to 
acknowledge all of us who have come to the floor, and parents, who have 
the understanding and appreciation for our responsibility. So I thank 
the gentlewoman for allowing us this debate.
  I would simply say this: It is a good resolution to get us discussing 
the issue, but I would simply say to the gentlewoman that what we can 
do now is to allow the entertainment industry to come to the table, 
along with some of the other bad actors, because I think it is equally 
important that we say to the National Rifle Association that all that 
they have been promoting is not right and they have not been listening 
to those of us who have said we have to find a way to cease this 
violence, this gun violence, these actions on the part of our children.
  There are so many variables to helping our children understand that 
violence is not the way to go, and condemnation can occur. We can do 
this every day on the floor of the House, but will it bring about 
results?
  I would say to my colleagues, let us go back to our districts and go 
to the retailers of videos and CDs and ask them voluntarily to meet 
with us and begin to explain to parents how they should instruct their 
children when they come in to buy CDs and come in to buy videos, and so 
we have a voluntary cooperation to stop the violence amongst our 
children.
  I hope that out of this discussion that we will find resolutions and 
that we will not condemn just a certain industry or certain group, that 
we will ask all of them to come to the table and work with us to be 
constructive and get the problems solved.
  I would like to submit for the Record ``Religious Expression in 
Public Schools: A Statement of Principles,'' by the Secretary of 
Education.

   Religious Expression in Public Schools: A Statement of Principles


     united states department of education office of the secretary

       ``. . . Schools do more than train their children's minds. 
     They also help to nurture their souls by reinforcing the 
     values they learn at home and in their communities. I believe 
     that one of the best ways we can help our schools do this is 
     by supporting students' fights to voluntarily practice their 
     religious beliefs in schools. For more than 200 years, the 
     First Amendment has protected our religious freedom and 
     allowed many faiths to flourish in our homes, in our 
     workplaces, and in our schools. Clearly understood and 
     sensibly applied, it works''--President Clinton, May 30, 
     1998.
       Dear American Educator, Almost three years ago, President 
     Clinton directed me, as U.S. Secretary of Education, in 
     consultation with the Attorney General, to provide every 
     public school district in America with a statement of 
     principles addressing the extent to which religious 
     expression and activity are permitted in our public schools. 
     In accordance with the President's directive, I sent every 
     school superintendent in the country guidelines on Religious 
     Expression in Public Schools in August of 1995.
       The purpose of promulgating these presidential guidelines 
     was to end much of the confusion regarding religious 
     expression in our nation's public schools that had developed 
     over more than thirty years since the U.S. Supreme Court 
     decision in 1962 regarding state sponsored school prayer. I 
     believe that these guidelines have helped school officials, 
     teachers, students, and parents find a new common ground on 
     the important issue of religious freedom consistent with 
     constitutional requirements.
       In July of 1996, for example, the Saint Louis School Board 
     adopted a district wide policy using these guidelines. While 
     the school district had previously allowed certain religious 
     activities, it had never spelled them out before, resulting 
     in a lawsuit over the right of a student to pray before lunch 
     in the cafeteria. The creation of a clearly defined policy 
     using the guidelines allowed the school board and the family 
     of the student to arrive at a mutually satisfactory 
     settlement.
       In a case decided last year in a United States District 
     Court in Alabama, (Chandler v. James) involving student 
     initiated prayer at school related events, the court 
     instructed the DeKalb County School District to maintain 
     for circulation in the library of each school a copy of 
     the presidential guidelines.
       The great advantage of the presidential guidelines, 
     however, is that they allow school districts to avoid 
     contentious disputes by developing a common understanding 
     among students, teachers, parents and the broader community 
     that the First Amendment does in fact provide ample room for 
     religious expression by students while at the same time 
     maintaining freedom from government sponsored religion.
       The development and use of these presidential guidelines 
     were not and are not isolated activities. Rather, these 
     guidelines are part of an ongoing and growing effort by 
     educators and America's religious community to find a new 
     common ground. In April of 1995, for example, thirty-five 
     religious groups issued ``Religion in the Public Schools: A 
     Joint Statement of Current Law'' that the Department drew 
     from in developing its own guidelines. Following the release 
     of the presidential guidelines, the National PTA and the 
     Freedom Forum jointly published in 1996 ``A Parent's Guide to 
     Religion in the Public Schools'' which put the guidelines 
     into an easily understandable question-and-answer format.
       In the last two years, I have held three religious-
     education summits to inform faith communities and educators 
     about the guidelines and to encourage continued dialogue and 
     cooperation within constitutional limits. Many religious 
     communities have contacted local schools and school systems 
     to offer their assistance because of the clarity provided by 
     the guidelines. The United Methodist Church has provided 
     reading tutors to many schools, and Hadassah and the Women's 
     League for Conservative Judaism have both been extremely 
     active in providing local schools with support for summer 
     reading programs.
       The guidelines we are releasing today are the same as 
     originally issued in 1995, except that changes have been made 
     in the sections on religious excusals and student garb to 
     reflect the Supreme Court decision in Boerne v. Flores 
     declaring the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 
     unconstitutional as applied to actions of state and local 
     governments.
       These guidelines continue to reflect two basic and equally 
     important obligations imposed on public school officials by 
     the First Amendment. First, schools may not forbid students 
     acting on their own from expressing their personal religious 
     views or beliefs solely because they are of a religious 
     nature. Schools may not discriminate against private 
     religious expression by students, but must instead give 
     students the same right to engage in religious activity and 
     discussion as they have to engage in other comparable 
     activity. Generally, this means that students may pray in a 
     nondisruptive manner during the school day when they are not 
     engaged in school activities and instruction, subject to the 
     same rules of order that apply to other student speech.
       At the same time, schools may not endorse religious 
     activity or doctrine, nor may they coerce participation in 
     religious activity. Among other things, of course, school 
     administrators and teachers may not organize or encourage 
     prayer exercises in the classroom. Teachers, coaches, and 
     other school officials who act as advisors to student groups 
     must remain mindful that they cannot engage in or lead the 
     religious activities of students.
       And the right of religious expression in school does not 
     include the right to have a ``captive audience'' listen, or 
     to compel other students to participate. School officials 
     should not permit student religious speech to turn into 
     religious harassment aimed at a student or a small group of 
     students. Students do not have the right to make repeated 
     invitations to other students to participate in religious 
     activity in the face of a request to stop.
       The statement of principles set forth below derives from 
     the First Amendment. Implementation of these principles, of 
     course, will depend on specific factual contexts and will 
     require careful consideration in particular cases.
       In issuing these revised guidelines I encourage every 
     school district to make sure that principals, teachers, 
     students and parents are familiar with their content. To that 
     end I offer three suggestions:
       First, school districts should use these guidelines to 
     revise or develop their own district wide policy regarding 
     religious expression. In developing such a policy, school 
     officials can engage parents, teachers, the various faith 
     communities and the broader community in a positive dialogue 
     to define a common ground that gives all parties the 
     assurance that when questions do arise regarding religious 
     expression, the community is well prepared to apply these 
     guidelines to specific cases. The Davis County School 
     District in Farmington, Utah is an example of a

[[Page H4485]]

     school district that has taken the affirmative step of 
     developing such a policy.
       At a time of increasing religious diversity in our country 
     such a proactive step can help school districts create a 
     framework of civility that reaffirms and strengthens the 
     community consensus regarding religious liberty. School 
     districts that do not make the effort to develop their own 
     policy may find themselves unprepared for the intensity of 
     the debate that can engage a community when positions harden 
     around a live controversy involving religious expression in 
     public schools.
       Second, I encourage principals and administrators to take 
     the additional step of making sure that teachers, so often on 
     the front line of any dispute regarding religious expression, 
     are fully informed about the guidelines. The Gwinnett County 
     School system in Georgia, for example, begins every school 
     year with workshops for teachers that include the 
     distribution of these presidential guidelines. Our nation's 
     schools of education can also do their part by ensuring that 
     prospective teachers are knowledgeable about religious 
     expression in the classroom.
       Third, I encourage schools to actively take steps to inform 
     parents and students about religious expression in school 
     using these guidelines. The Carter County School District in 
     Elizabethton, Tennessee, included the subject of religious 
     expression in a character education program that it developed 
     in the fall of 1997. This effort included sending home to 
     every parent a copy of the ``Parent's Guide to Religion in 
     the Public Schools.''
       Help is available for those school districts that seek to 
     develop policies on religious expression. I have enclosed a 
     list of associations and groups that can provide information 
     to school districts and parents who seek to learn more about 
     religious expression in our nation's public schools.
       In addition, citizens can turn to the U.S. Department of 
     Education web site (www.ed.gov) for information about the 
     guidelines and other activities of the Department that 
     support the growing effort of educators and religious 
     communities to support the education of our nation's 
     children.
       Finally, I encourage teachers and principals to see the 
     First Amendment as something more than a piece of dry, old 
     parchment locked away in the national attic gathering dust. 
     It is a vital living principle, a call to action, and a 
     demand that each generation reaffirm its connection to the 
     basic idea that is America--that we are a free people who 
     protect our freedoms by respecting the freedom of others who 
     differ from us.the Baptist, the Catholic, the Jew and many 
     others fleeing persecution to find religious freedom in 
     America. The United States remains the most successful 
     experiment in religious freedom that the world has ever known 
     because the First Amendment uniquely balances freedom of 
     private religious belief and expression with freedom from 
     state-imposed religious expression.
       Public schools can neither foster religion nor preclude it. 
     Our public schools must treat religion with fairness and 
     respect and vigorously protect religious expression as well 
     as the freedom of conscience of all other students. In so 
     doing our public schools reaffirm the First Amendment and 
     enrich the lives of their students.
       I encourage you to share this information widely and in the 
     most appropriate manner with your school community. Please 
     accept my sincere thanks for your continuing work on behalf 
     of all of America's children.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard W. Riley,
                                      U.S. Secretary of Education.


                religious expression the public schools

       Student prayer and religious discussion: The Establishment 
     Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit purely 
     private religious speech by students. Students therefore have 
     the same right to engage in individual or group prayer and 
     religious discussion during the school day as they do to 
     engage in other comparable activity. For example, students 
     may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before 
     meals, and pray before tests to the same extent they may 
     engage in comparable nondisruptive activities. Local school 
     authorities possess substantial discretion to impose rules of 
     order and other pedagogical restrictions on student 
     activities, but they may not structure or administer such 
     rules to discriminate against religious activity or speech.
       Generally, students may pray in a nondisruptive manner when 
     not engaged in school activities or instruction, and subject 
     to the rules that normally pertain in the applicable setting. 
     Specifically, students in informal settings, such as 
     cafeterias and hallways, may pray and discuss their religious 
     views with each other, subject to the same rules of order as 
     apply to other student activities and speech. Students may 
     also speak to, and attempt to persuade, their peers about 
     religious topics just as they do with regard to political 
     topics. School officials, however, should intercede to stop 
     student speech that constitutes harassment aimed at a student 
     or a group of students.
       Students may also participate in before or after school 
     events with religious content, such as ``see you at the flag 
     pole'' gatherings, on the same terms as they may participate 
     in other noncurriculum activities on school premises. School 
     officials may neither discourage nor encourage participation 
     in such an event.
       The right to engage in voluntary prayer or religious 
     discussion free from discrimination does not include the 
     right to have a captive audience listen, or to compel other 
     students to participate. Teachers and school administrators 
     should ensure that no student is in any way coerced to 
     participate in religious activity.
       Graduation prayer and baccalaureates: Under current Supreme 
     Court decisions, school officials may not mandate or organize 
     prayer at graduation, nor organize religious baccalaureate 
     ceremonies. If a school generally opens its facilities to 
     private groups, it must make its facilities available on the 
     same terms to organizers of privately sponsored religious 
     baccalaureate services. A school may not extend preferential 
     treatment to baccalaureate ceremonies and may in some 
     instances be obliged to disclaim official endorsement of such 
     ceremonies.
       Official neutrality regarding religious activity: Teachers 
     and school administrators, when acting in those capacities, 
     are representatives of the state and are prohibited by the 
     establishment clause from soliciting or encouraging religious 
     activity, and from participating in such activity with 
     students. Teachers and administrators also are prohibited 
     from discouraging activity because of its religious content, 
     and from soliciting or encouraging antireligious activity.
       Teaching about religion: Public schools may not provide 
     religious instruction, but they may teach about religion, 
     including the Bible or other scripture: the history of 
     religion, comparative religion, the Bible (or other 
     scripture) as literature, and the role of religion in the 
     history of the United States and other countries all are 
     permissible public school subjects. Similarly, it is 
     permissible to consider religious influences on art, music, 
     literature, and social studies. Although public schools may 
     teach about religious holidays, including their religious 
     aspects, and may celebrate the secular aspects of holidays, 
     schools may not observe holidays as religious events or 
     promote such observance by students.
       Student assignments: Students may express their beliefs 
     about religion in the form of homework, artwork, and other 
     written and oral assignments free of discrimination based on 
     the religious content of their submissions. Such home and 
     classroom work should be judged by ordinary academic 
     standards of substance and relevance, and against other 
     legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school.
       Religious literature: Students have a right to distribute 
     religious literature to their schoolmates on the same terms 
     as they are permitted to distribute other literature that is 
     unrelated to school curriculum or activities. Schools may 
     impose the same reasonable time, place, and manner or other 
     constitutional restrictions on distribution of religious 
     literature as they do on nonschool literature generally, but 
     they may not single out religious literature for special 
     regulation.
       Religious excusals: Subject to applicable State laws, 
     schools enjoy substantial discretion to excuse individual 
     students from lessons that are objectionable to the student 
     or the students' parents on religious or other conscientious 
     grounds. However, students generally do not have a Federal 
     right to be excused from lessons that may be inconsistent 
     with their religious beliefs or practices. School officials 
     may neither encourage nor discourage students from availing 
     themselves of an excusal option.
       Released time: Subject to applicable State laws, schools 
     have the discretion to dismiss students to off-premises 
     religious instruction, provided that schools do not encourage 
     or discourage participation or penalize those who do not 
     attend. Schools may not allow religious instruction by 
     outsiders on school premises during the school day.
       Teaching values: Though schools must be neutral with 
     respect to religion, they may play an active role with 
     respect to teaching civic values and virtue, and the moral 
     code that holds us together as a community. The fact that 
     some of these values are held also by religions does not make 
     it unlawful to teach them in school.
       Student garb: Schools enjoy substantial discretion in 
     adopting policies relating to student dress and school 
     uniforms. Students generally have no Federal right to be 
     exempted from religiously-neutral and generally applicable 
     school dress rules based on their religious beliefs or 
     practices; however, schools may not single out religious 
     attire in general, or attire of a particular religion, for 
     prohibition or regulation. Students may display religious 
     messages on items of clothing to the same extent that they 
     are permitted to display other comparable messages. Religious 
     messages may not be singled out for suppression, but rather 
     are subject to the same rules as generally apply to 
     comparable messages.


                          the equal access act

       The Equal Access Act is designed to ensure that, consistent 
     with the First Amendment, student religious activities are 
     accorded the same access to public school facilities as are 
     student secular activities. Based on decisions of the Federal 
     courts, as well as its interpretations of the Act, the 
     Department of Justice has advised that the Act should be 
     interpreted as providing, among other things, that:
       General provisions: Student religious groups at public 
     secondary schools have the same right of access to school 
     facilities as is enjoyed by other comparable student groups. 
     Under the Equal Access Act, a school receiving Federal funds 
     that allows one or more student noncurriculum-related clubs 
     to meet on its premises during noninstructional time may not 
     refuse access to student religious groups.

[[Page H4486]]

       Prayer services and worship exercises covered: A meeting, 
     as defined and protected by the Equal Access Act, may include 
     a prayer service, Bible reading, or other worship exercise.
       Equal access to means of publicizing meetings: A school 
     receiving Federal funds must allow student groups meeting 
     under the Act to use the school media--including the public 
     address system, the school newspaper, and the school bulletin 
     board--to announce their meetings on the same terms as other 
     noncurriculum-related student groups are allowed to use the 
     school media. Any policy concerning the use of school media 
     must be applied to all noncurriculum related student groups 
     in a nondiscriminatory matter. Schools, however, may inform 
     students that certain groups are not school sponsored.
       Lunchtime and recess covered: A school creates a limited 
     open forum under the Equal Access Act, triggering equal 
     access rights for religious groups, when it allows students 
     to meet during their lunch periods or other noninstructional 
     time during the school day, as well as when it allows 
     students to meet before and after the school day.
       Revised May 1998.
       List of organizations that can answer questions on 
     religious expression in public schools.
     Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
       Name: Rabbi David Saperstein, Address: 2027 Massachusetts 
     Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: (202) 387-2800, Fax: 
     (202) 677-9070, E-Mail: [email protected], Web site: 
     www.cdinet.com/RAC/.
     American Jewish Congress
       Name: Marc Stem, Address: 15 East 84th Street, New York, NY 
     10028, Phone: (212) 360-1545, Fax: (212) 861-7056, E-Mail: 
     [email protected].
     Christian Legal Society
       Name: Steven McFarland, Address: 4208 Evergreen Lane, #222, 
     Annandale, VA 22003, Phone: (703) 642-1070, Fax: (703) 642-
     1075, E-Mail: [email protected], Web site: www.clsnet.com.
 National School Boards Association
       Name: Laurie Westley, Address: 1680 Duke Street, 
     Alexandria, VA 22314, Phone: (703) 838-6703, Fax: (703) 548-
     5613, E-Mail: [email protected], Web site: www.nsba.org.
 American Association of School Administrators
       Name: Andrew Rotherham, Address: 1801 N. Moore St., 
     Arlington, VA 22209, Phone: (703) 528-0700, Fax: (703) 528-
     2146, E-Mail: [email protected], Web site: www.aasa.org.
 National PTA
       Name: Maribeth Oakes, Address: 1090 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 
     1200, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 289-6790, Fax: (202) 
     289-6791, E-Mail: [email protected], Web site: www.pta.org.
 National Association of Evangelicals
       Name: Forest Montgomery, Address: 1023 15th Street, NW 
     #500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 789-1011, Fax: (202) 
     842-0392, E-Mail: [email protected], Web site: www.nae.net.
 Freedom Forum
       Name: Charles Haynes, Address: I 10 1 Wilson Blvd., 
     Arlington, VA 22209, Phone: (703) 528-0800, Fax: (703) 284-
     2879, E-Mail: [email protected], Web site: www.__ 
     freed omfo rum. org.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order:
  Amendment No. 28 offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Aderholt); amendment No. 29 offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder); and amendment No. 30 offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Souder).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Aderholt

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


                             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 248, 
noes 180, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 221]

                               AYES--248

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad

[[Page H4487]]


     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--180

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     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
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Houghton
     McKeon
     Smith (NJ)
     Thomas

                              {time}  1158

  Mr. VISCLOSKY and Mr. TOWNS changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  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 additional 
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Souder

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


                             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 346, 
noes 83, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 222]

                               AYES--346

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     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 (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     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
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     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
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--83

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldwin
     Berkley
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Conyers

[[Page H4488]]


     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Horn
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Pallone
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Houghton
     Smith (NJ)
     Thomas

                              {time}  1208

  Mr. DeFAZIO, Mr. HINOJOSA, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mrs. McCARTHY of New 
York and Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 30 Offered By Mr. Souder

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment No. 30 offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate 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.''.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210, 
noes 216, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 223]

                               AYES--210

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Houghton
     Kolbe
     Linder
     Smith (NJ)
     Thomas

                              {time}  1217

  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. 33 printed 
in part A of House Report 106-186.


                 Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Markey

  Mr. MARKEY. 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. 33 offered by Mr. Markey:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

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

       (a) In General.--The Federal Trade Commission and the 
     Attorney General shall jointly conduct a study of the 
     marketing practices of the firearms industry with respect to 
     children.
       (b) Issues Examined.--In conducting the study under 
     subsection (a), the Commission and the Attorney General shall 
     examine the extent to which the firearms industry advertises 
     and promotes its products to minors, including in media 
     outlets in which minors comprise a substantial percentage of 
     the audience.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission and the Attorney 
     General shall submit to Congress a report on the study 
     conducted under subsection (a).

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

[[Page H4489]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the Markey-Roukema-Barrett amendment is very simple and 
straightforward. It would require the Department of Justice and the 
Federal Trade Commission to work together to examine gun manufacturers' 
marketing efforts towards children.
  To effectively combat youth gun violence, we must first understand 
the factors contributing to the culture of violence. Just as we must 
examine the role the media and the entertainment industry play in 
glamorizing gun violence, so too must we investigate the firearm 
industry's targeting of children.
  Advertisements and articles such as this one, which encourage parents 
to ``Start 'em young,'' and depict children toting guns that would be 
illegal for them to possess, needs to be closely examined and stopped. 
This is not unusual. Advertisements aimed at children are utilized by 
Beretta, Browning and Harrington & Richardson Revolvers, to name a few. 
They appear on-line in gun catalogues and weapons magazines and appeal 
to a culture where guns and gun violence are considered acceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Madam Chairman, although I am not opposed to the 
amendment, I ask unanimous consent to control the time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, 13 young people die each and every day from gun 
violence, from murder, suicides, tragic accidents. Of course, we have 
heard about the Littleton massacre. Actually, these statistics shows us 
that there is one Littleton-size massacre every day in our society.
  But I really want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) for his leadership here because we pride ourselves in the House 
that we legislate based on the facts, and that is what the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, and I and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Barrett), a co-sponsor of this amendment, are seeking to do.
  This amendment very clearly directs the Federal Trade Commission and 
the Attorney General to take an in-depth look at the marketing 
practices of the firearms industry with respect to children.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts has outlined it, and he has given a 
good example about what we are trying to do here. The provision is 
identical to the action in the Senate. The Senate juvenile justice bill 
passed by a voice vote back in May, the same provision. It was due to 
Senators Hatch and Brownback, who are hardly liberal legislators, but 
they are sensible, common-sense people, who agreed to this.
  The marketing of guns to children has become a budding industry in 
our Nation, shamefully so, I might say. We have seen the examples of 
advertisements in magazines that are up here, and I am sure the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) will reference them later, 
but I have just one here that I would like to show that graphically 
illustrates what we are talking about.
  This ad ran on the Beretta Web site stating that this new design, on 
the gun handle and barrel namely, a tie-dyed design is very attractive 
to young people, and it states, as stated here, ``This is sure to make 
you stand out in the crowd.'' That is the kind of appeal that they are 
making to young, innocent people, enticing them to buy an Assault 
Beretta.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been searching for answers for the past 2 days 
in this House on the epidemic of violence that has plagued our young 
people, but I think it is too many guns, violent movies, videos, song 
lyrics, and parents. Well, as far as I am concerned, it is all of the 
above, but it is about time that we take this action to examine on the 
facts what is being done to market to our children. We have to help 
save them from this violence.
  We seek to keep guns out of the hands of children, especially those 
who have a tendency towards violence. I can think of no better way, no 
more common-sense way for us to get some facts that will guide us in 
the future to meaningful legislation.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to join the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) in this amendment.
  As my colleagues have mentioned, we are asking for a study on the 
marketing practices of gun manufacturers. As the father of four young 
children, I want to know if gun makers are targeting kids in an effort 
to get them interested in guns at a very young age and to guarantee 
their use as they are growing up.
  Madam Chairman, I want to bring to the Members' attention this 
advertisement for the Harrington & Richardson 929 Sidekick Revolver 
shown right here. This ad promotes the Sidekick as ``the right way to 
get started in handgunning,'' and as a ``quality `first-time' 
revolver.'' This seems harmless until we realize the ad appears in 
Insights, the NRA's youth magazine.
  This ad clearly illustrates the issue we want to address. It is 
illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to purchase a handgun, and yet 
handgun advertisements appear prominently in a publication specifically 
aimed at those under age 18. We can see from the letters. The young 
lady here is 14 years old, 15 years old. This is a child's magazine, 
yet they are marketing handguns to children.
  I want to point out that this language was adopted by the Senate last 
month by a voice vote. So this is a no-brainer. We should adopt this 
amendment today, and I hope the House will agree to take this very 
simple and commonsense step.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chairman, to show my colleagues how bad this practice is, 
Senator Boxer made this amendment in the Senate and Senator Hatch 
accepted it.
  These disturbing advertisements and articles bring to mind the all-
out assault the tobacco industry made on children through the use of 
Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man. I think it is wise for Congress to ask 
the question of whether or not the gun industry, the gun manufacturers, 
and the NRA are targeting the young children of our country, trying to 
develop them into a culture of guns and violence, which ultimately 
manifests itself in crimes or antisocial behavior in our society.
  Our amendment is not a panacea. It will not solve all the problems of 
youth gun violence. It will, however, begin an important dialogue about 
firearm manufacturers' and marketers' contribution to the high 
incidence of gun violence and gun deaths among our Nation's children.
  Three-quarters of all of the murders of young people in the 26 
largest industrialized countries of the world occur in the United 
States. Three-quarters of all of the murders of the 26 largest 
industrialized countries occur amongst children in the United States. 
Does anyone doubt that this kind of advertising helps to perpetuate an 
atmosphere in which that kind of act is contemplatable? I think not. I 
think that those who carelessly target the young people of our country 
with this kind of advertisement must be stopped.
  I urge the Members of the House to today embrace this amendment. It 
is a small but important step in ensuring that the gun manufacturers 
and the NRA be made accountable for their actions in creating a culture 
of youth violence within our society.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time 
to simply comment on the statement of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
that I think it is callous and irresponsible and totally disingenuous 
the way they are marketing to our children, and I thank him for his 
leadership.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

[[Page H4490]]

  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 34 printed in part A of House Report 106-186.


                 Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Markey

  Mr. MARKEY. Madam 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. 34 offered by Mr. Markey:
       Insert at the end the following new section:

     SEC.   . SURGEON GENERAL REVIEW OF EFFECT ON JUVENILES OF 
                   VIOLENCE IN MEDIA.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) the tragic killings at a high school in Colorado remind 
     us that violence in America continues to occur at 
     unacceptable levels for a civilized society;
       (2) the relationship of violent messages delivered through 
     such popular media as television, radio, film, recordings, 
     video games, advertising, the Internet, and other outlets of 
     mass culture, to self-destructive or violent behavior by 
     children or young adults towards themselves, such as suicide, 
     or to violence directed at others, has been studied intensely 
     both by segments of the media industry itself and by academic 
     institutions;
       (3) the same media used to deliver messages which harm our 
     children can also be used to deliver messages which promote 
     positive behavior;
       (4) much of this research has occurred in the 17 years 
     since the last major review and report of the literature was 
     assembled by the National Institute on Mental Health 
     published in 1982;
       (5) the Surgeon General of the United States last issued a 
     comprehensive report on violence and the media in 1972; and
       (6) the number, pervasiveness, and sophistication of 
     technological avenues for delivering messages through the 
     media to young people has expanded rapidly since these 2 
     reports.
       (b) Comprehensive Review Required.--The Surgeon General, in 
     cooperation with the National Institute of Mental Health, and 
     such other sources of expertise as the Surgeon General deems 
     appropriate, shall undertake a comprehensive review of 
     published research, analysis, studies, and other sources of 
     reliable information concerning the impact on the health and 
     welfare of children and young adults of violent messages 
     delivered through such popular media as television, radio, 
     recordings, video games, advertising, the Internet, and other 
     outlets of mass culture.
       (c) Report.--The Surgeon General shall issue a report based 
     on the review required by subsection (b). Such report shall 
     include, but not be limited to, findings and recommendations 
     concerning what can be done to mitigate any harmful affects 
     on children and young adults from the violent messages 
     described in such subsection, and the identification of gaps 
     in the research that should be filled.
       (d) Deadlines.--The review required by subsection (b) shall 
     be completed in no more than 1 year, and the report required 
     by subsection (c) shall be issued no later than 6 months 
     following completion of the review.

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

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment seeks to update the last two reports 
prepared under the direction of the Surgeon General concerning what the 
research tells us about how media affects young people.
  The President has called for such a report. In fact, the Motion 
Picture Association has indicated it does not oppose such a report.
  When this proposal was introduced as a bill, it attracted 31 
cosponsors, led by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and proving 
the bipartisan nature of this need. It has been 17 years since the 
report by the National Institute of Mental Health in 1982, and 27 years 
since the Surgeon General's report of 1972.
  Both reports focused on television's impact on behavior. But since 
that time, the capacity of the entertainment industry to deliver ever 
more graphic depiction of violence has vastly increased, and the 
outlets for delivering these images to children without the 
intervention of adults has multiplied many times.
  Moreover, the research community and the entertainment and 
interactive media have produced a vast compendium of research polling 
and analysis, much of it confusing and conflicting, but which is much 
more relevant to today's world than when it was studied 15 and 30 years 
ago.
  The last Government-sponsored review in 1982 included the following 
introductory sentence: ``We must recognize that children are growing up 
in an environment in which they must learn to organize experiences and 
emotional responses not only in relationship to the physical and social 
environment of the home, but also in relationship to the omnipresent 
21-inch screen that talks and sings and dances and encourages the 
desire for toys and candies and breakfast foods.'' This notion is now 
as quaint as it is obsolete.
  Over the last 30 years, we have seen a transformation of the media in 
the United States. We no longer talk about the 21-inch box. We now have 
the Internet. We now have a cable revolution with dozens of channels, 
all of them potentially threats to the well-being of children unless 
there is proper protections, proper safeguards put into place.
  So we call upon the Surgeon General to provide the country with a new 
Surgeon General's report within 18 months which reflects a contemporary 
crisis. We hope that all of the Members here on the floor today can 
embrace, I believe, the need for better public health information about 
the threat to children in our country.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I would just like to have a 
little colloquy with the gentleman.
  I would just like to say that I was going to make some of the same 
points that my colleague the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) 
just made, but I do not want to be redundant.
  I will just say that this is something that is extremely important. 
As he said, it has been a long, long time since we have had any kind of 
report or study like this. With the advent of all the new technologies, 
television becoming so pervasive, the Internet becoming so pervasive, 
it is extremely important that we in the Congress and the people of 
this country know where the problems lie. And this report is going to 
be extremely important in our decision-making process and for the 
American people.
  So I join with my colleague in trying to make sure that this passes 
with an overwhelming majority. It is the right thing to do, and I do 
not see why anybody would oppose it.
  Madam Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague for taking the 
initiative on this.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, only to say that this 
amendment obviously reflects a long-term concern that the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and I have had for this whole subject area, 
and I would hope that all of the Members could embrace it today.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Does anyone seek time in 
opposition?
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, if we need more time, I would 
be glad to claim the time in opposition. I ask unanimous consent to do 
that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman needs more 
than 30 seconds, I would be glad to yield him the time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank very much both the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) 
for yielding me the time.
  I support the amendment. I think establishing the science of the 
relationship between the depiction of violence and the impacts of media 
violence are legitimate, are important, and are relevant. And I think 
both gentlemen have fashioned a proposal that does

[[Page H4491]]

this, removes all of the rhetoric on both sides and all of the efforts 
to point blame, and is an investment in real science.
  I hope that the NIH study would review the methodologies and the 
formulas that have been used by the different researchers, study the 
different conclusions and different statistical models that could be 
developed from those formulas. And I think questions that have not even 
been asked before by private researchers, the questions and the 
relevance of neighborhood violence and what kind of role that plays in 
terms of family, in terms of the commission of violence, family 
situations and their relationship to the root causes of violence, all 
these things, are a matter for investigation, not anecdote, empirical 
studies, science, not rhetoric.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  There is one point I hope that the Surgeon General's study does 
include, because there is an interesting question out here, the issue 
of depiction of violence through the media and the commission of 
violent acts, and the distribution of that same media throughout the 
world, and the existence of a lower violence rate in many other 
countries and what are the relationships and what are the reasons.
  I think this would be worth pursuing, too, because this becomes a 
part of the debate on the whole question of media violence and its 
contribution to violence in our society.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I will conclude by saying that I think the point of the gentleman is 
well-taken, and I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) 
and I will try to ask the Surgeon General to include that in this.
  I hope anybody in the media who is watching will realize how serious 
Congress is about finding out the source of a lot of our problems so 
that we do not have these problems in the future. And if people in the 
media and the entertainment industry and other industries that have 
depicted violence and sexual explicitness on television and in the 
movies in the years past, if they would just of their own initiative 
start addressing this problem, it might eliminate some of the action 
that Congress might have to take in the future.
  Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding.
  Again, I want to thank him so much for all the work which he has 
done. I want to thank Tamara Fucile on my staff for all the excellent 
work she has done as well in helping to put all this together.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I want to thank Matt on my 
staff for all the work he has done as well.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider Amendment 
No. 35 printed in Part A of House Report 106-186.


                  Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Wamp

  Mr. WAMP. Madam 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. 35 offered by Mr. Wamp:
       At the end of the bill insert the following:

     SEC. 3. SYSTEM FOR LABELING VIOLENT CONTENT IN AUDIO AND 
                   VISUAL MEDIA PRODUCTS.

       (b) Labeling of Audio and Visual Media Products.--The Fair 
     Packaging and Labeling Act is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:


             ``Labeling of Audio and Visual Media Products

       ``Sec. 14. (a) It is the policy of Congress, and the 
     purpose of this section, to provide for the establishment, 
     use, and enforcement of a consistent and comprehensive system 
     for labeling violent content in audio and visual media 
     products (including labeling of such products in the 
     advertisements for such products), whereby--
       ``(1) the public may be adequately informed of--
       ``(A) the nature, context, and intensity of depictions of 
     violence in audio and visual media products; and
       ``(B) matters needed to judge the appropriateness of the 
     purchase, viewing, listening to, use, or other consumption of 
     audio and visual media products containing violent content by 
     minors of various ages; and
       ``(2) the public may be assured of--
       ``(A) the accuracy and consistency of the system in 
     labeling the nature, context, and intensity of depictions of 
     violence in audio and visual media products; and
       ``(B) the accuracy and consistency of the system in 
     providing information on matters needed to judge the 
     appropriateness of the purchase, viewing, listening to, use, 
     or other consumption of audio and visual media products 
     containing violent content by minors of various ages.
       ``(b)(1) Manufacturers and producers of interactive video 
     game products and services, video program products, motion 
     picture products, and sound recording products may submit to 
     the Federal Trade Commission a joint proposal for a system 
     for labeling the violent content in interactive video game 
     products and services, video program products, motion picture 
     products, and sound recording products.
       ``(2) The proposal under this subsection should, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, meet the requirements set forth 
     in subsection (c).
       ``(3)(A) The antitrust laws shall not apply to any joint 
     discussion, consideration, review, action, or agreement 
     between or among manufacturers and producers referred to in 
     paragraph (1) for purposes of developing a joint proposal for 
     a system for labeling referred to in that paragraph.
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `antitrust 
     laws' has the meaning given such term in the first section of 
     the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12) and includes section 5 of the 
     Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
       ``(c) A system for labeling the violent content in 
     interactive video game products and services, video program 
     products, motion picture products, and sound recording 
     products under this section shall meet the following 
     requirements:
       ``(1) The label of a product or service shall consist of a 
     single label which--
       ``(A) takes into account the nature, context, and intensity 
     of the depictions of violence in the product or service; and
       ``(B) assesses the totality of all depictions of violence 
     in the product or service.
       ``(2) The label of a product or service shall specify a 
     minimum age in years for the purchase, viewing, listening to, 
     use, or consumption of the product or service in light of the 
     totality of all depictions of violence in the product or 
     service.
       ``(3) The format of the label for products and services 
     shall--
       ``(A) incorporate each label provided for under paragraphs 
     (1) and (2);
       ``(B) include a symbol or icon, and written text; and
       ``(C) be identical for each given label provided under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), regardless of the type of product or 
     service involved.
       ``(4) In the case of a product or service sold in a box, 
     carton, sleeve, or other container, the label shall appear on 
     the box, carton, sleeve, or container in a conspicuous 
     manner.
       ``(5) In the case of a product or service that is intended 
     to be viewed, the label shall--
       ``(A) appear before the commencement of the product or 
     service;
       ``(B) appear in both visual and audio form; and
       ``(C) appear in visual form for at least five seconds.
       ``(6) Any advertisement for a product or service shall 
     include a label of the product or service in accordance with 
     the applicable provisions of this subsection.
       ``(d)(1)(A) If the manufacturers and producers referred to 
     in subsection (b) submit to the Federal Trade Commission a 
     proposal for a labeling system referred to in that subsection 
     not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this section, the Commission shall review the labeling system 
     contained in the proposal to determine whether the labeling 
     system meets the requirements set forth in subsection (c) in 
     a manner that addresses fully the purposes set forth in 
     subsection (a).
       ``(B) Not later than 180 days after commencing a review of 
     the proposal for a labeling system under subparagraph (A), 
     the Commission shall issue a labeling system for purposes of 
     this section. The labeling system issued under this 
     subparagraph may include

[[Page H4492]]

     such modifications of the proposal as the Commission 
     considers appropriate in order to assure that the labeling 
     system meets the requirements set forth in subsection (c) in 
     a manner that addresses fully the purposes set forth in 
     subsection (a).
       ``(2)(A) If the manufacturers and producers referred to in 
     subsection (b) do not submit to the Commission a proposal for 
     a labeling system referred to in that subsection within the 
     time provided under paragraph (1)(A), the Commission shall 
     prescribe regulations to establish a labeling system for 
     purposes of this section that meets the requirements set 
     forth in subsection (c).
       ``(B) Any regulations under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     prescribed not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this section.
       ``(e) Commencing one year after the date of the enactment 
     of this section, a person may not manufacture or produce for 
     sale or distribution in commerce, package for sale or 
     distribution in commerce, or sell or distribute in commerce 
     any interactive video game product or service, video program 
     product, motion picture product, or sound recording product 
     unless the product or service bears a label in accordance 
     with the labeling system issued or prescribed by the Federal 
     Trade Commission under subsection (d) which--
       ``(1) is appropriate for the nature, context, and intensity 
     of the depictions of violence in the product or service; and
       ``(2) specifies an appropriate minimum age in years for 
     purchasers and consumers of the product or service.
       ``(f) Commencing one year after the date of the enactment 
     of this section, a person may not sell in commerce an 
     interactive video game product or service, video program 
     product, motion picture product, or sound recording product 
     to an individual whose age in years is less than the age 
     specified as the minimum age in years for a purchaser and 
     consumer of the product or service, as the case may be, under 
     the labeling system issued or prescribed by the Federal Trade 
     Commission under subsection (d).
       ``(g) The Federal Trade Commission shall have the authority 
     to receive and investigate allegations that an interactive 
     video game product or service, video program product, motion 
     picture product, or sound recording product does not bear a 
     label under the labeling system issued or prescribed by the 
     Commission under subsection (d) that is appropriate for the 
     product or service, as the case may be, given the nature, 
     context, and intensity of the depictions of violence in the 
     product or service.
       ``(h) Any person who violates subsection (e) or (f) shall 
     be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed 
     $10,000 for each such violation. In the case of an 
     interactive video game product or service, video program 
     product, motion picture product, or sound recording product 
     determined to violate subsection (e), each day from the date 
     of the commencement of sale or distribution of the product or 
     service, as the case may be, to the date of the determination 
     of the violation shall constitute a separate violation of 
     subsection (e), and all such violations shall be aggregated 
     together for purposes of determining the total liability of 
     the manufacturer or producer of the product or service, as 
     the case may be, for such violations under that subsection.

  Mr. WAMP. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the prime sponsor on the Democratic side of 
this amendment, be granted 10 minutes' time in support of this 
amendment and that he be able to yield time to Members in support of 
this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) will control 10 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chairman, are either one of these 
gentlemen opposed to the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair has not recognized opposition 
time at this point.
  Mr. WAMP. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, this act will create a consistent and comprehensive 
system for labeling violent content in audio and visual media products, 
including the labeling of products in the advertisements.
  The system will consist of a single label that will inform consumers 
of the nature, context, intensity of violent content, and age 
appropriateness of such products. The label will specify a minimum age 
in years for the purchase, viewing, listening to, use, or consumption 
of the product or service. The label will also include an icon or 
symbol with written text in plain view of the consumer. In the case of 
video or motion picture programs, the label with appear at the 
beginning of the program and last for at least 5 seconds.
  The act waives antitrust laws, and the industries are given 6 months 
to work together in developing a standardized product labeling system. 
The proposal is subject to modification and final approval by the 
Federal Trade Commission.
  In the occasion manufacturers do not submit a labeling system at the 
appropriate time, the Federal Trade Commission will devise regulations 
on its own to establish the labeling system.
  The act bans domestic sale or commercial distribution of unlabeled 
products after 1 year in the event that these things are not met. 
Further, retailers are required to enforce label restrictions on such 
products and are subject to a fine of up to $10,000 for failure to do 
so. Manufacturers and producers who violate the labeling system will be 
subject to these fines each day for every day the product is in the 
marketing place.
  So my colleagues may ask, why is this necessary? We have heard 
testimony today that there have been almost a thousand studies since 
1971 clearly showing that the violence in mass media products such as 
video games, movies, CDs is now so outrageous that it is having a 
desensitization effect, a conditioning effect on the young people of 
America. And this violence is so prolific that young people who cannot 
differentiate between fantasy and reality are effectively sitting at 
video games serving as simulators with killing, splattering, exit 
wounds.
  The promotion is now so outrageous that all we are asking for is not 
to ban these products, but to have a uniform labeling system, much like 
we have on food safety products, much like we have on cigarettes, where 
a label will show a responsible parent what is necessary to make an 
informed judgment about whether to buy this product or take this 
product home.
  I submitted earlier that Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, in a book 
called ``On Killing Provocatively,'' shows that the desensitization of 
human beings today, the act of killing happens over time by 
desensitization, these magazines' media products clearly are causing 
this to happen to our children, and pointed to the fact that our 
soldiers even in war are not inclined to naturally kill each other, 
that typically species do not kill each other. Even rattlesnakes do not 
kill each other and humans do not kill each other naturally.
  We are asking at this defining moment, what is causing our children 
to kill each other? What evil is manifesting itself when our children 
will show up in places like Columbine and actually pull the trigger and 
kill each other?

                              {time}  1245

  I would suggest that one of the primary factors is this 
desensitization that in large part the mass media, and I know their 
motives are not such but the fact is it is happening where these video 
games are having such an adverse effect.
  Our soldiers in World War II, only 15 to 20 percent according to 
studies would actually kill each other, would kill the enemy when they 
were faced with an enemy. So they took the bull's eye off the firing 
range and they put a human figure so that the desensitization would 
begin to happen. They tried to break solders down so that they would 
ultimately pull the trigger. By the Korean War we got that figure up to 
40 percent. By the Vietnam War, technology set in and it got up to 90 
percent, so that the soldiers would actually pull the trigger, because 
it is not human, it is not natural for us to kill each other but they 
are desensitized, much like a pilot is desensitized through simulation 
for flight training, much like a driver learns how to drive through 
simulators. Video games have that same effect on small children. This 
is a catastrophic thing clearly in our society that we need to do 
something about. These video games need to at least be labeled.
  With that, I look forward to a healthy and honorable debate here.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H4493]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Does any Member seek time in 
opposition?
  Mr. CONYERS. Yes. I do, Madam Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This is an interesting concept here in which we now move the 
government into the labeling system business and we will now have an 
all-controlling, omnipotent Federal Trade Commission which will now be 
directly responsible for the labeling system for video games, movie and 
sound packages having violent content.
  I hope everybody is thinking about what this is going to do in terms 
of the relationship of the government to commerce in the United States. 
The Federal Trade Commission has its hands full now. Outside of the 
Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, it is the only 
antitrust division that we have, FTC. So it is with some reluctance 
that I indicate to my dear friend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak) that this goes a little bit beyond the pale in terms of its 
overreach. What we are doing is creating a politburo that will move 
much of the entertainment industry to Washington, D.C. and I think we 
want to stop and think a minute about what we are doing.
  We had an interesting hearing on May 13 on youth and violence. One of 
the great ideas, and I am not sure if the authors of this amendment are 
aware, which came out of it was the notion that there ought to be one 
kind of labeling system for all the entertainment industry. It was 
advanced by a media critic. It made a lot of sense. At the panel was 
Jack Valenti himself, representing the movie industry. It is, I think, 
under active consideration.
  What we find is the problem here, instead of trying to see if the 
entertainment industry will move on our recommendations, is that here 
we have decided that they are not or they will not or they cannot and 
we will now do it for them by commanding the Federal Trade Commission 
to promulgate a government labeling system. This kind of parallels the 
Hyde amendment that was rejected yesterday. It is a little bit more 
tailored. But it still is constitutionally suspect because of the 
vagueness.
  Not defining what violence means means that we will be in the courts 
for quite a long period of time. It is overbroad because it would apply 
to historical programs and restrict the dissemination of facts. It also 
may be considered not exactly necessary because the covered industries 
are using labels and, as I have suggested, they are moving toward even 
improving them. We have a problem with the V-chip, but I understand 
from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) that there may be an 
amendment that can correct it.
  With regard to whether the amendment is premature or not, we are 
assuming that the entertainment products with violence are 
automatically harmful to youth and we impose a costly and burdensome 
labeling system. Might it not be better to wait for the definitive 
evidence of such links before imposing an intrusive government 
regulation system? Under the Markey amendment just passed, we decided 
to have the Surgeon General conduct a study. In another arena we have 
NIH conducting a study.
  So without trying to punt on this, there is the unambiguous 
scientific evidence that really needs to be brought to bear. I am 
hopeful that we will consider this with great care.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My good friend the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Judiciary 
has raised a couple of issues I would like to respond to.
  Government is already into labeling. This is a label amendment. 
Government is into labeling. Let me explain. Let us say this is video. 
Let us say this is music. Let us say this is TV. Let us say this is 
movies. We have four different packages here and government labels 
every one of these packages. Everything we consume physically, 
government labels. On the back of every one of these packages is 
nutritional facts. It came from the FDA. Every one of them.
  What we are saying is whether you are a movie, you are going to have 
a uniform, consistent standard label so we as consumers, before we 
consume it, we know what it is. Every one of them, nutritional facts. 
Every one of them, nutritional facts. Every one of them, nutritional 
facts. That is what we are asking the entertainment industry to do.
  It is suggested that we should wait. For over 30 years the movie 
industry has been putting forth ratings. They are never the same. They 
constantly change. There is no enforcement. We have been waiting for 
over 30 years. Why 30 years ago did they bring up a rating system? 
Because study after study shows violence, constantly depicted, starting 
at age 8 makes the impression upon people that it is okay to do what 
you are seeing on television or what you are listening to in music or 
what you are seeing in the interactive video games, whatever it may be. 
In fact, this amendment amends government's Fair Packaging and Labeling 
Act. That is what we are asking to do in this bill. Government has been 
labeling and telling us what to do.
  What we are asking for, music, video, interactive, television, give 
us the same, consistent, uniform label. And we let industry determine 
it. For the first 6 months industry will determine it. As the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) points out, the Federal Trade Commission, 
FTC, has a right to oversee it. So it is uniform, it is consistent. 
Yes, we put financial penalties in there if they do not do it, if the 
producers and distributors do not do it. Why? Because we have been 
waiting over 30 years.
  Madam Chairman, today I am offering my amendment with the gentleman 
from Tennessee to establish a standardized product, to put a violence 
labeling system for interactive video games, video programs, motion 
pictures and music. This is to inform and have a uniform and consistent 
labeling system which will be a valuable tool before I purchase a video 
game or music for my sons or let them go to a movie.

  I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his hard work on 
this. It is fair to say we must thank in the other body Senators 
Lieberman and McCain for their tireless effort in this same area. What 
we are saying here, we require that the manufacturers of products, 
whatever they are, put forth a uniform label which tells us what is the 
nature of the movie, or the music, what is the context, what is the 
intensity, what is the intensity of the violent content and the age 
appropriateness for these products.
  It requires industry to work together, all of them, music, video 
games, videos, television, to work together to develop a standardized 
product. And if they cannot, the FTC is going to do it for them.
  The amendment bans domestic sale and commercial distribution of 
unlabeled products after a year. There are already several different 
rating systems. Just like these packages, each one is packaged 
differently. That is what the current ratings system is in this 
country. We say let us put a uniform label, nutrition facts, nutrition 
for our mind and for our reviewing. That is what we are asking for, 
create a uniform and consistent labeling system so every parent and 
every consumer in this country can identify the product's content.
  As I indicated, we have the nutritional labels so a consumer 
understands what is contained in a product he is about to consume. Why 
should parents and consumers of video games, movies, television and 
music not know what is the product before they buy them? We need to 
provide product information to parents and consumers about the violent 
content of these products to increase our ability to make informed 
decisions before we give the products to our children. Ultimately, 
parents have the responsibility to determine what is suitable for their 
children, to play on their VCR or what game to play, what to listen to 
and what to watch. However in this increasingly digital age, parents 
need to be more informed to make educated decisions and let us make it 
simple, so they know what it is through this labeling, a uniform, 
consistent label, not ratings but label throughout all of industry so 
we do not have to go to the

[[Page H4494]]

 music CD and look at one thing and try to figure out what it says and 
go to the video, and see something else in interactive video games.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Wamp-Stupak amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


         Request to Modify Amendment NO. 35 Offered by Mr. Wamp

  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
modify the amendment and to explain the modification relative to the V-
chip.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Tennessee?
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
What the modification would simply do after consultation with anyone 
that is concerned about the V-chip issue is to clearly establish with 
language in the amendment that the V-chip is not affected in any way, 
shape or form. There is no relationship to this amendment and the V-
chip. The labeling system does not even mention V-chip technology. The 
product label does not interfere with the V-chip in any way. If 
anything, it provides a supplement to parents who cannot afford to 
purchase a new television set or set-top box in order to block V-chip 
programming. The V-chip is a rating system. The Wamp-Stupak amendment 
is a plain English labeling system. Parents really want common sense 
English language product content information and no one should be 
afraid of this particular amendment. As a matter of fact, relative to 
the V-chip, this is the same bill that was made in order as an 
amendment that was dropped in the Senate with bipartisan cosponsors, 
Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman, an original cosponsor, Senator 
Conrad, who was the author of the V-chip legislation in the Senate. It 
has support from Senator Lott, the majority leader, strong bipartisan 
support. All the fearmongering about this would affect the V-chip is 
unjustified.
  I really regret that someone objected to our reasonable efforts to 
make sure in this amendment that their needs were met. They are the 
ones that asked that we be considerate. We were attempting to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter).

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) for this long-
needed legislation.
  It is interesting to me to watch two of my friends, the gentlemen 
from Hollywood, California (Mr. Waxman) and (Mr. Berman), who have long 
been real champions of labeling cigarettes with those warning labels, 
those hazardous-to-your-health labels, and I am sure they think that is 
a very good idea.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution, as far as I know, does 
not say, Congress shall pass no law abridging the manufacture, the 
marketing, the distribution or the sale of potato chips or cigarettes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and just to respond to 
my friend, there is no constitutional problem with having a label on 
the movie Natural Born Killers which says to parents, ``This product 
contains graphic and intense depictions of violence in the context of 
criminal activity. This product is inappropriate for consumption by 
minors under 17 years of age.'' In fact, that is an exercise of free 
speech, that is not an inhibition of free speech.
  Mr. Chairman, parents are raising their children in a very dangerous 
world today with respect to the media and Hollywood and the 
entertainment industry. In the old days, Roy Rogers, when he was the 
biggest star in the world for children, never did anything to frustrate 
parents with respect to their goals of raising children who are honest, 
who are wholesome, and who have values. They did not have to explain 
why Roy Rogers did something that was horrible or unusual and that they 
should not follow.
  I was looking at this billboard for Natural Born Killers. This stars 
people, Woody Harrelson, Juliette Lewis, Robert Downey, Jr., and Tommy 
Lee Jones, who millions of children throughout the world say, I really 
like her, or I really like him, and they have developed an affection 
and an admiration for those people. They have not learned to 
disassociate what those people do on the screen with the person 
themselves.
  What this does for parents, for parents who are so busy today, often 
having several jobs, very often the mother and the father both working, 
many times raising children in single families, this gives them some 
information. This is supposed to be the information age. This tells 
them that something is graphic violence or graphic sex, and it allows 
that mom who is walking out the door whose child is going to go with 
another child somewhere to watch a movie, it enables them to make a 
decision and say either you can go or you cannot go.
  This Wamp-Stupak legislation empowers parents, and the one thing that 
we have been afraid to do, apparently because of the enormous pressure 
and the enormous power of Hollywood, is empower parents. That is what 
we must do, and if this legislation passes, it will accrue to the 
benefit of every family in America.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I begin by apologizing to the now long 
list of Members that want to speak in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman), the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  As the author of the legislation that required food labeling of 
nutritional information on products, I want to tell my colleagues why 
this is not the same kind of area where government ought to be 
involved.
  I think we have to be very, very careful when government is going to 
be involved in intruding itself in the expression of ideas. Do we 
really want the same label to be on Schindler's List that we would have 
on Natural Born Killers? Do we want to put a chilling effect on 
entertainment, on literature, on creativity? I think it is 
inappropriate for government to do this sort of thing, and I thought it 
was inappropriate for the V-chip, and it never seems to satisfy people, 
because there seems to be this great desire to move from one label to 
the next label to start government censorship, and that is precisely 
the kind of thing that government ought to restrain itself from doing.
  I would hope we would vote against this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform the Committee that the time of 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) has expired. The gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 13 minutes remaining; the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Reluctantly, I have to oppose this amendment. I believe that there 
are a number of reasons why this is not a good idea. I think, first of 
all, we have to recognize that all of us believe in labeling. I think 
every one of the movies that comes out, all of the television shows and 
so forth should have a label. But that is being done already in a 
system that is not perfect, but is being done by the industry groups 
involved.
  This legislation, though, would come in and say one size fits all. It 
would require all of these industry groups to be together on a format, 
or the FTC would impose a format on them. What is good for country 
music certainly is not necessarily the same thing that we want for a 
video game. We have a country music song labeled in the same category 
with Doom, a violent and graphic game, and that would be totally 
inappropriate.
  I would also think that we would require by this the rerating of 
hundreds of thousands of existing movies and television programs and so 
forth, and

[[Page H4495]]

that is an enormous task and a very expensive one.
  Last but not least, I do not think the proposal is constitutional, 
unfortunately, and I know it will be discussed a lot more later. The 
reality is that we have a free speech question here, and if there is 
not an obscenity standard or something like that, there is no way we 
can label constitutionally by Congress.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman), a ranking subcommittee member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to reemphasize the point that if we 
could analogize movies and music and books and television to potato 
chips and cigarettes, there would be no constitutional impediment 
whatsoever to government mandating of a rating system, but we cannot. 
The first amendment is very specific in its protection here.
  In the V-chip legislation that we will hear more about later, there 
were no criminal penalties. There was a voluntary rating system 
developed by an industry, enforced by an industry, connected to a 
technology to make it meaningful.
  With respect to the voluntary ratings system in the motion picture 
industry, with the recent decision of the National Association of 
Theater Owners, we will now find effective enforcement of a very 
effective rating system. I urge that this well-intentioned, but 
unconstitutional proposal be rejected.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  (Mr. TANZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, a couple of years ago when ratings for 
television were discussed and V-chips were discussed, there were bills 
to do this. For government to step in and establish rating systems, we 
did the wise thing then, and I ask my colleagues to do the wise thing 
today. Reject the notion of government ratings.
  We took our committee on telecom to Peoria. We took with us Eddie 
Fritz, we took with us Jack Valenti, the representatives of the movie, 
cable and the television industries, and we let them meet with parents 
in Peoria. We let parents talk directly to the industry. Out of it came 
an industry-agreed-upon ratings system for television that is going to 
work with the V-chip.
  There are ratings right now on video games, ratings on movies. For 
government to step in and mandate a system would not only offend first 
amendment rights, it would disturb a very healthy process already going 
forward with industry and parents and communities around America to set 
up ratings that we can understand and work with.
  The last thing we need to do is have government rerating all that 
stuff, government interfering with the first amendment in our society. 
We need more parents to pay attention to what industry is doing to tell 
them what is in movies, books and videos.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just in response to the last speaker, I just want to say if it worked 
so well in television, why is not NBC doing the same system? They are 
not.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, NBC has its own rating system.
  Mr. STUPAK. Oh, really? They do not.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, NBC was the 
one network who felt they were under too much government pressure to 
adopt a rating system others agreed to. They adopted their own rating 
systems.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is the point. If 
everyone has their own rating system, why can we not put a label so it 
is consistent, whether it is NBC, CBS, ABC, FX, video games, whatever?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment, and I am particularly pleased with the feature calling for a 
uniform system of ratings for video games.
  While some media companies have taken action to address this problem, 
such as Disney, which has removed violent video games from their theme 
parks, there are many companies that, I believe, are going in the 
opposite direction, such as the manufacturer of the video game Duke 
Nukem, advertised on the Internet with the teaser quote: Learn what you 
can do with pipe bombs, unquote.
  The players of this game not only learn to shoot people, but in 
particular, they learn to shoot women and doing other things that I 
cannot even speak of on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  I do not believe that we can rely on industry to police itself in 
this arena and that action is necessary, and it is for that reason that 
I rise in strong support of the amendment.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate be 
extended by 10 minutes, equally divided, 5 minutes on each side. There 
are just too many people that need to speak. I know that the House is 
pressed for time today and that it may be midnight before we finish 
tonight, but could we please ask the Chair and ask the Members to grant 
10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) that he be granted an additional 5 minutes and 
that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) be granted an additional 
5 minutes?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this 
amendment. As a father of five children and as a grandfather, we all 
know that content labeling is not working. Just watch the television or 
see a movie and try to figure out PG, PG 13, R ratings. It is not 
working. We know that the industry will not regulate itself.
  I was one of the Republicans that broke with my party several years 
ago in support of the V-chip. I remember one Member said the answer is 
for parents to take care of it, and it is. But there are some people 
that cannot do it. There are some people whose children are home alone. 
There are some people that need help. It is violent content. Every 
Member should look at the video, Doom. Every Member should read the 
article about ``Killology'' that the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp) sent around.
  This amendment is a good idea. This makes a lot of sense. Sometimes 
what concerns me is that the powerful interests, the lobbyists that 
control some of these issues can mislead and say whatever and get us to 
postpone and postpone.
  The Wamp-Stupak amendment will help parents, and, even more 
importantly, I believe it will save a lot of lives. I strongly urge all 
Members on both sides to support this amendment by an overwhelming 
vote.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose this amendment as it is 
drafted, as it is being debated out here on the floor. No matter how 
many times the proponents say as it is drafted that this does not 
affect the V-chip, the plain language of the amendment says the 
opposite. Its purpose, ``is the labeling of violent content in visual 
media products.'' That is what the V-chip does. We won that vote 3 
years ago, and then the industry voluntarily, working with parents' 
groups, constructed a rating system that every parents' group in 
America supports.
  Now, if this amendment is adopted, it jeopardizes that system. A 
whole new system would have to be constructed under this amendment.
  There are going to be 26 million TV sets purchased in America over 
the next year with a V-chip in it, and 26 million the year after, and 
26 million the year after that, all with the ratings system built in 
that parents support. If this amendment is adopted, it jeopardizes 
that, because a whole new system would be put in place and potentially 
jeopardize all of these new TV sets which will not have a ratings 
system that is in conformity with something that the government sets 
up.
  So that is why the National Association of Elementary School 
Principals,

[[Page H4496]]

the American Psychological Association, the Center for Media Education, 
all of them endorse the V-chip and the system that we now have in 
place.

                              {time}  1315

  It is voluntary. It is being built into TV sets today. It works. 
Parents want it.
  If there is some other new system people want to set up, we will go 
off and try to do that. But for the 6 hours a day the TV sets are on in 
America, millions of young parents are buying these TV sets. We should 
not have a new system. This one works. Vote no on the Wamp amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my 
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank my good friend for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the difference between this label and the label on 
potato chips is that this label has the government judging expressive 
content, not MSG content--expressive content and ideas. Those are 
protected under the First Amendment in ways that MSG content are not.
  The way this bill was drafted is very dangerous. It says that the FTC 
is supposed to determine a system appropriate for the nature, context, 
and intensity of the depictions of violence. Regarding context, 
consider that Full Metal Jacket and Apocolypse Now were violent films 
about Vietnam. Saving Private Ryan was a violent film about the Second 
World War. The Federal trade Commission is asked to comment about 
violence in context. If we support the war, perhaps the violence is 
appropriate. If we do not, perhaps the violence is inappropriate. We 
see why the First Amendment deals with expressive content differently 
than MSG content.
  Lastly, there is a drafting error. The bill has no maximum to the 
minimum age; let me repeat, no maximum to the minimum age. Turn to page 
7 of the bill. A person ``may not sell, in commerce * * * product to an 
individual whose age in years is less than the age specified as the 
minimum age * * * for a purchaser * * * of the product * * * under the 
labeling system * * * prescribed by the Federal trade Commission under 
subsection (d).''
  There is nothing in (d) saying ``minor'' or ``minority.'' There is a 
reference to ``minor'' in A, the findings section, but that only 
applies to when the industry does its own labeling. There is thus a 
huge loophole in this bill of an unconstitutional nature--adult access 
can be limited.
  Let me simply conclude that the bill was poorly drafted, and 
infringes the First Amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Wamp amendment. We all 
agree that children should not be exposed to music and movies that 
depict violence or sexual images. But the answer is not to overregulate 
industries that are already making positive efforts to police 
themselves.
  The motion picture industry has a well-established rating system for 
warning parents about the content of movies. The television networks 
have recently begun a similar rating practice. Parents are increasingly 
making use of the V-chip to keep harmful material away from their kids, 
and virtually every major recording company complies with voluntary 
label warnings on their recording that contain material that is 
inappropriate for children.
  Establishing a labeling system with the muscle of the Federal 
government at the regulatory helm is not the way to help parents 
protect their kids. Instead, we should continue to work constructively 
with the entertainment industry to improve ways for parents to limit 
their children's exposure to harmful material.
  Our number one priority must be to protect our children and empower 
parents. The Wamp amendment provides the wrong approach. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, this is a complicated debate, and I know 
technology is complicated to the Members in this body. But what we are 
in effect debating today is that we tell our families across America 
the sodium content in a bag of pretzels, and we will label that. Why 
should we not label a video game called Sin that teaches, that rewards, 
that glorifies, showing our children hour after hour after hour on the 
computer how to destroy people; minute after minute, hour after hour, 
week after week?
  This is Sin. I have played it. I have pulled it down and looked at 
it. The more people you kill and shoot, the better one's score.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the argument of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell) about movies. Movies may desensitize us to 
violence, and I think that, quite frankly, the amendment of the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Stupak) needs to be improved in that area.
  But video games do not desensitize us to it, they glorify it. They 
reward it. They teach our young people, shoot them again and I will 
give you 150 more points. And if you shoot their head off, I will give 
you more points.
  This is something that our parents and our families simply need a 
label on. We are not telling them, have the government take the 
industry over. We are telling Members in this amendment, try to work 
together to come up with a voluntary labeling warning for our families.
  Some of our parents do not know too much about these games yet. These 
are new. This industry now on the Internet is a $300 billion industry 
and growing, and we want to promote the Internet. The Internet has 
valuable education, resource, and teaching tools, but it also has some 
dangers.
  What we are saying, Mr. Chairman is, maybe Members did not vote for 
the Hyde amendment yesterday, which went too far.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has 
expired.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to give both sides 
1 additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, if Members voted against, as I did, the 
Hyde amendment yesterday, which goes to the heart of our First 
Amendment and our freedoms, and if Members intend to vote for the 
amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) which says 
let us study this and hopefully do something about it in 5 or 6 or 7 
years, and Members may have some qualms about this particular amendment 
and the way it is drafted, however, it starts to address a growing 
problem in America about the glorification and the teaching and the 
instruction of violence to our youngest people.
  We just say, if we can label pretzels and salt content, let us just 
warn with the label, in a voluntary way, with our industry working 
together, about the violent content of our video games today.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me just speak for a moment in objection 
to the Wamp amendment. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) is a 
wonderful father. I see his son Wesley here all the time, and I know he 
is concerned for his children, and reasonably so.
  But there are labels. This is a label that is on records. There are 
labels on video games. This one is gauged Teen, and it is larger than 
the Microsoft logo. They have descriptions entirely appropriate to tell 
what is in this game: Comic mission, animated violence, real violence, 
informational, use of drugs, use of tobacco, alcohol, gaming, strong 
language, animated blood, realistic blood, suggestive themes, mature 
sexual themes.
  They do that. They voluntarily do it by category. That is video 
games.

[[Page H4497]]

  Videos, R-rated. Another video, PG-13. There are ratings. The very 
Members that I got elected with in 1994 that wanted to shrink the size 
of the Federal Government now want to give added responsibility to the 
FTC and give them more work to do.
  I respectfully request that parents get more involved. These video 
games just do not show up in their homes in the bedrooms while their 
children play them, they buy them. They get them at the malls. The 
parents need to join them in their pursuit and purchase of these games.
  We could certainly make a lot of commentary today about violence, and 
I agree, there are some terrible products out there and there are some 
terrible shows out there. But I suggest that the Americans can vote 
with their wallets. America can vote with its pocketbook and say no 
more shows like Jerry Springer. Let us reduce the ratings of those 
shows so advertisers no longer advertise and it is taken off the air.
  But we should allow this system to work as it is in place. It is 
working.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment. I think 
it is deeply, deeply flawed. I am not going to reiterate what has been 
pointed out by my colleagues that have gone to the heart of the flaws 
of the amendment.
  What I would like to do with my remaining time is to do just a very 
brief congressional classroom sort of history here. How did we arrive 
here and begin debating what we are debating? There was a bill that was 
being sent over from the Senate. It was said by the Speaker that he 
wanted to bring about something that was reasonable on gun control. I 
think that this is a bob and weave effort, because the bills have been 
separated out.
  What happened in Littleton and on other high school campuses is 
really engraved in an inextricable way in the Americans' conscience: 
That is, America's children running outside of their schools with their 
hands over their heads because there were students inside of those 
institutions, inside of those classrooms, that were holding guns to the 
heads of other students.
  So the target in my view, today and in our arguments, in our debates, 
is what we are going to do about guns. The American people and parents 
across this country did not ask the Members of Congress to come here 
and trample on First Amendment rights. They want us to do what the 
Congress can and should do, and that is stay with the target and 
control and do something about guns going into our children's hands.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Burton), Chair of the Committee on Government Reform.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first start off by saying we are all concerned 
about the violence that has taken place in places like Littleton. We 
are all trying to find out the causes and effects of those acts of 
violence.
  Many of us believe that one of the major causes is the garbage that 
our children consume. That is why the V-chip was passed a few short 
years ago.
  After the V-chip, and I want to say that I am sure my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Stupak) are well-intentioned, and I know we all agree that we have 
to do something about the violent content we see in the things our kids 
are consuming.
  The fact of the matter is we passed a V-chip a couple of years ago, 3 
years ago, and just yesterday we had a news conference where RCA, the 
Thompson Company, has just produced 200,000 sets with the V-chip in 
them. There are going to be millions of those sets produced in the next 
year. People are buying those sets with the intention of blocking out 
objectionable material they do not want their children to see.
  This legislation would hamper those people being able to do that 
because the parent groups, working with the industry, have worked out a 
rating system that has been agreed to. They are going to be able to 
block out that objectionable material. All of that may go out the 
window if we come up with a new system with labeling involved and 
everything else, and a lot of these industry people may back out.
  What does that mean? The people that bought those TV sets will not be 
able to block out that objectionable material because there is going to 
be a new rating system that is not agreed to. That is what we are 
concerned about.
  I think everybody in this body, everybody in the other body, wants to 
make sure that we stop the horrible things that are happening in this 
country, the violence and the things our kids are consuming that is 
really causing a lot of that. But the way to do it is to do it in a 
different way than we are talking about today. We should not be doing 
anything that is going to impede the progress of the V-chip and 
blocking out of objectionable material, which this would do. If we are 
going to do it, let us do it a different way.

                              {time}  1330

  I tried working with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) last 
night, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) to try to come 
up with a compromise. We were not able to work it out in that short 
period of time but we will continue to work with them to try to block 
objectionable material in the future, but let us not mess with the V-
chip or the current system we have.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dooley).
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. I think all of us are trying to strike a balance. We are 
trying to strike a balance between protecting our children and at the 
same time protecting our first amendment and protecting the 
Constitution.
  I oppose this amendment because I do not think we have achieved that 
balance that is going to allow us to achieve both objectives.
  I come to this conclusion because what we are trying to do is 
something that I think is almost impossible, by asking people who are 
manufacturing records and motion pictures or video games to come 
together and try to identify one standard that can determine what is 
something that is very nebulous in terms of what is too violent for our 
children, what age should children be able to view this material 
without suffering any undue harm; and it even goes beyond that in 
infringing upon our constitutional rights because it will inevitably 
result in the Federal Government setting that standard, which I fear 
can be characterized as nothing other than censorship.
  We need to indeed try to protect our children from violent 
depictions, but I also think that we have to come to grips, as I think 
I have with my own family, that that is a responsibility of myself and 
my wife. I have two daughters who are now in high school, a senior and 
a sophomore. I admit that they probably have seen violent depictions, 
but it did not encourage them to go out and murder people or commit 
acts of violence because they had been embedded with the values which 
are important to my family and to our community and knew how to respond 
to that.
  I do not think that we need to have our Congress putting in place 
crutches that are not as important as our families becoming stronger 
and spending the time with their children to ensure that they embrace 
the valves of all of us.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, there was a time when it seemed that the TV 
and the radio were guests in our homes. Now sometimes I think they are 
intruders, bringing in messages that sometimes undermine the values 
that we want to impart to our kids. So I fully understand the 
frustration of my good friends from Tennessee and Michigan that really 
was the origin, I think, of this well-intentioned amendment.
  However, I am afraid that it is going to be counterproductive to our 
effort to really give parents the tools to get control of these 
electronics in their home. There was lots of work, compromise, many 
hours put in to bringing the V-chip legislation to a reality. Now, in 
just two weeks V-chip televisions are going to be available on the 
market for parents so they can get control in their

[[Page H4498]]

own homes. For that reason, I encourage my colleagues to give this 
legislation, the V-chip legislation and these TVs, a chance to work and 
to allow parents to have those tools in their homes.
  For that reason, I reluctantly oppose this amendment but understand 
my good friends' frustrations and hope that we can bring their 
frustrations and this other work together to give parents more tools. 
This is just the wrong way to do it.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has the right 
to close as a member of the committee defending the committee position.
  The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp) for yielding me this time.
  I would like to bring up two points. We offered an amendment to take 
care of the V-chip technology, the bogus argument that is being made. 
Our amendment said it would be absolutely clear that there can be no 
interoperability requirement with the V-chip requirement. In other 
words, we want to work with the V-chip and by standardizing the label 
it will be easier. We offered the amendment. They objected because it 
is the only ground they could object on the value of our amendment and 
what we are doing here today.
  This is not a rating argument. So then the other argument they 
brought up is, well, it is a first amendment right. The courts have 
constantly ruled, and we checked with CRS, although not binding they 
certainly give us legal guidance and they said there is a compelling 
State interest to protect the welfare of children.
  Government has that right to protect children when there is a 
compelling state interest. Much like tobacco, much like alcohol, it 
extends to commercial media products. That is why this is not 
unconstitutional. That is why it is not in violation of the first 
amendment. It will not violate the V-chip. Those are bogus arguments. 
We had the amendments to correct those concerns. They refused to allow 
us to offer it.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, there are some labels. Most of them are stickers. They 
come right off on the label. They are not on the product itself. When 
one takes the package off, they are gone. Some do; some do not. We just 
ask for a uniform labeling system.
  I find it extraordinary that most of the people that are opposing 
this today are from the State of California or they have some vested 
interest in legislation that might compete with this.
  I do not think so. We have made that clear. But I am not going to 
defend the entertainment industry because I do think, as Ted Turner 
said 2 weeks ago, there is a responsibility in the mass media to 
decrease the amount of violence and this is a common-sense approach to 
that problem.
  One of my predecessors in this House, Estes Kefauver, in 1954, he 
held hearings in the Senate on whether or not comic books contributed 
to juvenile delinquency. Today, the comic books of the nineties are 
video games, folks, and the juvenile delinquents of the 1990s can 
oftentimes be found behind the barrel of a gun.
  These products should be labeled, uniform labeling. It makes common 
sense. They are going to say free speech.
  These are products. This is not art and expression. These video games 
are a product of market research. Open up one of those PC magazines and 
see how someone can download the blood splattering. It is gross. It is 
awful.
  Our kids are being filled in the head with poison. We label the food 
that is bad for them but we are not going to label the poison that goes 
in their head with a common-sense labeling? This does not violate first 
amendment rights. Good gracious. It just says, be responsible as an 
industry. Children are killing children.
  I have had enough of it. I am going to side with parents today. I am 
going to side with children today; not some big special interest with a 
bunch of money that has been working all week to kill good common-sense 
legislation.
  The family groups have come out today in support of this amendment. 
Responsible people would support this common-sense approach. I ask my 
colleagues not to vote with the big fat cats and the special interests. 
Vote with parents that need to make informed decisions, need to just be 
able to look. It is the same thing we do with food. It is the same 
thing we do with cigarettes. Some of the people that have opposed us 
today wanted the labeling on cigarettes, but what about brutal violence 
that clearly contributes to the rise in youth violence and killing in 
America today? It is unequivocal. Nearly a thousand studies document 
it.
  Is the House going to respond or is the House going to sweep this 
under the rug? I urge support for the Wamp-Stupak amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I only wish that my friend the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Stupak) had brought this to the House Committee on the Judiciary 
where we could have had the kind of discussion that probably would have 
been more helpful. I hope that we do. This deserves a hearing. The 
subject is not going away, regardless of the outcome and disposition of 
the measure today.
  I must say, I am looking at a series of Supreme Court decisions that 
make two things clear. One, mandatory labeling will be viewed by the 
Court to constitute a system of unconstitutional prior restraints, the 
very type most disfavored under the first amendment, and I have three 
cases to cite.
  Secondly, the prior restraints, like mandatory labeling, are viewed 
as censorship and, as such, and a couple more Supreme Court cases, it 
will not work.
  I wish I could say something different. So I want to make sure that 
we appreciate the constitutional question and the impracticability of 
an amendment that would cost billions of dollars for the Federal 
Government to administer and would probably be pretty difficult to 
enforce.
  This proposal will create a fairly large size bureaucracy and enforce 
a labeling system for all audio and visual media products. It would 
create an agency that would be tasked with reviewing over 600 motion 
pictures every year, at least 500 videos and digital video disks that 
come into the marketplace, and thousands of sound recordings released 
each year.
  Believe me, this is not a subject matter that can be legislated from 
the floor of the House of Representatives in a committee setting. We 
need to refer this to the Committee on the Judiciary and any other 
appropriate committee, and then bring it forward. I would be delighted 
and I continue my commitment to work on a workable and effective 
resolution of the labeling problem in the entertainment industry.
  Unfortunately, this solution I cannot support.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.
  Let me first say that I applaud the intentions of my colleagues in 
offering this amendment. I share their concern about excess violent 
programming and the effect it has on our children. I also agree with 
them that parents should have more information and not be confused 
about the meaning of various rating systems between TV, movies, video 
games and music.
  However, as a strong proponent of the V-chip, I am opposed to this 
amendment.
  This amendment could easily destroy the rating sytem that the 
entertainment industry negotiated with parents groups to work with the 
V-chip. The V-chip allows parents to control the programming viewed by 
their children. It works with the TV Parental guidelines developed by 
the television industry and child advocacy groups.
  If the TV ratings system is changed, parents will find that they can 
no longer block violent programming on their TV sets.
  Because of the very problems that the authors of this legislation are 
concerned about, Congress passed the V-chip law in 1996. This law 
requires TV manufactures to meet a deadline of incorporating the V-chip 
into 50 percent of TV's sold in America in the next two weeks. They are 
on track to not only do this but to also comply with the 100 percent V-
chip deadline of January 1, 2000.
  If the government steps in to mandate a new rating system after these 
various industries have begun labeling their products on a voluntary 
basis, all the progress that has been made to date would be erased.

[[Page H4499]]

  The historic V-chip rating system agreement was reached between the 
National PTA, the American Academy of Pediatricians, the Center for 
Media Education, the American Psychological Association, the National 
Association of Elementary School Principals and the Motion Picture 
Association, the National Cable Television Association and the National 
Association of Broadcasters.
  When we passed the V-chip, we agreed to forbear further legislation 
in this area until it was given time to work. This amendment would undo 
all of this progress. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 17-minute vote and will be followed by one 5-
minute vote on amendment No. 34 offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161, 
noes 266, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 224]

                               AYES--161

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Callahan
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Costello
     Crane
     Cubin
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jenkins
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     LaHood
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pascrell
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--266

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Walden
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Houghton
     Mollohan
     Rahall
     Smith (NJ)
     Thomas

                              {time}  1404

  Messrs. Jenkins, Etheridge, Cook, Wise, Costello, Boehlert, Forbes, 
and Hayworth changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. Herger and Mr. Gutierrez changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  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 subsequent 
amendments on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) 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 417, 
noes 9, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 225]

                               AYES--417

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     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
     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
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)

[[Page H4500]]


     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     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
     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
     Martinez
     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
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     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
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     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
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--9

     Barr
     Berkley
     Bonilla
     Goode
     Hulshof
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Shadegg
     Stump

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Houghton
     Mollohan
     Nussle
     Rahall
     Smith (NJ)
     Thomas

                              {time}  1413

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 36 printed 
in Part A of House Report 106-186.


                Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Goodling

  Mr. GOODLING. 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. 36 offered by Mr. Goodling:
       Page 1, after line 2, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Juvenile Justice Reform Act 
     of 1999''.
       Page 1, strike line 3 and insert the following:

              TITLE I--CONSEQUENCES FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       Page 1, line 4, strike ``Act'' and insert ``title''.
       Page 2, line 1, redesignate section 2 as section 102.
       At the end of the bill, add the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):

      TITLE II--JUVENILE CRIME CONTROL AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

     SEC. 200. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Juvenile 
     Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this title 
     is as follows:

      TITLE II--JUVENILE CRIME CONTROL AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Sec. 200. Short title; table of contents.

 Subtitle A--Amendments to Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
                              Act of 1974

Sec. 201. Findings.
Sec. 202. Purpose.
Sec. 203. Definitions.
Sec. 204. Name of office.
Sec. 205. Concentration of Federal effort.
Sec. 206. Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
              Prevention.
Sec. 207. Annual report.
Sec. 208. Allocation.
Sec. 209. State plans.
Sec. 210. Juvenile delinquency prevention block grant program.
Sec. 211. Research; evaluation; technical assistance; training.
Sec. 212. Demonstration projects.
Sec. 213. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 214. Administrative authority.
Sec. 215. Use of funds.
Sec. 216. Limitation on use of funds.
Sec. 217. Rule of construction.
Sec. 218. Leasing surplus Federal property.
Sec. 219. Issuance of Rules.
Sec. 220. Content of materials.
Sec. 221. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 222. References.

      Subtitle B--Amendments to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act

Sec. 231. Runaway and homeless youth.

 Subtitle C--Repeal of Title V Relating to Incentive Grants for Local 
                    Delinquency Prevention Programs

Sec. 241. Repealer.

    Subtitle D--Amendments to the Missing Children's Assistance Act

Sec. 251. National center for missing and exploited children.

                  Subtitle E--Studies and Evaluations

Sec. 261. Study of school violence.
Sec. 262. Study of mental health needs of juveniles in secure and 
              nonsecure placements in the juvenile justice system.
Sec. 263. Evaluation by General Accounting Office.
Sec. 264. General Accounting Office Report.
Sec. 265. Behavioral and social science research on youth violence.

                     Subtitle F--General Provisions

Sec. 271. Effective date; application of amendments.

 Subtitle A--Amendments to Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
                              Act of 1974

     SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

       Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601) is amended to read as 
     follows:


                               ``findings

       ``Sec. 101. (a) The Congress finds the following:
       ``(1) There has been a dramatic increase in juvenile 
     delinquency, particularly violent crime committed by 
     juveniles. Weapons offenses and homicides are 2 of the 
     fastest growing crimes committed by juveniles. More than \1/
     2\ of juvenile victims are killed with a firearm. 
     Approximately \1/5\ of the individuals arrested for 
     committing violent crime are less than 18 years of age. The 
     increase in both the number of youth below the age of 15 and 
     females arrested for violent crime is cause for concern.
       ``(2) This problem should be addressed through a 2-track 
     common sense approach that addresses the needs of individual 
     juveniles and society at large by promoting--
       ``(A) quality prevention programs that--
       ``(i) work with juveniles, their families, local public 
     agencies, and community-based organizations, and take into 
     consideration such factors as whether or not juveniles have 
     been the victims of family violence (including child abuse 
     and neglect); and
       ``(ii) are designed to reduce risks and develop 
     competencies in at-risk juveniles that will prevent, and 
     reduce the rate of, violent delinquent behavior; and
       ``(B) programs that assist in holding juveniles accountable 
     for their actions, including a system of graduated sanctions 
     to respond to each delinquent act, requiring juveniles to 
     make restitution, or perform community service, for the 
     damage caused by their delinquent acts, and methods for 
     increasing victim satisfaction with respect to the penalties 
     imposed on juveniles for their acts.
       ``(b) Congress must act now to reform this program by 
     focusing on juvenile delinquency prevention programs, as well 
     as programs that hold juveniles accountable for their acts. 
     Without true reform, the criminal justice system will not be 
     able to overcome the challenges it will face in the coming 
     years when the number of juveniles is expected to increase by 
     30 percent.''.

     SEC. 202. PURPOSE.

       Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5602) is amended to read as 
     follows:


                               ``purposes

       ``Sec. 102. The purposes of this title and title II are--

[[Page H4501]]

       ``(1) to support State and local programs that prevent 
     juvenile involvement in delinquent behavior;
       ``(2) to assist State and local governments in promoting 
     public safety by encouraging accountability for acts of 
     juvenile delinquency; and
       ``(3) to assist State and local governments in addressing 
     juvenile crime through the provision of technical assistance, 
     research, training, evaluation, and the dissemination of 
     information on effective programs for combating juvenile 
     delinquency.''.

     SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 103 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5603) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``to help prevent juvenile 
     delinquency'' and inserting ``designed to reduce known risk 
     factors for juvenile delinquent behavior, provides activities 
     that build on protective factors for, and develop 
     competencies in, juveniles to prevent, and reduce the rate 
     of, delinquent juvenile behavior'',
       (2) in paragraph (4) by inserting ``title I of'' before 
     ``the Omnibus'' each place it appears,
       (3) in paragraph (7) by striking ``the Trust Territory of 
     the Pacific Islands,'',
       (4) in paragraph (9) by striking ``justice'' and inserting 
     ``crime control'',
       (5) in paragraph (12)(B) by striking ``, of any 
     nonoffender,'',
       (6) in paragraph (13)(B) by striking ``, any non-
     offender,'',
       (7) in paragraph (14) by inserting ``drug trafficking,'' 
     after ``assault,'',
       (8) in paragraph (16)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A) by adding ``and'' at the end, and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (C),
       (9) by striking paragraph (17),
       (10) in paragraph (22)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (i), (ii), and (iii) as 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively, and
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end,
       (11) in paragraph (23) by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon,
       (12) by redesignating paragraphs (18), (19), (20), (21), 
     (22), and (23) as paragraphs (17) through (22), respectively, 
     and
       (13) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(23) the term `boot camp' means a residential facility 
     (excluding a private residence) at which there are provided--
       ``(A) a highly regimented schedule of discipline, physical 
     training, work, drill, and ceremony characteristic of 
     military basic training.
       ``(B) regular, remedial, special, and vocational education; 
     and
       ``(C) counseling and treatment for substance abuse and 
     other health and mental health problems;
       ``(24) the term `graduated sanctions' means an 
     accountability-based, graduated series of sanctions 
     (including incentives and services) applicable to juveniles 
     within the juvenile justice system to hold such juveniles 
     accountable for their actions and to protect communities from 
     the effects of juvenile delinquency by providing appropriate 
     sanctions for every act for which a juvenile is adjudicated 
     delinquent, by inducing their law-abiding behavior, and by 
     preventing their subsequent involvement with the juvenile 
     justice system;
       ``(25) the term `violent crime' means--
       ``(A) murder or nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, 
     or robbery, or
       ``(B) aggravated assault committed with the use of a 
     firearm;
       ``(26) the term `co-located facilities' means facilities 
     that are located in the same building, or are part of a 
     related complex of buildings located on the same grounds; and
       ``(27) the term `related complex of buildings' means 2 or 
     more buildings that share--
       ``(A) physical features, such as walls and fences, or 
     services beyond mechanical services (heating, air 
     conditioning, water and sewer); or
       ``(B) the specialized services that are allowable under 
     section 31.303(e)(3)(i)(C)(3) of title 28 of the Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as in effect on December 10, 1996.''.

     SEC. 204. NAME OF OFFICE.

       Title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5611 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by amending the heading of part A to read as follows:

      ``Part A--Office of Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency 
                             Prevention'',

       (2) in section 201(a) by striking ``Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention'' and inserting ``Crime Control and Delinquency 
     Prevention'', and
       (3) in subsections section 299A(c)(2) by striking ``Justice 
     and Delinquency Prevention'' and inserting ``Crime Control 
     and Delinquency Prevention''.

     SEC. 205. CONCENTRATION OF FEDERAL EFFORT.

       Section 204 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5614) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking the last sentence,
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and of the prospective'' 
     and all that follows through ``administered'',
       (B) by striking paragraph (5), and
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 
     (5) and (6), respectively,
       (3) in subsection (c) by striking ``and reports'' and all 
     that follows through ``this part'', and inserting ``as may be 
     appropriate to prevent the duplication of efforts, and to 
     coordinate activities, related to the prevention of juvenile 
     delinquency'',
       (4) by striking subsection (i), and
       (5) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (f).

     SEC. 206. COORDINATING COUNCIL ON JUVENILE JUSTICE AND 
                   DELINQUENCY PREVENTION.

       Section 206 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5616) is repealed.

     SEC. 207. ANNUAL REPORT.

       Section 207 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5617) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' after ``priorities,'', and
       (B) by striking ``, and recommendations of the Council'',
       (2) by striking paragraphs (4) and (5), and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(4) An evaluation of the programs funded under this title 
     and their effectiveness in reducing the incidence of juvenile 
     delinquency, particularly violent crime, committed by 
     juveniles.'', and
       (3) by redesignating such section as section 206.

     SEC. 208. ALLOCATION.

       Section 222 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5632) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``amount, up to $400,000,'' and inserting 
     ``amount up to $400,000'',
       (II) by inserting a comma after ``1992'' the 1st place it 
     appears,
       (III) by striking ``the Trust Territory of the Pacific 
     Islands,'', and
       (IV) by striking ``amount, up to $100,000,'' and inserting 
     ``amount up to $100,000'',

       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by striking ``(other than part D)'',
       (II) by striking ``or such greater amount, up to $600,000'' 
     and all that follows through ``section 299(a) (1) and (3)'',
       (III) by striking ``the Trust Territory of the Pacific 
     Islands,'',
       (IV) by striking ``amount, up to $100,000,'' and inserting 
     ``amount up to $100,000'', and
       (V) by inserting a comma after ``1992'',

       (B) in paragraph (3) by striking ``allot'' and inserting 
     ``allocate'', and
       (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``the Trust Territory of 
     the Pacific Islands,''.

     SEC. 209. STATE PLANS.

       Section 223 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5633) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the 2nd sentence by striking ``challenge'' and all 
     that follows through ``part E'', and inserting ``, projects, 
     and activities'',
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``, which--'' and inserting ``that--'',
       (ii) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``not less'' and all that follows through 
     ``33'', and inserting ``the attorney general of the State or 
     such other State official who has primary responsibility for 
     overseeing the enforcement of State criminal laws, and'',
       (II) by inserting ``, in consultation with the attorney 
     general of the State or such other State official who has 
     primary responsibility for overseeing the enforcement of 
     State criminal laws'' after ``State'',
       (III) in clause (i) by striking ``or the administration of 
     juvenile justice'' and inserting ``, the administration of 
     juvenile justice, or the reduction of juvenile delinquency'',
       (IV) in clause (ii) by striking ``include--'' and all that 
     follows through the semicolon at the end of subclause (VIII), 
     and inserting the following:

     ``represent a multidisciplinary approach to addressing 
     juvenile delinquency and may include--

       ``(I) individuals who represent units of general local 
     government, law enforcement and juvenile justice agencies, 
     public agencies concerned with the prevention and treatment 
     of juvenile delinquency and with the adjudication of 
     juveniles, representatives of juveniles, or nonprofit private 
     organizations, particularly such organizations that serve 
     juveniles; and
       ``(II) such other individuals as the chief executive 
     officer considers to be appropriate; and'', and
       (V) by striking clauses (iv) and (v),

       (iii) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``justice'' and 
     inserting ``crime control'',
       (iv) in subparagraph (D)--

       (I) in clause (i) by inserting ``and'' at the end,
       (II) in clause (ii) by striking ``paragraphs'' and all that 
     follows through ``part E'', and inserting ``paragraphs (11), 
     (12), and (13)'', and
       (III) by striking clause (iii), and

       (v) in subparagraph (E) by striking ``title--'' and all 
     that follows through ``(ii)'' and inserting ``title,'',
       (C) in paragraph (5)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking 
     ``, other than'' and inserting ``reduced by the percentage 
     (if any) specified by the State under the authority of 
     paragraph (25) and excluding'' after ``section 222'', and
       ``(ii) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``paragraphs 
     (12)(A), (13), and (14)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (11), 
     (12), and (13)'',
       (D) by striking paragraph (6),
       (E) in paragraph (7) by inserting ``, including in rural 
     areas'' before the semicolon at the end,

[[Page H4502]]

       (F) in paragraph (8)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``for (i)'' and all that follows through 
     ``relevant jurisdiction'', and inserting ``for an analysis of 
     juvenile delinquency problems in, and the juvenile 
     delinquency control and delinquency prevention needs 
     (including educational needs) of, the State'',
       (II) by striking ``justice'' the second place it appears 
     and inserting ``crime control'', and
       (III) by striking ``of the jurisdiction; (ii)'' and all 
     that follows through the semicolon at the end, and inserting 
     ``of the State; and'',

       (ii) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) contain--
       ``(i) a plan for providing needed gender-specific services 
     for the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency;
       ``(ii) a plan for providing needed services for the 
     prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency in rural 
     areas; and
       ``(iii) a plan for providing needed mental health services 
     to juveniles in the juvenile justice system, including 
     information on how such plan is being implemented and how 
     such services will be targeted to those juveniles in the such 
     system who are in greatest need of such services services;'', 
     and
       (iii) by striking subparagraphs (C) and (D),
       (G) by amending paragraph (9) to read as follows:
       ``(9) provide for the coordination and maximum utilization 
     of existing juvenile delinquency programs, programs operated 
     by public and private agencies and organizations, and other 
     related programs (such as education, special education, 
     recreation, health, and welfare programs) in the State;'',
       (H) in paragraph (10)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``, specifically'' and inserting 
     ``including'',
       (II) by striking clause (i), and
       (III) redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses (i) 
     and (ii), respectively,

       (ii) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``juvenile justice'' 
     and inserting ``juvenile crime control'',
       (iv) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
       ``(D) programs that provide treatment to juvenile offenders 
     who are victims of child abuse or neglect, and to their 
     families, in order to reduce the likelihood that such 
     juvenile offenders will commit subsequent violations of 
     law;'',
       (iv) in subparagraph (E)--

       (I) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii), and
       (II) by striking ``juveniles, provided'' and all that 
     follows through ``provides; and'', and inserting the 
     following:

     ``juveniles--
       ``(i) to encourage juveniles to remain in elementary and 
     secondary schools or in alternative learning situations;
       ``(ii) to provide services to assist juveniles in making 
     the transition to the world of work and self-sufficiency; 
     and'',
       (v) by amending subparagraph (F) to read as follows:
       ``(F) expanding the use of probation officers--
       ``(i) particularly for the purpose of permitting nonviolent 
     juvenile offenders (including status offenders) to remain at 
     home with their families as an alternative to incarceration 
     or institutionalization; and
       ``(ii) to ensure that juveniles follow the terms of their 
     probation;'',
       (vi) by amending subparagraph (G) to read as follows:
       ``(G) one-on-one mentoring programs that are designed to 
     link at-risk juveniles and juvenile offenders, particularly 
     juveniles residing in high-crime areas and juveniles 
     experiencing educational failure, with responsible adults 
     (such as law enforcement officers, adults working with local 
     businesses, and adults working with community-based 
     organizations and agencies) who are properly screened and 
     trained;'',
       (vii) in subparagraph (H) by striking ``handicapped youth'' 
     and inserting ``juveniles with disabilities'',
       (viii) by amending subparagraph (K) to read as follows:
       ``(K) boot camps for juvenile offenders;'',
       (ix) by amending subparagraph (L) to read as follows:
       ``(L) community-based programs and services to work with 
     juveniles, their parents, and other family members during and 
     after incarceration in order to strengthen families so that 
     such juveniles may be retained in their homes;'',
       (x) by amending subparagraph (N) to read as follows:
       ``(N) establishing policies and systems to incorporate 
     relevant child protective services records into juvenile 
     justice records for purposes of establishing treatment plans 
     for juvenile offenders;'',
       (xi) in subparagraph (O)--

       (I) in striking ``cultural'' and inserting ``other'', and
       (II) by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
     semicolon, and

       (xii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(P) programs designed to prevent and to reduce hate 
     crimes committed by juveniles; and
       ``(Q) after-school programs that provide at-risk juveniles 
     and juveniles in the juvenile justice system with a range of 
     age-appropriate activities, including tutoring, mentoring, 
     and other educational and enrichment activities.'',
       (I) by amending paragraph (12) to read as follows:
       ``(12) shall, in accordance with rules issued by the 
     Administrator, provide that--
       ``(A) juveniles who are charged with or who have committed 
     an offense that would not be criminal if committed by an 
     adult, excluding--
       ``(i) juveniles who are charged with or who have committed 
     a violation of section 922(x)(2) of title 18, United States 
     Code, or of a similar State law;
       ``(ii) juveniles who are charged with or who have committed 
     a violation of a valid court order; and
       ``(iii) juveniles who are held in accordance with the 
     Interstate Compact on Juveniles as enacted by the State;

     shall not be placed in secure detention facilities or secure 
     correctional facilities; and
       ``(B) juveniles--
       ``(i) who are not charged with any offense; and
       ``(ii) who are--

       ``(I) aliens; or
       ``(II) alleged to be dependent, neglected, or abused;

     shall not be placed in secure detention facilities or secure 
     correctional facilities;'',
       (J) by amending paragraph (13) to read as follows:
       ``(13) provide that--
       ``(A) juveniles alleged to be or found to be delinquent, 
     and juveniles within the purview of paragraph (11), will not 
     be detained or confined in any institution in which they have 
     regular contact, or unsupervised incidental contact, with 
     adults incarcerated because such adults have been convicted 
     of a crime or are awaiting trial on criminal charges; and
       ``(B) there is in effect in the State a policy that 
     requires individuals who work with both such juveniles and 
     such adults in co-located facilities have been 
     trained and certified to work with juveniles;'',
       (K) by amending paragraph (14) to read as follows:
       ``(14) provide that no juvenile will be detained or 
     confined in any jail or lockup for adults except--
       ``(A) juveniles who are accused of nonstatus offenses and 
     who are detained in such jail or lockup for a period not to 
     exceed 6 hours--
       ``(i) for processing or release;
       ``(ii) while awaiting transfer to a juvenile facility; or
       ``(iii) in which period such juveniles make a court 
     appearance;
       ``(B) juveniles who are accused of nonstatus offenses, who 
     are awaiting an initial court appearance that will occur 
     within 48 hours after being taken into custody (excluding 
     Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays), and who are detained 
     in a jail or lockup--
       ``(i) in which--

       ``(I) such juveniles do not have regular contact, or 
     unsupervised incidental contact, with adults incarcerated 
     because such adults have been convicted of a crime or are 
     awaiting trial on criminal charges; and
       ``(II) there is in effect in the State a policy that 
     requires individuals who work with both such juveniles and 
     such adults in co-located facilities have been trained and 
     certified to work with juveniles; and

       ``(ii) that--

       ``(I) is located outside a metropolitan statistical area 
     (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget) and has 
     no existing acceptable alternative placement available;
       ``(II) is located where conditions of distance to be 
     traveled or the lack of highway, road, or transportation do 
     not allow for court appearances within 48 hours (excluding 
     Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) so that a brief (not 
     to exceed an additional 48 hours) delay is excusable; or
       ``(III) is located where conditions of safety exist (such 
     as severe adverse, life-threatening weather conditions that 
     do not allow for reasonably safe travel), in which case the 
     time for an appearance may be delayed until 24 hours after 
     the time that such conditions allow for reasonable safe 
     travel;

       ``(C) juveniles who are accused of nonstatus offenses and 
     who are detained in a jail or lockup that satisfies the 
     requirements of subparagraph (B)(i) if--
       ``(i) such jail or lockup--

       ``(I) is located outside a metropolitan statistical area 
     (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget); and
       ``(II) has no existing acceptable alternative placement 
     available;

       ``(ii) a parent or other legal guardian (or guardian ad 
     litem) of the juvenile involved, in consultation with the 
     counsel representing the juvenile, consents to detaining such 
     juvenile in accordance with this subparagraph and has the 
     right to revoke such consent at any time;
       ``(iii) the juvenile has counsel, and the counsel 
     representing such juvenile--

       ``(I) consults with the parents of the juvenile to 
     determine the appropriate placement of the juvenile; and
       ``(II) has an opportunity to present the juvenile's 
     position regarding the detention involved to the court before 
     the court approves such detention;;

       ``(iv) the court has an opportunity to hear from the 
     juvenile before court approval of such placement; and
       ``(v) detaining such juvenile in accordance with this 
     subparagraph is--

       ``(I) approved in advance by a court with competent 
     jurisdiction that has determined that such placement is in 
     the best interest of such juvenile;

[[Page H4503]]

       ``(II) required to be reviewed periodically and in the 
     presence of the juvenile, at intervals of not more than 5 
     days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays), by 
     such court for the duration of detention; and
       ``(III) for a period preceding the sentencing (if any) of 
     such juvenile, but not to exceed a 20-day period;'',

       (L) in paragraph (15)--
       (i) by striking ``paragraph (12)(A), paragraph (13), and 
     paragraph (14)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (11), (12), and 
     (13)'', and
       (ii) by striking ``paragraph (12)(A) and paragraph (13)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraphs (11) and (12)'',
       (M) in paragraph (16) by striking ``mentally, emotionally, 
     or physically handicapping conditions'' and inserting 
     ``disability'',
       (N) by amending paragraph (19) to read as follows:
       ``(19) provide assurances that--
       ``(A) any assistance provided under this Act will not cause 
     the displacement (including a partial displacement, such as a 
     reduction in the hours of nonovertime work, wages, or 
     employment benefits) of any currently employed employee;
       ``(B) activities assisted under this Act will not impair an 
     existing collective bargaining relationship, contract for 
     services, or collective bargaining agreement; and
       ``(C) no such activity that would be inconsistent with the 
     terms of a collective bargaining agreement shall be 
     undertaken without the written concurrence of the labor 
     organization involved;'',
       (O) in paragraph (22) by inserting before the semicolon, 
     the following:

     ``; and that the State will not expend funds to carry out a 
     program referred to in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of 
     paragraph (5) if the recipient of funds who carried out such 
     program during the preceding 2-year period fails to 
     demonstrate, before the expiration of such 2-year period, 
     that such program achieved substantial success in achieving 
     the goals specified in the application submitted such 
     recipient to the State agency'',
       (P) by amending paragraph (23) to read as follows:
       ``(23) address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and 
     system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without 
     establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the 
     disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority 
     groups, who come into contact with the juvenile justice 
     system;'',
       (Q) by amending paragraph (24) to read as follows:
       ``(24) provide that if a juvenile is taken into custody for 
     violating a valid court order issued for committing a status 
     offense--
       ``(A) an appropriate public agency shall be promptly 
     notified that such juvenile is held in custody for violating 
     such order;
       ``(B) not later than 24 hours during which such juvenile is 
     so held, an authorized representative of such agency shall 
     interview, in person, such juvenile; and
       ``(C) not later than 48 hours during which such juvenile is 
     so held--
       ``(i) such representative shall submit an assessment to the 
     court that issued such order, regarding the immediate needs 
     of such juvenile; and
       ``(ii) such court shall conduct a hearing to determine--

       ``(I) whether there is reasonable cause to believe that 
     such juvenile violated such order; and
       ``(II) the appropriate placement of such juvenile pending 
     disposition of the violation alleged;'',

       (R) in paragraph (25) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon,
       (S) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (25) as 
     paragraphs (6) through (24), respectively, and
       (T) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(25) specify a percentage (if any), not to exceed 5 
     percent, of funds received by the State under section 222 
     (other than funds made available to the state advisory group 
     under section 222(d)) that the State will reserve for 
     expenditure by the State to provide incentive grants to units 
     of general local government that reduce the caseload of 
     probation officers within such units, and
       ``(26) provide that the State, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, will implement a system to ensure that if a 
     juvenile is before a court in the juvenile justice system, 
     public child welfare records (including child protective 
     services records) relating to such juvenile that are on file 
     in the geographical area under the jurisdiction of such court 
     will be made known to such court.'', and
       (2) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) If a State fails to comply with any of the applicable 
     requirements of paragraphs (11), (12), (13), and (23) of 
     subsection (a) in any fiscal year beginning after September 
     30, 1999, then the amount allocated to such State for the 
     subsequent fiscal year shall be reduced by not to exceed 12.5 
     percent for each such paragraph with respect to which the 
     failure occurs, unless the Administrator determines that the 
     State--
       ``(1) has achieved substantial compliance with such 
     applicable requirements with respect to which the State was 
     not in compliance; and
       ``(2) has made, through appropriate executive or 
     legislative action, an unequivocal commitment to achieving 
     full compliance with such applicable requirements within a 
     reasonable time.'', and
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking ``allotment'' and inserting ``allocation'', 
     and
       (B) by striking ``subsection (a) (12)(A), (13), (14) and 
     (23)'' each place it appears and inserting ``paragraphs (11), 
     (12), (13), and (23) of subsection (a)''.

     SEC. 210. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION BLOCK GRANT 
                   PROGRAM.

       Title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5611 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by striking parts C, D, E, F, G, and H,
       (2) by striking the 1st part I,
       (3) by redesignating the 2nd part I as part F, and
       (4) by inserting after part B the following:

     ``PART C--JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 241. AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.

       ``The Administrator may make grants to eligible States, 
     from funds allocated under section 242, for the purpose of 
     providing financial assistance to eligible entities to carry 
     out projects designed to prevent juvenile delinquency, 
     including--
       ``(1) projects that provide treatment (including treatment 
     for mental health problems) to juvenile offenders, and 
     juveniles who are at risk of becoming juvenile offenders, who 
     are victims of child abuse or neglect or who have experienced 
     violence in their homes, at school, or in the community, and 
     to their families, in order to reduce the likelihood that 
     such juveniles will commit violations of law;
       ``(2) educational projects or supportive services for 
     delinquent or other juveniles--
       ``(A) to encourage juveniles to remain in elementary and 
     secondary schools or in alternative learning situations in 
     educational settings;
       ``(B) to provide services to assist juveniles in making the 
     transition to the world of work and self-sufficiency;
       ``(C) to assist in identifying learning difficulties 
     (including learning disabilities);
       ``(D) to prevent unwarranted and arbitrary suspensions and 
     expulsions;
       ``(E) to encourage new approaches and techniques with 
     respect to the prevention of school violence and vandalism;
       ``(F) which assist law enforcement personnel and juvenile 
     justice personnel to more effectively recognize and provide 
     for learning-disabled and other juveniles with disabilities;
       ``(G) which develop locally coordinated policies and 
     programs among education, juvenile justice, and social 
     service agencies; or
       ``(H) to provide services to juvenile with serious mental 
     and emotional disturbances (SED) in need of mental health 
     services;
       ``(3) projects which expand the use of probation officers--
       ``(A) particularly for the purpose of permitting nonviolent 
     juvenile offenders (including status offenders) to remain at 
     home with their families as an alternative to incarceration 
     or institutionalization; and
       ``(B) to ensure that juveniles follow the terms of their 
     probation;
       ``(4) one-on-one mentoring projects that are designed to 
     link at-risk juveniles and juvenile offenders who did not 
     commit serious crime, particularly juveniles residing in 
     high-crime areas and juveniles experiencing educational 
     failure, with responsible adults (such as law enforcement 
     officers, adults working with local businesses, and adults 
     working for community-based organizations and agencies) who 
     are properly screened and trained;
       ``(5) community-based projects and services (including 
     literacy and social service programs) which work with 
     juvenile offenders and juveniles who are at risk of becoming 
     juvenile offenders, including those from families with 
     limited English-speaking proficiency, their parents, their 
     siblings, and other family members during and after 
     incarceration of the juvenile offenders, in order to 
     strengthen families, to allow juvenile offenders to be 
     retained in their homes, and to prevent the involvement of 
     other juvenile family members in delinquent activities;
       ``(6) projects designed to provide for the treatment 
     (including mental health services) of juveniles for 
     dependence on or abuse of alcohol, drugs, or other harmful 
     substances;
       ``(7) projects which leverage funds to provide scholarships 
     for postsecondary education and training for low-income 
     juveniles who reside in neighborhoods with high rates of 
     poverty, violence, and drug-related crimes;
       ``(8) projects which provide for an initial intake 
     screening of each juvenile taken into custody--
       ``(A) to determine the likelihood that such juvenile will 
     commit a subsequent offense; and
       ``(B) to provide appropriate interventions (including 
     mental health services) to prevent such juvenile from 
     committing subsequent offenses;
       ``(9) projects (including school- or community-based 
     projects) that are designed to prevent, and reduce the rate 
     of, the participation of juveniles in gangs that commit 
     crimes (particularly violent crimes), that unlawfully use 
     firearms and other weapons, or that unlawfully traffic in 
     drugs and that involve, to the extent practicable, families 
     and other community members (including law enforcement 
     personnel and members of the business community) in the 
     activities conducted under such projects;
       ``(10) comprehensive juvenile justice and delinquency 
     prevention projects that meet

[[Page H4504]]

     the needs of juveniles through the collaboration of the many 
     local service systems juveniles encounter, including schools, 
     courts, law enforcement agencies, child protection agencies, 
     mental health agencies, welfare services, health care 
     agencies, private nonprofit agencies, and public recreation 
     agencies offering services to juveniles;
       ``(11) to develop, implement, and support, in conjunction 
     with public and private agencies, organizations, and 
     businesses, projects for the employment of juveniles and 
     referral to job training programs (including referral to 
     Federal job training programs);
       ``(12) delinquency prevention activities which involve 
     youth clubs, sports, recreation and parks, peer counseling 
     and teaching, the arts, leadership development, community 
     service, volunteer service, before- and after-school 
     programs, violence prevention activities, mediation skills 
     training, camping, environmental education, ethnic or 
     cultural enrichment, tutoring, and academic enrichment;
       ``(13) to establish policies and systems to incorporate 
     relevant child protective services records into juvenile 
     justice records for purposes of establishing treatment plans 
     for juvenile offenders;
       ``(14) programs that encourage social competencies, 
     problem-solving skills, and communication skills, youth 
     leadership, and civic involvement;
       ``(15) programs that focus on the needs of young girls at-
     risk of delinquency or status offenses;
       ``(16) projects which provide for--
       ``(A) an assessment by a qualified mental health 
     professional of incarcerated juveniles who are suspected to 
     be in need of mental health services;
       ``(B) the development of an individualized treatment plan 
     for those incarcerated juveniles determined to be in need of 
     such services;
       ``(C) the inclusion of a discharge plan for incarcerated 
     juveniles receiving mental health services that addresses 
     aftercare services; and
       ``(D) all juveniles receiving psychotropic medications to 
     be under the care of a licensed mental health professional;
       ``(17) after-school programs that provide at-risk juveniles 
     and juveniles in the juvenile justice system with a range of 
     age-appropriate activities, including tutoring, mentoring, 
     and other educational and enrichment activities;
       ``(18) programs related to the establishment and 
     maintenance of a school violence hotline, based on a public-
     private partnership, that students and parents can use to 
     report suspicious, violent, or threatening behavior to local 
     school and law enforcement authorities;
       ``(19) programs (excluding programs to purchase guns from 
     juveniles) designed to reduce the unlawful acquisition and 
     illegal use of guns by juveniles, including partnerships 
     between law enforcement agencies, health professionals, 
     school officials, firearms manufacturers, consumer groups, 
     faith-based groups and community organizations; and
       ``(20) other activities that are likely to prevent juvenile 
     delinquency.

     ``SEC. 242. ALLOCATION.

       ``Funds appropriated to carry out this part shall be 
     allocated among eligible States proportionately based on the 
     population that is less than 18 years of age in the eligible 
     States.

     ``SEC. 243. ELIGIBILITY OF STATES.

       ``(a) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     section 241, a State shall submit to the Administrator an 
     application that contains the following:
       ``(1) An assurance that the State will use--
       ``(A) not more than 5 percent of such grant, in the 
     aggregate, for--
       ``(i) the costs incurred by the State to carry out this 
     part; and
       ``(ii) to evaluate, and provide technical assistance 
     relating to, projects and activities carried out with funds 
     provided under this part; and
       ``(B) the remainder of such grant to make grants under 
     section 244.
       ``(2) An assurance that, and a detailed description of how, 
     such grant will support, and not supplant State and local 
     efforts to prevent juvenile delinquency.
       ``(3) An assurance that such application was prepared after 
     consultation with and participation by community-based 
     organizations, and organizations in the local juvenile 
     justice system, that carry out programs, projects, or 
     activities to prevent juvenile delinquency.
       ``(4) An assurance that each eligible entity described in 
     section 244 that receives an initial grant under section 244 
     to carry out a project or activity shall also receive an 
     assurance from the State that such entity will receive from 
     the State, for the subsequent fiscal year to carry out such 
     project or activity, a grant under such section in an amount 
     that is proportional, based on such initial grant and on the 
     amount of the grant received under section 241 by the State 
     for such subsequent fiscal year, but that does not exceed the 
     amount specified for such subsequent fiscal year in such 
     application as approved by the State.
       ``(5) Such other information and assurances as the 
     Administrator may reasonably require by rule.
       ``(b) Approval of Applications.--
       ``(1) Approval required.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     Administrator shall approve an application, and amendments to 
     such application submitted in subsequent fiscal years, that 
     satisfy the requirements of subsection (a).
       ``(2) Limitation.--The Administrator may not approve such 
     application (including amendments to such application) for a 
     fiscal year unless--
       ``(A)(i) the State submitted a plan under section 223 for 
     such fiscal year; and
       ``(ii) such plan is approved by the Administrator for such 
     fiscal year; or
       ``(B) the Administrator waives the application of 
     subparagraph (A) to such State for such fiscal year, after 
     finding good cause for such a waiver.

     ``SEC. 244. GRANTS FOR LOCAL PROJECTS.

       ``(a) Grants by States.--Using a grant received under 
     section 241, a State may make grants to eligible entities 
     whose applications are received by the State to carry out 
     projects and activities described in section 241.
       ``(b) Special Consideration.--For purposes of making grants 
     under subsection (a), the State shall give special 
     consideration to eligible entities that--
       ``(1) propose to carry out such projects in geographical 
     areas in which there is--
       ``(A) a disproportionately high level of serious crime 
     committed by juveniles; or
       ``(B) a recent rapid increase in the number of nonstatus 
     offenses committed by juveniles;
       ``(2)(A) agreed to carry out such projects or activities 
     that are multidisciplinary and involve more than 2 private 
     nonprofit agencies, organizations, and institutions that have 
     experience dealing with juveniles; or
       ``(B) represent communities that have a comprehensive plan 
     designed to identify at-risk juveniles and to prevent or 
     reduce the rate of juvenile delinquency, and that involve 
     other entities operated by individuals who have a 
     demonstrated history of involvement in activities designed to 
     prevent juvenile delinquency; and
       ``(3) the amount of resources (in cash or in kind) such 
     entities will provide to carry out such projects and 
     activities.

     ``SEC. 245. ELIGIBILITY OF ENTITIES.

       ``(a) Eligibility.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     to be eligible to receive a grant under section 244, a unit 
     of general purpose local government, acting jointly with not 
     fewer than 2 private nonprofit agencies, organizations, and 
     institutions that have experience dealing with juveniles, 
     shall submit to the State an application that contains the 
     following:
       ``(1) An assurance that such applicant will use such grant, 
     and each such grant received for the subsequent fiscal year, 
     to carry out throughout a 2-year period a project or activity 
     described in reasonable detail, and of a kind described in 
     one or more of paragraphs (1) through (14) of section 241 as 
     specified in, such application.
       ``(2) A statement of the particular goals such project or 
     activity is designed to achieve, and the methods such entity 
     will use to achieve, and assess the achievement of, each of 
     such goals.
       ``(3) A statement identifying the research (if any) such 
     entity relied on in preparing such application.
       ``(b) Limitation.--If an eligible entity that receives a 
     grant under section 244 to carry out a project or activity 
     for a 2-year period, and receives technical assistance from 
     the State or the Administrator after requesting such 
     technical assistance (if any), fails to demonstrate, before 
     the expiration of such 2-year period, that such project or 
     such activity has achieved substantial success in achieving 
     the goals specified in the application submitted by such 
     entity to receive such grants, then such entity shall not be 
     eligible to receive any subsequent grant under such section 
     to continue to carry out such project or activity.''.

     SEC. 211. RESEARCH; EVALUATION; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE; 
                   TRAINING.

       Title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5611 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after part C, as added by section 110, the following:

     ``PART D--RESEARCH; EVALUATION; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE; TRAINING

     ``SEC. 251. RESEARCH AND EVALUATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSES; 
                   INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

       ``(a) Research and Evaluation.--(1) The Administrator may--
       ``(A) plan and identify, after consultation with the 
     Director of the National Institute of Justice, the purposes 
     and goals of all agreements carried out with funds provided 
     under this subsection; and
       ``(B) make agreements with the National Institute of 
     Justice or, subject to the approval of the Assistant Attorney 
     General for the Office of Justice Programs, with another 
     Federal agency authorized by law to conduct research or 
     evaluation in juvenile justice matters, for the purpose of 
     providing research and evaluation relating to--
       ``(i) the prevention, reduction, and control of juvenile 
     delinquency and serious crime committed by juveniles;
       ``(ii) the link between juvenile delinquency and the 
     incarceration of members of the families of juveniles;
       ``(iii) successful efforts to prevent first-time minor 
     offenders from committing subsequent involvement in serious 
     crime;
       ``(iv) successful efforts to prevent recidivism;
       ``(v) the juvenile justice system;
       ``(vi) juvenile violence;
       ``(vii) appropriate mental health services for juveniles 
     and youth at risk of participating in delinquent activities;

[[Page H4505]]

       ``(viii) reducing the proportion of juveniles detained or 
     confined in secure detention facilities, secure correctional 
     facilities, jails, and lockups who are members of minority 
     groups; and
       ``(ix) other purposes consistent with the purposes of this 
     title and title I.
       ``(2) The Administrator shall ensure that an equitable 
     amount of funds available to carry out paragraph (1)(B) is 
     used for research and evaluation relating to the prevention 
     of juvenile delinquency.
       ``(b) Statistical Analyses..--The Administrator may--
       ``(1) plan and identify, after consultation with the 
     Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the purposes 
     and goals of all agreements carried out with funds provided 
     under this subsection; and
       ``(2) make agreements with the Bureau of Justice 
     Statistics, or subject to the approval of the Assistant 
     Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, with 
     another Federal agency authorized by law to undertake 
     statistical work in juvenile justice matters, for the purpose 
     of providing for the collection, analysis, and dissemination 
     of statistical data and information relating to juvenile 
     delinquency and serious crimes committed by juveniles, to the 
     juvenile justice system, to juvenile violence, and to other 
     purposes consist with the purposes of this title and title I.
       ``(c) Competitive Selection Process.--The Administrator 
     shall use a competitive process, established by rule by the 
     Administrator, to carry out subsections (a) and (b).
       ``(d) Implementation of Agreements.--A Federal agency that 
     makes an agreement under subsections (a)(1)(B) and (b)(2) 
     with the Administrator may carry out such agreement directly 
     or by making grants to or contracts with public and private 
     agencies, institutions, and organizations.
       ``(e) Information Dissemination.--The Administrator may--
       ``(1) review reports and data relating to the juvenile 
     justice system in the United States and in foreign nations 
     (as appropriate), collect data and information from studies 
     and research into all aspects of juvenile delinquency 
     (including the causes, prevention, and treatment of juvenile 
     delinquency) and serious crimes committed by juveniles;
       ``(2) establish and operate, directly or by contract, a 
     clearinghouse and information center for the preparation, 
     publication, and dissemination of information relating to 
     juvenile delinquency, including State and local prevention 
     and treatment programs, plans, resources, and training and 
     technical assistance programs; and
       ``(3) make grants and contracts with public and private 
     agencies, institutions, and organizations, for the purpose of 
     disseminating information to representatives and personnel of 
     public and private agencies, including practitioners in 
     juvenile justice, law enforcement, the courts, corrections, 
     schools, and related services, in the establishment, 
     implementation, and operation of projects and activities for 
     which financial assistance is provided under this title.

     ``SEC. 252. TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) Training.--The Administrator may--
       ``(1) develop and carry out projects for the purpose of 
     training representatives and personnel of public and private 
     agencies, including practitioners in juvenile justice, law 
     enforcement, courts, corrections, schools, and related 
     services, to carry out the purposes specified in section 102; 
     and
       ``(2) make grants to and contracts with public and private 
     agencies, institutions, and organizations for the purpose of 
     training representatives and personnel of public and private 
     agencies, including practitioners in juvenile justice, law 
     enforcement, courts, corrections, schools, and related 
     services, to carry out the purposes specified in section 102.
       ``(b) Technical Assistance.--The Administrator may--
       ``(1) develop and implement projects for the purpose of 
     providing technical assistance to representatives and 
     personnel of public and private agencies and organizations, 
     including practitioners in juvenile justice, law enforcement, 
     courts, corrections, schools, and related services, in the 
     establishment, implementation, and operation of programs, 
     projects, and activities for which financial assistance is 
     provided under this title; and
       ``(2) make grants to and contracts with public and private 
     agencies, institutions, and organizations, for the purpose of 
     providing technical assistance to representatives and 
     personnel of public and private agencies, including 
     practitioners in juvenile justice, law enforcement, courts, 
     corrections, schools, and related services, in the 
     establishment, implementation, and operation of programs, 
     projects, and activities for which financial assistance is 
     provided under this title.
       ``(c) Training and Technical Assistance to Mental Health 
     Professionals and Law Enforcement Personnel.--The 
     Administrator shall provide training and technical assistance 
     to mental health professionals and law enforcement personnel 
     (including public defenders, police officers, probation 
     officers, judges, parole officials, and correctional 
     officers) to address or to promote the development, testing, 
     or demonstration of promising or innovative models, programs, 
     or delivery systems that address the needs of juveniles who 
     are alleged or adjudicated delinquent and who, as a result of 
     such status, are placed in secure detention or confinement or 
     in nonsecure residential placements.''.

     SEC. 212. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

       Title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5611 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after part D, as added by section 111, the following:

    ``PART E--DEVELOPING, TESTING, AND DEMONSTRATING PROMISING NEW 
                        INITIATIVES AND PROGRAMS

     ``SEC. 261. GRANTS AND PROJECTS.

       ``(a) Authority To Make Grants.--The Administrator may make 
     grants to and contracts with States, units of general local 
     government, Indian tribal governments, public and private 
     agencies, organizations, and individuals, or combinations 
     thereof, to carry out projects for the development, testing, 
     and demonstration of promising initiatives and programs for 
     the prevention, control, or reduction of juvenile 
     delinquency. The Administrator shall ensure that, to the 
     extent reasonable and practicable, such grants are made to 
     achieve an equitable geographical distribution of such 
     projects throughout the United States.
       ``(b) Use of Grants.--A grant made under subsection (a) may 
     be used to pay all or part of the cost of the project for 
     which such grant is made.

     ``SEC. 262. GRANTS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       ``The Administrator may make grants to and contracts with 
     public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals 
     to provide technical assistance to States, units of general 
     local government, Indian tribal governments, local private 
     entities or agencies, or any combination thereof, to carry 
     out the projects for which grants are made under section 261.

     ``SEC. 263. ELIGIBILITY.

       ``To be eligible to receive a grant made under this part, a 
     public or private agency, Indian tribal government, 
     organization, institution, individual, or combination thereof 
     shall submit an application to the Administrator at such 
     time, in such form, and containing such information as the 
     Administrator may reasonable require by rule.

     ``SEC. 264. REPORTS.

       ``Recipients of grants made under this part shall submit to 
     the Administrator such reports as may be reasonably requested 
     by the Administrator to describe progress achieved in 
     carrying the projects for which such grants are made.''.

     SEC. 213. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 299 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5671) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (e), and
       (2) by striking subsections (a), (b), and (c), and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations for Title II 
     (Excluding Parts C and E).--(1) There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this title such sums as may be 
     appropriate for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.
       ``(2) Of such sums as are appropriated for a fiscal year to 
     carry out this title (other than parts C and E)--
       ``(A) not more than 5 percent shall be available to carry 
     out part A;
       ``(B) not less than 80 percent shall be available to carry 
     out part B; and
       ``(C) not more than 15 percent shall be available to carry 
     out part D.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations for Part C.--There 
     are authorized to be appropriated to carry out part C such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, 
     and 2003.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations for Part E.--There 
     are authorized to be appropriated to carry out part E, and 
     authorized to remain available until expended, such sums as 
     may be necessary for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 
     2003.''.

     SEC. 214. ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY.

       Section 299A of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5672) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d) by striking ``as are consistent with 
     the purpose of this Act'' and inserting ``only to the extent 
     necessary to ensure that there is compliance with the 
     specific requirements of this title or to respond to requests 
     for clarification and guidance relating to such compliance'', 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) If a State requires by law compliance with the 
     requirements described in paragraphs (11), (12), and (13) of 
     section 223(a), then for the period such law is in effect in 
     such State such State shall be rebuttably presumed to satisfy 
     such requirements.''.

     SEC. 215. USE OF FUNDS.

       Section 299C of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5674) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``may be used for'',
       (B) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``may be used for'' after 
     ``(1)'', and
       (C) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) may not be used for the cost of construction of any 
     facility, except not more than 15 percent of the funds 
     received under this title by a State for a fiscal year may be 
     used for the purpose of renovating or replacing juvenile 
     facilities.'',
       (2) by striking subsection (b), and
       (3) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b).

     SEC. 216. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.

       Part F of title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5671 et seq.), as so 
     redesignated by section 210, is amended adding at the end the 
     following:

[[Page H4506]]

     ``SEC. 299F. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.

       ``None of the funds made available to carry out this title 
     may be used to advocate for, or support, the unsecured 
     release of juveniles who are charged with a violent crime.''.

     SEC. 217. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Part F of title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5671 et seq.), as so 
     redesignated by section 210 and amended by section 216, is 
     amended adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 299G. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       ``Nothing in this title or title I shall be construed--
       ``(1) to prevent financial assistance from being awarded 
     through grants under this title to any otherwise eligible 
     organization; or
       ``(2) to modify or affect any Federal or State law relating 
     to collective bargaining rights of employees.''.

     SEC. 218. LEASING SURPLUS FEDERAL PROPERTY.

       Part F of title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5671 et seq.), as so 
     redesignated by section 210 and amended by sections 216 and 
     217, is amended adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 299H. LEASING SURPLUS FEDERAL PROPERTY.

       ``The Administrator may receive surplus Federal property 
     (including facilities) and may lease such property to States 
     and units of general local government for use in or as 
     facilities for juvenile offenders, or for use in or as 
     facilities for delinquency prevention and treatment 
     activities.''.

     SEC. 219. ISSUANCE OF RULES.

       Part F of title II or the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5671 et seq.), as so 
     redesignated by section 210 and amended by sections 216, 217, 
     and 218, is amended adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 299I. ISSUANCE OF RULES.

       ``The Administrator shall issue rules to carry out this 
     title, including rules that establish procedures and methods 
     for making grants and contracts, and distributing funds 
     available, to carry out this title.''.

     SEC. 220. CONTENT OF MATERIALS.

       Part F of title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5671 et seq.), as so 
     redesignated by section 210 and amended by sections 216, 217, 
     218, and 219, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 299J. CONTENT OF MATERIALS.

       ``Materials produced, procured, or distributed using funds 
     appropriated to carry out this Act, for the purpose of 
     preventing hate crimes 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.''.

     SEC. 221. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Technical Amendments.--The Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) 
     is amended--
       (1) in section 202(b) by striking ``prescribed for GS-18 of 
     the General Schedule by section 5332'' and inserting 
     ``payable under section 5376'',
       (2) in section 221(b)(2) by striking the last sentence,
       (3) in section 299D by striking subsection (d), and
       (4) by striking titles IV and V, as originally enacted by 
     Public Law 93-415 (88 Stat. 1132-1143).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 5315 of title 5 of 
     the United States Code is amended by striking ``Office of 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention'' and inserting 
     ``Office of Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency 
     Prevention''.
       (2) Section 4351(b) of title 18 of the United States Code 
     is amended by striking ``Office of Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention'' and inserting ``Office of Juvenile 
     Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention''.
       (3) Subsections (a)(1) and (c) of section 3220 of title 39 
     of the United States Code is amended by striking ``Office of 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``Office of Juvenile Crime Control and 
     Delinquency Prevention''.
       (4) Section 463(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     663(f)) is amended by striking ``Office of Juvenile Justice 
     and Delinquency Prevention'' and inserting ``Office of 
     Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention''.
       (5) Sections 801(a), 804, 805, and 813 of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3712(a), 3782, 3785, 3786, 3789i) are amended by striking 
     ``Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``Office of Juvenile 
     Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention''.
       (6) The Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13001 
     et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in section 214(b(1) by striking ``262, 293, and 296 of 
     subpart II of title II'' and inserting ``299B and 299E'',
       (B) in section 214A(c)(1) by striking ``262, 293, and 296 
     of subpart II of title II'' and inserting ``299B and 299E'',
       (C) in sections 217 and 222 by striking ``Office of 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``Office of Juvenile Crime Control and 
     Delinquency Prevention'', and
       (D) in section 223(c) by striking ``section 262, 293, and 
     296'' and inserting ``sections 262, 299B, and 299E''.
       (7) The Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5771 
     et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in section 403(2) by striking ``Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention'' and inserting ``Crime Control and Delinquency 
     Prevention'', and
       (B) in subsections (a)(5)(E) and (b)(1)(B) of section 404 
     by striking ``section 313'' and inserting ``section 331''.
       (8) The Crime Control Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13001 et seq.) 
     is amended--
       (A) in section 217(c)(1) by striking ``sections 262, 293, 
     and 296 of subpart II of title II'' and inserting ``sections 
     299B and 299E'', and
       (B) in section 223(c) by striking ``section 262, 293, and 
     296 of title II'' and inserting ``sections 299B and 299E''.

     SEC. 222. REFERENCES.

       In any Federal law (excluding this title and the Acts 
     amended by this title), Executive order, rule, regulation, 
     order, delegation of authority, grant, contract, suit, or 
     document--
       (1) a reference to the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention shall be deemed to include a reference 
     to the Office of Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency 
     Prevention, and
       (2) a reference to the National Institute for Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention shall be deemed to include 
     a reference to Office of Juvenile Crime Control and 
     Delinquency Prevention.

      Subtitle B--Amendments to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act

     SEC. 231. RUNAWAY AND HOMELESS YOUTH.

       (a) Findings.--Section 302 of the Runaway and Homeless 
     Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``accurate reporting of 
     the problem nationally and to develop'' and inserting ``an 
     accurate national reporting system to report the problem, and 
     to assist in the development of''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following:
       ``(8) services for runaway and homeless youth are needed in 
     urban, suburban, and rural areas;''.
       (b) Authority To Make Grants for Centers and Services.--
     Section 311 of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5711) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Grants for Centers and Services.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to 
     public and nonprofit private entities (and combinations of 
     such entities) to establish and operate (including 
     renovation) local centers to provide services for runaway and 
     homeless youth and for the families of such youth.
       ``(2) Services provided.--Services provided under paragraph 
     (1)--
       ``(A) shall be provided as an alternative to involving 
     runaway and homeless youth in the law enforcement, child 
     welfare, mental health, and juvenile justice systems;
       ``(B) shall include--
       ``(i) safe and appropriate shelter; and
       ``(ii) individual, family, and group counseling, as 
     appropriate; and
       ``(C) may include--
       ``(i) street-based services;
       ``(ii) home-based services for families with youth at risk 
     of separation from the family; and
       ``(iii) drug abuse education and prevention services.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``the Trust Territory 
     of the Pacific Islands,''; and
       (3) by striking subsections (c) and (d).
       (c) Eligibility.--Section 312 of the Runaway and Homeless 
     Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5712) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (8), by striking ``paragraph (6)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (7)'';
       (B) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) shall submit to the Secretary an annual report that 
     includes, with respect to the year for which the report is 
     submitted--
       ``(A) information regarding the activities carried out 
     under this part;
       ``(B) the achievements of the project under this part 
     carried out by the applicant; and
       ``(C) statistical summaries describing--
       ``(i) the number and the characteristics of the runaway and 
     homeless youth, and youth at risk of family separation, who 
     participate in the project; and
       ``(ii) the services provided to such youth by the 
     project.''; and
       (2) by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(c) Applicants Providing Street-Based Services.--To be 
     eligible to use assistance under section 311(a)(2)(C)(i) to 
     provide street-based services, the applicant shall include in 
     the plan required by subsection (b) assurances that in 
     providing such services the applicant will--
       ``(1) provide qualified supervision of staff, including on-
     street supervision by appropriately trained staff;
       ``(2) provide backup personnel for on-street staff;
       ``(3) provide initial and periodic training of staff who 
     provide such services; and
       ``(4) conduct outreach activities for runaway and homeless 
     youth, and street youth.
       ``(d) Applicants Providing Home-Based Services.--To be 
     eligible to use assistance under section 311(a) to provide 
     home-based services described in section 311(a)(2)(C)(ii), an 
     applicant shall include in the plan required by subsection 
     (b) assurances that in providing such services the applicant 
     will--

[[Page H4507]]

       ``(1) provide counseling and information to youth and the 
     families (including unrelated individuals in the family 
     households) of such youth, including services relating to 
     basic life skills, interpersonal skill building, educational 
     advancement, job attainment skills, mental and physical 
     health care, parenting skills, financial planning, and 
     referral to sources of other needed services;
       ``(2) provide directly, or through an arrangement made by 
     the applicant, 24-hour service to respond to family crises 
     (including immediate access to temporary shelter for runaway 
     and homeless youth, and youth at risk of separation from the 
     family);
       ``(3) establish, in partnership with the families of 
     runaway and homeless youth, and youth at risk of separation 
     from the family, objectives and measures of success to be 
     achieved as a result of receiving home-based services;
       ``(4) provide initial and periodic training of staff who 
     provide home-based services; and
       ``(5) ensure that--
       ``(A) caseloads will remain sufficiently low to allow for 
     intensive (5 to 20 hours per week) involvement with each 
     family receiving such services; and
       ``(B) staff providing such services will receive qualified 
     supervision.
       ``(e) Applicants Providing Drug Abuse Education and 
     Prevention Services.--To be eligible to use assistance under 
     section 311(a)(2)(C)(iii) to provide drug abuse education and 
     prevention services, an applicant shall include in the plan 
     required by subsection (b)--
       ``(1) a description of--
       ``(A) the types of such services that the applicant 
     proposes to provide;
       ``(B) the objectives of such services; and
       ``(C) the types of information and training to be provided 
     to individuals providing such services to runaway and 
     homeless youth; and
       ``(2) an assurance that in providing such services the 
     applicant shall conduct outreach activities for runaway and 
     homeless youth.''.
       (d) Approval of Applications.--Section 313 of the Runaway 
     and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5713) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 313. APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--An application by a public or private 
     entity for a grant under section 311(a) may be approved by 
     the Secretary after taking into consideration, with respect 
     to the State in which such entity proposes to provide 
     services under this part--
       ``(1) the geographical distribution in such State of the 
     proposed services under this part for which all grant 
     applicants request approval; and
       ``(2) which areas of such State have the greatest need for 
     such services.
       ``(b) Priority.--In selecting applications for grants under 
     section 311(a), the Secretary shall give priority to--
       ``(1) eligible applicants who have demonstrated experience 
     in providing services to runaway and homeless youth; and
       ``(2) eligible applicants that request grants of less than 
     $200,000.''.
       (e) Authority for Transitional Living Grant Program.--
     Section 321 of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5714-1) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``purpose and'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``(a)''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (b).
       (f) Eligibility.--Section 322(a)(9) of the Runaway and 
     Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5714-2(a)(9)) is amended by 
     inserting ``, and the services provided to such youth by such 
     project,'' after ``such project''.
       (g) Coordination.--Section 341 of the Runaway and Homeless 
     Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5714-21) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 341. COORDINATION.

       ``With respect to matters relating to the health, 
     education, employment, and housing of runaway and homeless 
     youth, the Secretary--
       ``(1) in conjunction with the Attorney General, shall 
     coordinate the activities of agencies of the Department of 
     Health and Human Services with activities under any other 
     Federal juvenile crime control, prevention, and juvenile 
     offender accountability program and with the activities of 
     other Federal entities; and
       ``(2) shall coordinate the activities of agencies of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services with the activities 
     of other Federal entities and with the activities of entities 
     that are eligible to receive grants under this title.''.
       (h) Authority To Make Grants for Research, Evaluation, 
     Demonstration, and Service Projects.--Section 343 of the 
     Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5714-23) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``evaluation,'' 
     after ``research,'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``evaluation,'' after 
     ``research,''; and
       (3) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (10) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (9), respectively.
       (i) Study.--Part D of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 5731 et seq.) is amended by adding after section 
     344 the following:

     ``SEC. 345. STUDY

       ``The Secretary shall conduct a study of a representative 
     sample of runaways to determine the percent who leave home 
     because of sexual abuse. The report on the study shall 
     include--
       ``(1) in the case of sexual abuse , the relationship of the 
     assaulter to the runaway; and
       ``(2) recommendations on how Federal laws may be changed to 
     reduce sexual assaults on children.

     The study shall be completed to enable the Secretary to make 
     a report to the committees of Congress with jurisdiction over 
     this Act, and to make such report available to the public, 
     within one year of the date of the enactment of this 
     section.''
       (j) Assistance to Potential Grantees.--Section 371 of the 
     Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5714a) is amended 
     by striking the last sentence.
       (k) Reports.--Section 381 of the Runaway and Homeless Youth 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5715) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 381. REPORTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than April 1, 2000, and 
     biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall submit, to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate, a report on the status, activities, and 
     accomplishments of entities that receive grants under parts 
     A, B, C, D, and E, with particular attention to--
       ``(1) in the case of centers funded under part A, the 
     ability or effectiveness of such centers in--
       ``(A) alleviating the problems of runaway and homeless 
     youth;
       ``(B) if applicable or appropriate, reuniting such youth 
     with their families and encouraging the resolution of 
     intrafamily problems through counseling and other services;
       ``(C) strengthening family relationships and encouraging 
     stable living conditions for such youth; and
       ``(D) assisting such youth to decide upon a future course 
     of action; and
       ``(2) in the case of projects funded under part B--
       ``(A) the number and characteristics of homeless youth 
     served by such projects;
       ``(B) the types of activities carried out by such projects;
       ``(C) the effectiveness of such projects in alleviating the 
     problems of homeless youth;
       ``(D) the effectiveness of such projects in preparing 
     homeless youth for self-sufficiency;
       ``(E) the effectiveness of such projects in assisting 
     homeless youth to decide upon future education, employment, 
     and independent living;
       ``(F) the ability of such projects to encourage the 
     resolution of intrafamily problems through counseling and 
     development of self-sufficient living skills; and
       ``(G) activities and programs planned by such projects for 
     the following fiscal year.
       ``(b) Contents of Reports.--The Secretary shall include in 
     each report submitted under subsection (a), summaries of--
       ``(1) the evaluations performed by the Secretary under 
     section 386; and
       ``(2) descriptions of the qualifications of, and training 
     provided to, individuals involved in carrying out such 
     evaluations.''.
       (l) Evaluation.--Section 384 of the Runaway and Homeless 
     Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5732) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 386. EVALUATION AND INFORMATION.

       ``(a) In General.--If a grantee receives grants for 3 
     consecutive fiscal years under part A, B, C, D, or E (in the 
     alternative), then the Secretary shall evaluate such grantee 
     on-site, not less frequently than once in the period of such 
     3 consecutive fiscal years, for purposes of--
       ``(1) determining whether such grants are being used for 
     the purposes for which such grants are made by the Secretary;
       ``(2) collecting additional information for the report 
     required by section 384; and
       ``(3) providing such information and assistance to such 
     grantee as will enable such grantee to improve the operation 
     of the centers, projects, and activities for which such 
     grants are made.
       ``(b) Cooperation.--Recipients of grants under this title 
     shall cooperate with the Secretary's efforts to carry out 
     evaluations, and to collect information, under this title.''.
       (m) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 385 of the 
     Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5751) is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 388. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Authorization.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this title (other than part E) such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, 
     and 2003.
       ``(2) Allocation.--
       ``(A) Parts a and b.--From the amount appropriated under 
     paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve 
     not less than 90 percent to carry out parts A and B.
       ``(B) Part b.--Of the amount reserved under subparagraph 
     (A), not less than 20 percent, and not more than 30 percent, 
     shall be reserved to carry out part B.
       ``(3) Parts c and d.--In each fiscal year, after reserving 
     the amounts required by paragraph (2), the Secretary shall 
     use the remaining amount (if any) to carry out parts C and D.
       ``(b) Separate Identification Required.--No funds 
     appropriated to carry out this title may be combined with 
     funds appropriated under any other Act if the purpose of 
     combining such funds is to make a single discretionary grant, 
     or a single discretionary payment, unless such funds are 
     separately identified in all grants and contracts and are 
     used for the purposes specified in this title.''.
       (n) Sexual Abuse Prevention Program.--

[[Page H4508]]

       (1) Authority for program.--The Runaway and Homeless Youth 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) by striking the heading for part F;
       (B) by redesignating part E as part F; and
       (C) by inserting after part D the following:

               ``PART E--SEXUAL ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 351. AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to 
     nonprofit private agencies for the purpose of providing 
     street-based services to runaway and homeless, and street 
     youth, who have been subjected to, or are at risk of being 
     subjected to, sexual abuse, prostitution, or sexual 
     exploitation.
       ``(b) Priority.--In selecting applicants to receive grants 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to 
     nonprofit private agencies that have experience in providing 
     services to runaway and homeless, and street youth.''.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 388(a) of the 
     Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5751), as amended 
     by subsection (m) of this section, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(4) Part e.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out part E such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
     years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.''.
       (o) Consolidated Review of Applications.--The Runaway and 
     Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after section 383 the following:

     ``SEC. 385. CONSOLIDATED REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS.

       ``With respect to funds available to carry out parts A, B, 
     C, D, and E, nothing in this title shall be construed to 
     prohibit the Secretary from--
       ``(1) announcing, in a single announcement, the 
     availability of funds for grants under 2 or more of such 
     parts; and
       ``(2) reviewing applications for grants under 2 or more of 
     such parts in a single, consolidated application review 
     process.''.
       (p) Definitions.--The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     386, as amended by subsection (l) of this section, the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 387. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Drug abuse education and prevention services.--The 
     term `drug abuse education and prevention services'--
       ``(A) means services to runaway and homeless youth to 
     prevent or reduce the illicit use of drugs by such youth; and
       ``(B) may include--
       ``(i) individual, family, group, and peer counseling;
       ``(ii) drop-in services;
       ``(iii) assistance to runaway and homeless youth in rural 
     areas (including the development of community support 
     groups);
       ``(iv) information and training relating to the illicit use 
     of drugs by runaway and homeless youth, to individuals 
     involved in providing services to such youth; and
       ``(v) activities to improve the availability of local drug 
     abuse prevention services to runaway and homeless youth.
       ``(2) Home-based services.--The term `home-based 
     services'--
       ``(A) means services provided to youth and their families 
     for the purpose of--
       ``(i) preventing such youth from running away, or otherwise 
     becoming separated, from their families; and
       ``(ii) assisting runaway youth to return to their families; 
     and
       ``(B) includes services that are provided in the residences 
     of families (to the extent practicable), including--
       ``(i) intensive individual and family counseling; and
       ``(ii) training relating to life skills and parenting.
       ``(3) Homeless youth.--The term `homeless youth' means an 
     individual--
       ``(A) who is--
       ``(i) not more than 21 years of age; and
       ``(ii) for the purposes of part B, not less than 16 years 
     of age;
       ``(B) for whom it is not possible to live in a safe 
     environment with a relative; and
       ``(C) who has no other safe alternative living arrangement.
       ``(4) Street-based services.--The term `street-based 
     services'--
       ``(A) means services provided to runaway and homeless 
     youth, and street youth, in areas where they congregate, 
     designed to assist such youth in making healthy personal 
     choices regarding where they live and how they behave; and
       ``(B) may include--
       ``(i) identification of and outreach to runaway and 
     homeless youth, and street youth;
       ``(ii) crisis intervention and counseling;
       ``(iii) information and referral for housing;
       ``(iv) information and referral for transitional living and 
     health care services;
       ``(v) advocacy, education, and prevention services related 
     to--

       ``(I) alcohol and drug abuse;
       ``(II) sexual exploitation;
       ``(III) sexually transmitted diseases, including human 
     immunodeficiency virus (HIV); and
       ``(IV) physical and sexual assault.

       ``(5) Street youth.--The term `street youth' means an 
     individual who--
       ``(A) is--
       ``(i) a runaway youth; or
       ``(ii) indefinitely or intermittently a homeless youth; and
       ``(B) spends a significant amount of time on the street or 
     in other areas that increase the risk to such youth for 
     sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, prostitution, or drug 
     abuse.
       ``(6) Transitional living youth project.--The term 
     `transitional living youth project' means a project that 
     provides shelter and services designed to promote a 
     transition to self-sufficient living and to prevent long-term 
     dependency on social services.
       ``(7) Youth at risk of separation from the family.--The 
     term `youth at risk of separation from the family' means an 
     individual--
       ``(A) who is less than 18 years of age; and
       ``(B)(i) who has a history of running away from the family 
     of such individual;
       ``(ii) whose parent, guardian, or custodian is not willing 
     to provide for the basic needs of such individual; or
       ``(iii) who is at risk of entering the child welfare system 
     or juvenile justice system as a result of the lack of 
     services available to the family to meet such needs.''.
       (q) Redesignation of Sections.--Sections 371, 372, 381, 
     382, and 383 of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5714b-5851 et seq.), as amended by this title, are 
     redesignated as sections 380, 381, 382, 383, and 384, 
     respectively.
       (r) Technical Amendments.--The Runaway and Homeless Youth 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 331, in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``With'' and all that follows through ``the Secretary'', and 
     inserting ``The Secretary''; and
       (2) in section 344(a)(1), by striking ``With'' and all that 
     follows through ``the Secretary'', and inserting ``The 
     Secretary''.

 Subtitle C--Repeal of Title V Relating to Incentive Grants for Local 
                    Delinquency Prevention Programs

     SEC. 241. REPEALER.

       Title V of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5681 et seq.), as added by Public Law 
     102-586, is repealed.

    Subtitle D--Amendments to the Missing Children's Assistance Act

     SEC. 251. NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN.

       (a) Findings.--Section 402 of the Missing Children's 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5771) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) for 14 years, the National Center for Missing and 
     Exploited Children has--
       ``(A) served as the national resource center and 
     clearinghouse congressionally mandated under the provisions 
     of the Missing Children's Assistance Act of 1984; and
       ``(B) worked in partnership with the Department of Justice, 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of the 
     Treasury, the Department of State, and many other agencies in 
     the effort to find missing children and prevent child 
     victimization;
       ``(10) Congress has given the Center, which is a private 
     non-profit corporation, access to the National Crime 
     Information Center of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
     and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System;
       ``(11) since 1987, the Center has operated the National 
     Child Pornography Tipline, in conjunction with the United 
     States Customs Service and the United States Postal 
     Inspection Service and, beginning this year, the Center 
     established a new CyberTipline on child exploitation, thus 
     becoming `the 911 for the Internet';
       ``(12) in light of statistics that time is of the essence 
     in cases of child abduction, the Director of the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation in February of 1997 created a new 
     NCIC child abduction (`CA') flag to provide the Center 
     immediate notification in the most serious cases, resulting 
     in 642 `CA' notifications to the Center and helping the 
     Center to have its highest recovery rate in history;
       ``(13) the Center has established a national and 
     increasingly worldwide network, linking the Center online 
     with each of the missing children clearinghouses operated by 
     the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, as 
     well as with Scotland Yard in the United Kingdom, the Royal 
     Canadian Mounted Police, INTERPOL headquarters in Lyon, 
     France, and others, which has enabled the Center to transmit 
     images and information regarding missing children to law 
     enforcement across the United States and around the world 
     instantly;
       ``(14) from its inception in 1984 through March 31, 1998, 
     the Center has--
       ``(A) handled 1,203,974 calls through its 24-hour toll-free 
     hotline (1-800-THE-LOST) and currently averages 700 calls per 
     day;
       ``(B) trained 146,284 law enforcement, criminal and 
     juvenile justice, and healthcare professionals in child 
     sexual exploitation and missing child case detection, 
     identification, investigation, and prevention;
       ``(C) disseminated 15,491,344 free publications to citizens 
     and professionals; and
       ``(D) worked with law enforcement on the cases of 59,481 
     missing children, resulting in the recovery of 40,180 
     children;
       ``(15) the demand for the services of the Center is growing 
     dramatically, as evidenced by the fact that in 1997, the 
     Center handled 129,100 calls, an all-time record, and by the 
     fact that its new Internet website (www.missingkids.com) 
     receives 1,500,000 `hits' every day, and is linked with 
     hundreds of other websites to provide real-time images of 
     breaking cases of missing children;
       ``(16) in 1997, the Center provided policy training to 256 
     police chiefs and sheriffs from

[[Page H4509]]

     50 States and Guam at its new Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement 
     Training Center;
       ``(17) the programs of the Center have had a remarkable 
     impact, such as in the fight against infant abductions in 
     partnership with the healthcare industry, during which the 
     Center has performed 668 onsite hospital walk-throughs and 
     inspections, and trained 45,065 hospital administrators, 
     nurses, and security personnel, and thereby helped to reduce 
     infant abductions in the United States by 82 percent;
       ``(18) the Center is now playing a significant role in 
     international child abduction cases, serving as a 
     representative of the Department of State at cases under The 
     Hague Convention, and successfully resolving the cases of 343 
     international child abductions, and providing greater support 
     to parents in the United States;
       ``(19) the Center is a model of public/private partnership, 
     raising private sector funds to match congressional 
     appropriations and receiving extensive private in-kind 
     support, including advanced technology provided by the 
     computer industry such as imaging technology used to age the 
     photographs of long-term missing children and to reconstruct 
     facial images of unidentified deceased children;
       ``(20) the Center was 1 of only 10 of 300 major national 
     charities given an A+ grade in 1997 by the American Institute 
     of Philanthropy; and
       ``(21) the Center has been redesignated as the Nation's 
     missing children clearinghouse and resource center once every 
     3 years through a competitive selection process conducted by 
     the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of 
     the Department of Justice, and has received grants from that 
     Office to conduct the crucial purposes of the Center.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 403 of the Missing Children's 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5772) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) the term `Center' means the National Center for 
     Missing and Exploited Children.''.
       (c) Duties and Functions of the Administrator.--Section 404 
     of the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5773) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Annual Grant to National Center for Missing and 
     Exploited Children.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall annually make a 
     grant to the Center, which shall be used to--
       ``(A)(i) operate a national 24-hour toll-free telephone 
     line by which individuals may report information regarding 
     the location of any missing child, or other child 13 years of 
     age or younger whose whereabouts are unknown to such child's 
     legal custodian, and request information pertaining to 
     procedures necessary to reunite such child with such child's 
     legal custodian; and
       ``(ii) coordinate the operation of such telephone line with 
     the operation of the national communications system referred 
     to in part C of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5714-11);
       ``(B) operate the official national resource center and 
     information clearinghouse for missing and exploited children;
       ``(C) provide to State and local governments, public and 
     private nonprofit agencies, and individuals, information 
     regarding--
       ``(i) free or low-cost legal, restaurant, lodging, and 
     transportation services that are available for the benefit of 
     missing and exploited children and their families; and
       ``(ii) the existence and nature of programs being carried 
     out by Federal agencies to assist missing and exploited 
     children and their families;
       ``(D) coordinate public and private programs that locate, 
     recover, or reunite missing children with their families;
       ``(E) disseminate, on a national basis, information 
     relating to innovative and model programs, services, and 
     legislation that benefit missing and exploited children;
       ``(F) provide technical assistance and training to law 
     enforcement agencies, State and local governments, elements 
     of the criminal justice system, public and private nonprofit 
     agencies, and individuals in the prevention, investigation, 
     prosecution, and treatment of cases involving missing and 
     exploited children; and
       ``(G) provide assistance to families and law enforcement 
     agencies in locating and recovering missing and exploited 
     children, both nationally and internationally.
       ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this 
     subsection, $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, 
     2002, and 2003.
       ``(c) National Incidence Studies.--The Administrator, 
     either by making grants to or entering into contracts with 
     public agencies or nonprofit private agencies, shall--
       ``(1) periodically conduct national incidence studies to 
     determine for a given year the actual number of children 
     reported missing each year, the number of children who are 
     victims of abduction by strangers, the number of children who 
     are the victims of parental kidnapings, and the number of 
     children who are recovered each year; and
       ``(2) provide to State and local governments, public and 
     private nonprofit agencies, and individuals information to 
     facilitate the lawful use of school records and birth 
     certificates to identify and locate missing children.''.
       (d) National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.--
     Section 405(a) of the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5775(a)) is amended by inserting ``the Center and 
     with'' before ``public agencies''.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 408 of the 
     Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5777) is amended 
     by striking ``1997 through 2001'' and inserting ``2000 
     through 2003''.

                  Subtitle E--Studies and Evaluations

     SEC. 261. STUDY OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE.

       (a) Contract for Study.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education 
     shall enter into a contract with the National Academy of 
     Sciences for the purposes of conducting a study regarding the 
     antecedents of school violence in urban, suburban, and rural 
     schools, including the incidents of school violence that 
     occurred in Pearl, Mississippi; Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, 
     Arkansas; Springfield, Oregon; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; 
     Fayetteville, Tennessee; Littleton, Colorado; and Conyers, 
     Georgia. Under the terms of such contract, the National 
     Academy of Sciences shall appoint a panel that will--
       (1) review the relevant research about adolescent violence 
     in general and school violence in particular, including the 
     existing longitudinal and cross-sectional studies on youth 
     that are relevant to examining violent behavior,
       (2) relate what can be learned from past and current 
     research and surveys to specific incidents of school 
     shootings,
       (3) interview relevant individuals, if possible, such as 
     the perpetrators of such incidents, their families, their 
     friends, their teachers, mental health providers, and others, 
     and
       (4) give particular attention to such issues as--
       (A) the perpetrators' early development, the relationship 
     with their families, community and school experiences, and 
     utilization of mental health services,
       (B) the relationship between perpetrators and their 
     victims,
       (C) how the perpetrators gained access to firearms,
       (D) the impact of cultural influences and exposure to the 
     media, video games, and the Internet, and
       (E) such other issues as the panel deems important or 
     relevant to the purpose of the study.

     The National Academy of Sciences shall utilize professionals 
     with expertise in such issues, including psychiatrists, 
     social workers, behavioral and social scientists, 
     practitioners, epidemiologists, statisticians, and 
     methodologists.
       (b) Report.--The National Academy of Sciences shall submit 
     a report containing the results of the study required by 
     subsection (a), to the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the 
     Chair and ranking minority Member of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives, 
     and the Chair and ranking minority Member of the Committee on 
     Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, not 
     later than January 1, 2001, or 18 months after entering into 
     the contract required by such subsection, whichever is 
     earlier.
       (c) Appropriation.--Of the funds made available under 
     Public Law 105-277 for the Department of Education, $2.1 
     million shall be made available to carry out this section.

     SEC. 262. STUDY OF THE MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS OF JUVENILES IN 
                   SECURE OR NONSECURE PLACEMENTS IN THE JUVENILE 
                   JUSTICE SYSTEM.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator of the Office of Juvenile 
     Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention, in collaboration 
     with the National Institute of Mental Health, shall conduct a 
     study that includes, but is not limited to, all of the 
     following:
       (1) Identification of the scope and nature of the mental 
     health problems or disorders of--
       (A) juveniles who are alleged to be or adjudicated 
     delinquent and who, as a result of such status, have been 
     placed in secure detention or confinement or in nonsecure 
     residential placements, and
       (B) juveniles on probation after having been adjudicated 
     delinquent and having received a disposition as delinquent.
       (2) A comprehensive survey of the types of mental health 
     services that are currently being provided to such juveniles 
     by States and units of local government.
       (3) Identification of governmental entities that have 
     developed or implemented model or promising screening, 
     assessment, or treatment programs or innovative mental health 
     delivery or coordination systems, that address and meet the 
     mental health needs of such juveniles.
       (4) A review of the literature that analyzes the mental 
     health problems and needs of juveniles in the juvenile 
     justice system and that documents innovative and promising 
     models and programs that address such needs.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the 
     Congress, and broadly disseminate to individuals and entities 
     engaged in fields that provide services for the benefit of 
     juveniles or that make policy relating to juveniles, a report 
     containing the results of the study conducted

[[Page H4510]]

     under subsection (a) and documentation identifying promising 
     or innovative models or programs referred to in such 
     subsection.

     SEC. 263. EVALUATION BY GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

       (a) Evaluation.--Not later than October 1, 2002, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a 
     comprehensive analysis and evaluation regarding the 
     performance of the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency and 
     Prevention, its functions, its programs, and its grants under 
     specified criteria, and shall submit the report required by 
     subsection (b). In conducting the analysis and evaluation, 
     the Comptroller General shall take into consideration the 
     following factors to document the efficiency and public 
     benefit of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), excluding the Runaway 
     and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) and the 
     Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5771 et seq.):
       (1) The extent to which the agency has complied with the 
     provisions contained in the Government Performance and 
     Results Act of 1993 (Pub. Law 103-62; 107 Stat. 285).
       (2) The outcome and results of the programs carried out by 
     the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and 
     those administered -through grants by Office of Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
       (3) Whether the agency has acted outside the scope of its 
     original authority, and whether the original objectives of 
     the agency have been achieved.
       (4) Whether less restrictive or alternative methods exists 
     to carry out the functions of the agency. Whether present 
     functions or operations are impeded or enhanced by existing, 
     statutes, rules, and procedures.
       (5) The extent to which the jurisdiction of, and the 
     programs administered by, the agency duplicate or conflict 
     with the jurisdiction and programs of other agencies.
       (6) The potential benefits of consolidating programs 
     administered by the agency with similar or duplicative 
     programs of other agencies, and the potential for 
     consolidating such programs.
       (7) The number and types of beneficiaries or persons served 
     by programs carried out under the Act.
       (8) The extent to which any trends, developments, or 
     emerging conditions that are likely to affect the future 
     nature and the extent of the problems or needs the programs 
     carried out by the Act are intended to address.
       (9) The manner with which the agency seeks public input and 
     input from State and local governments on the performance of 
     the functions of the agency.
       (10) Whether the agency has worked to enact changes in the 
     law intended to benefit the public as a whole rather than the 
     specific businesses, institutions, or individuals the agency 
     regulates or funds.
       (11) The extent to which the agency grants have encouraged 
     participation by the public as a whole in making its rules 
     and decisions rather than encouraging participation solely by 
     those it regulates.
       (12) The extent to which the agency complies with section 
     552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the 
     ``Freedom of Information Act'').
       (13) The impact of any regulatory, privacy, and paperwork 
     concerns resulting from the programs carried out by the 
     agency.
       (14) The extent to which the agency has coordinated with 
     state and local governments in performing the functions of 
     the agency.
       (15) The extent to which changes are necessary in the 
     authorizing statutes of the agency in order that the 
     functions of the agency can be performed in a more efficient 
     and effective manner.
       (16) Whether greater oversight is needed of programs 
     developed with grants made by the Office of Juvenile Justice 
     and Delinquency Prevention.
       (b) Report.--The report required by subsection (a) shall--
       (1) include recommendations for legislative changes, as 
     appropriate, based on the evaluation conducted under 
     subsection (a), to be made to the Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), 
     excluding the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 
     et seq.) and the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5771 et seq.), and
       (2) shall be submitted, together with supporting materials, 
     to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
     President pro tempore of the Senate, and made available to 
     the public .

     SEC. 264. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORT.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the General Accounting Office shall transmit to 
     Congress a report containing the following:
       (1) For each State, a description of the types of after-
     school programs that are available for students in 
     kindergarten through grade 12, including programs sponsored 
     by the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, the Boy Scouts of 
     America, the Girl Scouts of America, YMCAs, and athletic and 
     other programs operated by public schools and other State and 
     local agencies.
       (2) For 15 communities selected to represent a variety of 
     regional, population, and demographic profiles, a detailed 
     analysis of all of the after-school programs that are 
     available for students in kindergarten through grade 12, 
     including programs sponsored by the Boys and Girls Clubs of 
     America, the Boy Scouts of America, the Girl Scouts of 
     America, YMCAs, mentoring programs, athletic programs, and 
     programs operated by public schools, churches, day care 
     centers, parks, recreation centers, family day care, 
     community organizations, law enforcement agencies, service 
     providers, and for-profit and nonprofit organizations.
       (3) For each State, a description of significant areas of 
     unmet need in the quality and availability of after-school 
     programs.
       (4) For each State, a description of barriers which prevent 
     or deter the participation of children in after-school 
     programs.
       (5) For each State, a description of barriers to improving 
     the quality and availability of after-school programs.
       (6) A list of activities, other than after-school programs, 
     in which students in kindergarten through grade 12 
     participate when not in school, including jobs, volunteer 
     opportunities, and other non-school affiliated programs.
       (7) An analysis of the value of the activities listed 
     pursuant to paragraph (6) to the well-being and educational 
     development of students in kindergarten through grade 12.

     SEC. 265. BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ON YOUTH 
                   VIOLENCE.

       (a) NIH Research.--The National Institutes of Health, 
     acting through the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences 
     Research, shall carry out a coordinated, multi-year course of 
     behavioral and social science research on the causes and 
     prevention of youth violence.
       (b) Nature of Research.--Funds made available to the 
     National Institutes of Health pursuant to this section shall 
     be utilized to conduct, support, coordinate, and disseminate 
     basic and applied behavioral and social science research with 
     respect to youth violence, including research on 1 or more of 
     the following subjects:
       (1) The etiology of youth violence.
       (2) Risk factors for youth violence.
       (3) Childhood precursors to antisocial violent behavior.
       (4) The role of peer pressure in inciting youth violence.
       (5) The processes by which children develop patterns of 
     thought and behavior, including beliefs about the value of 
     human life.
       (6) Science-based strategies for preventing youth violence, 
     including school and community-based programs.
       (7) Other subjects that the Director of the Office of 
     Behavioral and Social Sciences Research deems appropriate.
       (c) Role of the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences 
     Research.--Pursuant to this section and section 404A of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 283c), the Director of 
     the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research shall--
       (1) coordinate research on youth violence conducted or 
     supported by the agencies of the National Institutes of 
     Health;
       (2) identify youth violence research projects that should 
     be conducted or supported by the research institutes, and 
     develop such projects in cooperation with such institutes and 
     in consultation with State and Federal law enforcement 
     agencies;
       (3) take steps to further cooperation and collaboration 
     between the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention, the Substance Abuse and 
     Mental Health Services Administration, the agencies of the 
     Department of Justice, and other governmental and 
     nongovernmental agencies with respect to youth violence 
     research conducted or supported by such agencies;
       (4) establish a clearinghouse for information about youth 
     violence research conducted by governmental and 
     nongovernmental entities; and
       (5) periodically report to Congress on the state of youth 
     violence research and make recommendations to Congress 
     regarding such research.
       (d) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated, 
     $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004 to 
     carry out this section. If amount are not separately 
     appropriated to carry out this section, the Director of the 
     National Institutes of Health shall carry out this section 
     using funds appropriated generally to the National Institutes 
     of Health, except that funds expended for under this section 
     shall supplement and not supplant existing funding for 
     behavioral research activities at the National Institutes of 
     Health.

                     Subtitle F--General Provisions

     SEC. 271. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     this title and the amendments made by this title shall take 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this 
     title shall apply only with respect to fiscal years beginning 
     after September 30, 1999.
       Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to amend the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide 
     grants to ensure increased accountability for juvenile 
     offenders; to amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 to provide quality prevention programs 
     and accountability programs relating to juvenile delinquency; 
     and for other purposes.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and a Member opposed each will control 45 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).

[[Page H4511]]

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce has the responsibility in this legislative process to provide 
the rehabilitative and the preventive efforts in relationship to 
juvenile delinquency, juvenile crime. The amendment I am offering today 
complements and completes H.R. 1501, the Consequences for Juvenile 
Offenders Act of 1999. The amendment provides a prevention component of 
a sound two-prong approach to addressing juvenile crime, accountability 
and prevention. The success of one depends on the success of the other.
  The amendment was based on legislation introduced by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the Juvenile Crime Control and 
Delinquency Prevention Act. This legislation was reported by the 
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families on April 22, 1999.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), ranking minority member, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) deserve a great 
deal of credit for all the time they spent in crafting a thoughtful 
bill to address a very difficult problem.
  I would also be remiss if I did not thank the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Souder), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Miller) for their efforts to work with us in 
putting together a bipartisan bill.
  Last, but not least, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez), who helped craft the original version of 
H.R. 1818, which passed the House last Congress. And, of course, I 
would be remiss if I did not thank the staff on both sides for the 
hours of work that they put into this.
  As I have noted, several Members have played a key role in the 
development of this legislation. For example, the amendment allowed the 
use of funds in both the formula grant program and the prevention block 
grant program for after-school programs. There is also a study on 
after-school programs.
  The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who is a strong supporter 
of after-school programs, crafted these provisions. Funds may be used 
for programs directed at preventing school violence. In addition, the 
Prevention Block Grant includes language allowing local grantees to use 
funds for a toll-free school violence hotline. The gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), who represents Littleton, Colorado, is the 
author of that provision.
  The amendment I am offering today also includes several provisions 
dealing with the delivery of mental health services to youth in the 
juvenile justice system. These provisions include allowing the use of 
funds in the formula in the block grant programs for mental health 
services, training and technical assistance for service providers, and 
a study on the provision of mental health services to juveniles.
  The gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) is responsible for 
that legislation, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller).
  During the 105th Congress, as I indicated before, we passed this 
legislation. In fact, we passed legislation twice. At the present time, 
the major purpose of our amendment is to prevent juvenile crime in the 
home, in our communities, and in our schools.
  The amendment offered today would streamline the current Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, provide greater flexibility to 
States and local communities in meeting the four core requirements, and 
consolidate existing discretionary grant programs into a flexible 
prevention block grant to the States, demanding quality in return for 
that effort.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout the United States, communities are struggling 
to develop programs to address juvenile delinquency. But no two 
communities are alike, and solutions must be tailored to fit the needs 
of local communities. And that is what we have done in this 
legislation.
  Finally, the amendment would provide for the authorization of 
programs under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and the Missing 
Children's Assistance Act.
  I want to emphasize the fact that there is language here that deals 
with those who would get overzealous when they are writing curriculum, 
and it makes very, very clear that when they do that, they do not 
interfere with one's religious beliefs.
  That language says, ``Materials produced, procured, or distributed 
using funds appropriated to carry out this act for the purpose of 
preventing hate crimes 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.''
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) seek to 
control the time in opposition?
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to control the time, and I ask 
unanimous consent to turn the control of the time over to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) after I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) will control 45 
minutes.
  Without objection, the gentleman may yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) to control the remainder of the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Goodling amendment.
  This amendment reauthorizes the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act of 1974. In reauthorization of this 25-year-old act, the 
amendment retains the four core protections, including the fundamental 
tenet of the juvenile justice system, that juvenile delinquents shall 
not be jailed with adult criminals.
  In addition to retaining the core requirements, the amendment 
contains a new juvenile delinquency prevention block grant program. It 
provides funds to be used for mentoring, for family strengthening 
programs, for training and employment programs, for mental health 
services, and other initiatives designed to prevent juvenile 
delinquency.
  The amendment also strengthens the mandate requiring States to reduce 
the disproportionate number of minorities confined in jails and other 
secure facilities. States are required to reduce minority 
overrepresentation by addressing both the lack of prevention programs 
in minority communities and by addressing racial bias within the 
juvenile system.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for their many hours of 
negotiations and their determination to place substance over politics 
and produce fair and effective juvenile prevention legislation.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has short-circuited the 
legislative process and are shortchanging the American people.
  This is a good amendment, Mr. Chairman. It could have been better. 
Instead, to appease the right-wing family groups, the Republican 
leadership has insisted on weakening programs under the act aimed at 
preventing hate crimes. Politics again rears its ugly head when the 
Republican leadership prevents meaningful provisions dealing with 
juvenile gun possession.
  Mr. Chairman, despite the shortcomings, this amendment includes 
thoughtful, effective crime prevention measures that will give 
juveniles real alternatives. We cannot afford to toss our troubled 
juveniles into jail and throw away the key. We must intervene first 
with the strong and flexible prevention measures that this amendment 
provides.
  I support this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on the amendment
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H4512]]

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chair.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce very much for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I also thank all those who worked on this legislation, 
particularly the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) who did so much good work on it.
  Just a few months ago, reports of school violence dominated the 
national media and focused our attention on the small suburban 
communities of Springfield, Paducah, Edinboro, Littleton and Jonesboro.
  In the wake of these tragedies, men, women, and children across the 
country joined together and called upon their elected officials to help 
stem the tide of violence in their schools and their communities.
  What followed was a rush of legislation, from guns and video games to 
parental involvement and school prayer. Everything was on the table. 
After much discussion, we came to understand that no one approach would 
have prevented the episodic violence in these schools.
  Eventually, cooler heads prevailed, and we realized that a balanced 
approach, one that incorporated the best ideas of each of these 
proposals, was our greatest hope to ensure that our schools would never 
again be a place of death and violence.
  As part of this effort, I am pleased to rise in strong support of the 
juvenile crime prevention amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  This amendment is a product of extensive negotiations between Members 
on both sides of the aisle, and I am pleased that it comes to the floor 
with bipartisan support, thanks in large part, as I already mentioned, 
to the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  This amendment acknowledges that most successful solutions to 
juvenile crime are developed at the State and local levels by people 
who understand the unique qualities of the youth in their neighborhood. 
I believe it goes a long way toward providing State and localities the 
necessary flexibility to address the problems associated with juvenile 
crime in their communities.
  This amendment also acknowledges that intervention and prevention, 
such as educational assistance, job training, and employment services 
programs, are effective tools in reducing and preventing juvenile 
crime.
  In this era of dual-income families, roughly 5 million kids return to 
an empty house when the school day ends. It is not surprising, then, 
that juvenile crime increases by 300 percent after 3 p.m. Those that 
are not engaged in delinquent behavior are sitting, in many cases, in 
front of the television, the baby-sitter of choice for millions of 
latchkey kids.
  Recent studies have confirmed what we have intuitively known about 
after-school programs. These programs, such as the athletic or 
mentoring programs offered by the YMCA and Boys' and Girls' Clubs of 
America, give our most at-risk children a positive alternative to 
television, drugs, alcohol, sexual activity and crime.
  There is no doubt about the importance of these programs. But our 
after-school providers and participants need better access to 
information about the current range of programs and industry ``best 
practices.''
  For this reason, I am especially pleased that the Goodling amendment 
incorporates my language to require the GAO to undertake a study to 
help us better understand the values of after-school programs and the 
barriers to providing these important services.
  In addition, the Goodling amendment underscores the importance of 
these programs by allowing the States to use prevention funds to extend 
the reach of our after-school programs. As we all know, even children 
who enjoy the advantages of caring parents and good schools can just as 
easily go astray as those that who are disadvantaged.
  For all of those reasons, I urge all of us in this House to support 
this amendment for the benefit of all the children in our country.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Goodling amendment has been the product of over 4 
years of work between the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott), the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Greenwood) and myself. It is a product of very extensive 
negotiation and will gain my support today.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will provide a much-needed focus on both 
protection of juveniles in the system and prevention aimed at reducing 
juvenile delinquency.
  The amendment strengthens the important protections provided by the 
four core mandates in the act. It maintains the protections of sight 
and sound separation, the reduction of disproportionate minority 
confinement, and the special consideration of status offenders and 
adult jail removal, while at the same time deals with the real-life 
difficulties of dealing with juvenile offenders.
  The other critical aspect of this bill is the creation of the 
Prevention Block Grant, the contribution of the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott). The Prevention Block Grant in this legislation sends a 
strong message that program funds should be used for primary 
prevention, prevention efforts for those who have yet to encounter the 
justice system.
  This type of focus can save so many of our young people from falling 
prey to the temptations of violence and destructive activity and is a 
much-needed component in our efforts to combat juvenile crime.
  In closing, I want to recognize the leadership of both the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood) on this legislation. I believe that their efforts have taken 
last Congress's bipartisan reauthorization bill and improved what was 
already a good product. I personally thank them for their hard work and 
their close cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in support of 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling), the distinguished chairman of our Committee on Education and 
the Workforce. I want to commend he and members of his committee for 
working diligently on this proposal.
  While H.R. 1501, the Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act of 1999, 
addresses some of the factors that contribute to juvenile crime, this 
bill does not address ways in which we can work together to create 
solutions to this growing problem.
  Almost everyone agrees that the majority of juvenile crime occurs 
daily between the hours of 3 to 7 p.m., when schools let out and 
children are left unsupervised while parents are still at work. Just to 
make ends meet, most parents have to have two or three jobs. These 
families need our help, and this amendment does just that.
  This bill mirrors my own legislation, H.R. 1430, the Caring for 
America's Children Act, which provides our Nation's children with 
substantial after-school programs designed to help our children make a 
successful transition from child to adult life and keep at-risk 
children from choosing violent acts over unsupervised activities.

                              {time}  1430

  Empty hands too often lead to crime, but give children something to 
do with those hands and the number of crimes dramatically drop when an 
afterschool program is in place, such as sports, the arts, delinquency 
prevention, tutoring and academic enrichment, literacy, counseling, 
drug and alcohol abuse prevention, parenting skills, all keys to 
preventing juvenile crime. If parents are unable to supervise their 
children, schools and local youth groups that provide care for children 
during nonschool hours are the next best thing.

[[Page H4513]]

  This amendment also provides funding for the establishment and 
maintenance of a school youth violence hotline which will provide 
children with a way in which to anonymously inform officials of violent 
crimes that may be committed. Many students are aware of criminal acts 
before they happen but too often are afraid to come forward for fear of 
being the victim of an attack.
  Accordingly, I am pleased to strongly support passage of this 
amendment as it is one of the few amendments that actually focuses on 
true juvenile crime prevention. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to 
support the Goodling amendment.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) who has made an enormous contribution to this 
bill.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. As 
many of my colleagues are well aware, I have been actively involved in 
this issue of juvenile crime on both the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce and the Committee on the Judiciary. From the outset of this 
discussion I have said that Congress has a decision to make in 
combating youth violence, that is, we can play politics or we can 
reduce juvenile crime. As someone who has spent many hours in this 
effort along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), I am 
proud to say that the Goodling amendment reflects a fair and effective 
legislation rather than a desire to play politics by codifying 
soundbites. This legislation reflects the commitment to reducing crime 
by funding proven crime prevention programs.
  I am also proud to say that this legislation is sound policy, because 
it is the result of a deliberate and intelligent process in which we 
carefully considered the evidence in search of real solutions to 
juvenile crime. Unfortunately, with other amendments that we have 
already adopted, it seems that we are back to playing politics. What 
began as a bipartisan effort in both the Committee on the Judiciary and 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce has turned into a 
spectacle. We started with an intelligent, deliberate consideration of 
the issues and now we have degenerated into a situation where we are 
slinging soundbites at each other. This is particularly disappointing 
because we know what works to reduce crime.
  We can say, however, that in this amendment, we have the opportunity 
to reduce crime. We know that prevention works. We also know it saves 
more money than it costs. For example, early childhood education 
programs like Head Start not only reduce future crime but also save 
future money by reducing remedial education requirements, welfare 
dependency and crime. Job Corps programs reduce future crime and also 
save more money by increasing employment, reducing welfare and reducing 
crime. Drug rehabilitation programs reduce crime and save almost $7 to 
$10 for every dollar spent by reducing crime and health care expenses. 
So we know what works. We know it works and we know it also saves 
money. This amendment encourages communities to review the research and 
develop a community crime prevention plan and to fund those prevention 
plans, plans that will help communities fight crime and those that are 
cost effective.
  In addition to the emphasis on prevention, this legislation keeps 
intact several key principles of juvenile justice. Since 1974, there 
has been a concerted effort to provide fundamental protections for 
youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. Prior to 
1974, it was common practice to lock up youth who had committed status 
offenses, those are noncriminal acts like running away or curfew 
violations or being truant, acts which are offenses only because of the 
defendant's status as a juvenile. These children who had not committed 
a crime were often in need of services and not punishment. In fact, 
frequently it was their families who needed services and not the 
juvenile. Nevertheless, these children were being locked up, often in 
adult jails. As a result, they were increasingly at risk of assault or 
committing suicide.
  The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 provided 
protections for these children. First, the Act required States to 
divert status offenders from the juvenile criminal justice system and 
place them in community-based alternatives. As a result, we have seen 
the suicide rate plummet. Second, this legislation basically continues 
the underlying principle that juveniles should not be housed with 
adults. Third, the Act focuses efforts to reduce, without establishing 
quotas or numerical standards, the disproportionate number of juvenile 
members of minority groups who come in contact with the juvenile 
justice system. This provision is important because it requires that 
States look at why minority youth are overrepresented in secure 
facilities or receive tougher sentences or are more likely to be jailed 
for the same kinds of offenses than majority youth. Efforts to reduce 
the disproportion might include prevention programs, less reliance on 
racial profiling in law enforcement, or sensitivity training for 
juvenile justice personnel to ensure equal treatment. In sum, the 
Goodling amendment maintains the core protections for children and a 
preventive and forward-thinking approach to juvenile crime.
  Finally, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) for his leadership in the development of a bill which is 
serious about reducing juvenile crime. I also want to thank the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for their contributions. Also, I 
would like to thank the staff for their hard work, Alex Nock and Cheryl 
Johnson, Denise Forte, Ly Nguyen, and also Vic Klatt, Sally Lovejoy and 
Lynn Selmer for their hard work without which this bill would not have 
been possible.
  Mr. Chairman, while I would have preferred this amendment to be a 
separate bill, detached from the partisan spectacle being conducted 
with the rest of the bill, I would urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment. This is a vote for prevention and a vote to put research and 
analysis back in the debate on crime.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania a 
question as to whether or not it is the legislative intent of the bill 
for the ``sight and sound'' provision to provide some flexibility but 
still limit supervised contact between adult and juvenile offenders.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Yes, Mr. Chairman, in general there should be no 
contact, physical or otherwise, between juvenile and adult offenders. 
However, this provision establishes law for the rare occasion where a 
juvenile would be in physical proximity to an adult offender. We expect 
these occasions to be accidental and unforeseeable in nature. In these 
situations, the juvenile must be supervised by a corrections official. 
We would also expect that States and localities which exceed this 
authority by allowing these occasions to happen on a regular basis to 
be found out of compliance by the Office of Juvenile Crime Control and 
Delinquency Prevention.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. I would hope that 
it be adopted.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), and I also ask 
unanimous consent that he control the time on this side. He is the 
other member of the Greenwood-Scott team that we have heard about quite 
often this morning.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce for yielding control of the time to me and for his kind words 
as well.
  Yes, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and I are a team and as 
you will see, our words are very similar.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue before the House and the title of the 
amendment for which I speak is the Juvenile Crime Control and 
Delinquency Prevention

[[Page H4514]]

Act. The purpose of this legislation is to reauthorize and to reform 
the 25-year-old law which was designed to ensure that juveniles, 
children under the law who are accused of breaking the law, are treated 
firmly and fairly. Its purpose is to ensure that to the best of 
society's ability, these young people are redeemed from lives of crime 
and instead provided with opportunities to turn their lives around and 
to become good and productive citizens.
  To understand why Congress wrote this law 25 years ago, one needs to 
become familiar with the problems Congress was trying to solve back 
then. Prior to 1974, in many States, children were frequently 
imprisoned right alongside adults. The unfortunate ones were physically 
and often sexually abused. The more fortunate children were simply 
tutored by their cellmates into the ways of crime and converted into 
hardened criminals at a very tender age. What was worse was that a 
large percentage of the incarcerated children had not even committed 
acts that would have been considered criminal had they been adults. 
Children were routinely locked up for running away from home, for 
truancy or for simply being deemed incorrigible. Before anyone is 
tempted to believe that those were the good old days when young people 
were held accountable for their irresponsible conduct, it needs to be 
noted that many of these kids were running away from terribly 
dysfunctional homes where they were being abused in the worst of ways. 
In the old days before the Juvenile Justice Act, alcoholic abusers 
could molest their daughters and their stepdaughters and then have them 
arrested for running away until they agreed to go back home to be 
subjected to more abuse. The sins of the parents were visited upon 
their children and then the children were punished all over again.
  So in 1974, the Congress enacted the Juvenile Justice Act and offered 
to States financial carrots to reform their ways of dealing with the 
troubled children of their States. The law establishes core 
requirements for State juvenile justice systems that States must adopt 
to qualify for Federal delinquency prevention funds. And since others 
have specified those core requirements, I will not repeat them.
  Most of yesterday's debate centered on the Committee on the 
Judiciary's piece of juvenile justice law, the so-called sanctions 
part. The amendment before the House now is the work of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce. It is the prevention and the protection 
part. This year I have had the honor of serving as the prime sponsor of 
the delinquency prevention legislation. For many months, I have worked 
with my Republican and my Democratic colleagues to modernize and reform 
this statute so that we could reauthorize it for another 4 years.
  My primary counterpart on the other side of the aisle has been the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). He is a good man. He is a 
committed advocate for his point of view and for the point of view of 
his party but he has always been available to my point of view and to 
the point of view of my party. He has consistently put the welfare of 
children and the safety of society above partisan advantage, and he has 
never once succumbed to ideological rigidity.
  I also wish to commend the ranking member of the subcommittee the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for his constant spirit of 
collegiality and bipartisanship and I want to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) 
and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for working consistently in 
good faith to achieve a bipartisan bill.
  Our bipartisan work product encapsulated in this amendment recognizes 
that prevention is the key to reducing juvenile crime. It streamlines 
current law, provides appropriate flexibility for the States and 
replaces overly prescriptive Federal requirements with prevention block 
grants. The amendment also reauthorizes the Runaway and Homeless Youth 
Act and the Missing Children's Assistance Act, making them more 
effective in locating missing children and reuniting them with their 
families.
  Mr. Chairman, in the wake of the tragic shootings at high schools in 
places like Littleton, Colorado; Pearl, Mississippi; Paducah, Kentucky; 
Jonesboro, Arkansas; Springfield, Oregon; Edinboro, Pennsylvania and 
elsewhere, the Congress has chosen the Juvenile Crime and Delinquency 
Prevention Act to serve as the legislative vehicle to debate and to 
enact an extraordinarily wide range of proposals aimed at preventing 
youth violence and keeping our children safe. From gun control measures 
to new prohibitions on selling violent entertainment to children to 
establishing the right of children to pray in school, it is all in the 
mix, Mr. Chairman. We will, in the herky jerky ways of democracy, sort 
our way through it all. But I hope it is not lost upon us all that in 
the midst of this emotionally and politically charged environment, 
Republicans and Democrats on the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce worked through our differences and crafted this bipartisan 
legislation that we offer in the form of this amendment, convinced that 
within its 103 pages lies reliable and tested wisdom about how best to 
steer America's troubled children away from crime and how to reclaim 
these young people who go off on the wrong track.
  As we speak in this Chamber, we need to remember that in every 
community in America, employees and volunteers in juvenile probation 
programs and in detention facilities are busy at the hard work of 
reaching into the hearts and minds of children hardened by abuse, 
neglect and disappointment and they are giving them hope and the 
esteem, the skills and the confidence to turn their lives around and to 
go straight.
  That is what this amendment is about. We think it is among the most 
important work that we will do in these 2 days of debate. We commend it 
to the House for its support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 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, I rise in strong support of the amendment of 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) to H.R. 1150.
  This is the first opportunity I have had to talk about the then 
Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act of 1973, as it was 
being conceived by Senator Birch Bayh and was then made into law in 
1974. At that time I was president of the YMCAs of the USA, and at that 
time young people were in trouble, they were on the roads, they were 
confused. At that time young people were incarcerated with adult 
offenders.
  We have seen many changes come since that time. But I am a bit 
disappointed that partisanship has once again raised its ugly head, and 
that out of over 70 Democratic amendments, only 11 of these amendments 
were adopted by the Committee on Rules. It is more than apparent that 
politics as usual has prevailed again. Of course, I commend the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for moving forward with this 
legislation, but in the Committee on Rules we saw the partisanship come 
out over and over again.
  Let me take this opportunity to bring to my colleagues' attention my 
primary prevention amendment, which was not adopted by the Committee on 
Rules. I called for 50 percent of the funds in the prevention block 
grant to go towards primary prevention programs. As my colleagues know, 
prevention works. It works because it avoids young people from becoming 
involved in the criminal justice system. We have seen surveys 
continually which have proven that prevention works. As a matter of 
fact, old folks used to say a stitch in time saves nine. An ounce of 
prevention is worth a pound of cure. It is better to build boys than to 
mend men; that idle hands are the devil's playground.
  But in spite of all of this, we were unable to get the funds put into 
prevention, and we are using the Republicans' method of intervention. 
Of course, if it was up to me, I would designate more than 50 percent 
of the funds for prevention, as I feel that attacking crime prior to 
when it happens is the only true solution. Nevertheless, we were

[[Page H4515]]

willing to compromise to meet the majority party halfway, but it was 
abundantly clear that they have no intentions of doing the same.
  Even the Democratic substitute that I and several of my colleagues 
submitted with the hope of including language about school counselors 
was not adopted. This, after the horrible tragedy of Columbine. 
Elementary schools need counseling as well as our middle schools and 
high schools. Youngsters are crying out for help, but in many instances 
there is no one there to help them. As a matter of fact, in a typical 
inner-city high school, we have more full-time military recruiters for 
the senior class than we have high school counselors.
  Our goal is to cut down on juvenile crime; thus, we must ensure our 
young people the ability to seek services that they need to help them 
cope with their problems so that they can be out of harm's way of the 
escalation of violence and tragedy. The increase of funding and actual 
number of school counselors is a measure that must be taken. I must 
say, I am utterly baffled as to say why the Republican Party is so 
hesitant to actually adopt legislation that would actually produce 
results to help our young people in this country with counseling and 
other preventive means.
  Mr. Chairman, allow me to conclude by calling upon all of the Members 
of this House to support the Goodling amendment to H.R. 1150. It is my 
hope that in the future, our political parties could work more closely 
together, though, in favor of the children.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I certainly rise in strong support of the 
Goodling amendment. I especially want to note the leadership of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) on this notable reform.
  It goes without saying that we have all become aware of the 
particular growth of juvenile crime and violence, and Littleton and 
Conyers, Georgia, and other recent developments have certainly burned 
those lessons into our minds, and into the conscience of the Congress. 
I believe, we must respond very appropriately today.
  This amendment is a needed response, and I want to stress that it is 
prevention. If we had understood and applied the intention of this 
legislation, it is very possible that Littleton would not have 
happened. Indeed, I was working on the mental health components of this 
bill before Littleton the massacre did occur. In fact, as we learned 
later, that Harris and Klebold had been released from parole with 
glowing reports from the probation officer just 11 weeks before the 
massacre at Littleton, while at the very time that they were plotting 
and constructing bombs. Littleton became exhibit A of what we are 
trying to do in this bill, and particularly the mental health component 
of it.
  In fact, the statistics became real at that point in time. According 
to the Department of Justice, 73 percent of the youth in the juvenile 
justice system have reported severe mental health problems.
  So it is obvious that this amendment that I was able to get into the 
bill is essential. It is a screening assessment, a mental health 
screening assessment and treatment that makes mental health treatment 
and assessment an allowable use of funds in the Prevention Block Grant.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not go into all of the details of the amendment, 
but I will submit for the Record the applicable legislation at this 
point, particularly as it applies to the projects which would be 
permitted under the mental health needs.

     ``PART C--JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 241. AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.

       ``The Administrator may make grants to eligible States, 
     from funds allocated under section 242, for the purpose of 
     providing financial assistance to eligible entities to carry 
     out projects designed to prevent juvenile delinquency, 
     including--
       ``(1) projects that provide treatment (including treatment 
     for mental health problems) to juvenile offenders, and 
     juveniles who are at risk of becoming juvenile offenders, who 
     are victims of child abuse or neglect or who have experienced 
     violence in their homes, at school, or in the community, and 
     to their families, in order to reduce the likelihood that 
     such juveniles will commit violations of law;
       ``(2) educational projects or supportive services for 
     delinquent or other juveniles--
       ``(A) to encourage juveniles to remain in elementary and 
     secondary schools or in alternative learning situations in 
     educational settings;
       ``(B) to provide services to assist juveniles in making 
     transition to the world of work and self-sufficiency;
       ``(C) to assist in identifying learning difficulties 
     (including learning disabilities);
       ``(D) to prevent unwarranted and arbitrary suspensions and 
     expulsions;
       ``(E) to encourage new approaches and techniques with 
     respect to the prevention of school violence and vandalism;
       ``(F) which assist law enforcement personnel and juvenile 
     justice personnel to more effectively recognize and provide 
     for learning-disabled and other juveniles with disabilities;
       ``(G) which develop locally coordinated policies and 
     programs among education, juvenile justice, and social 
     service agencies; or
       ``(H) to provide services to juvenile with serious mental 
     and emotional disturbances (SED) in need of mental health 
     services;
       ``(3) projects which expand the use of probation officers--
       ``(A) particularly for the purpose of permitting nonviolent 
     juvenile offenders (including status offenders) to remain at 
     home with their families as an alternative to incarceration 
     or institutionalization; and
       ``(B) to ensure that juveniles follow the terms of their 
     probation;
       ``(4) one-on-one mentoring projects that are designed to 
     link at-risk juveniles and juvenile offenders who did not 
     commit serious crime, particularly juveniles residing in 
     high-crime areas and juveniles experiencing educational 
     failure, with responsible adults (such as law enforcement 
     officers, adults working with local businesses, and adults 
     working for community-based organizations and agencies) who 
     are properly screened and trained;
       ``(5) community-based projects and services (including 
     literacy and social service programs) which work with 
     juvenile offenders and juveniles who are at risk of becoming 
     juvenile offenders, including those from families with 
     limited English-speaking proficiency, their parents, their 
     siblings, and other family members during and after 
     incarceration of the juvenile offenders, in order to 
     strengthen families, to allow juvenile offenders to be 
     retained in their homes, and to prevent the involvement of 
     other juvenile family members in delinquent activities;
       ``(6) projects designed to provide for the treatment 
     (including mental health services) of juveniles for 
     dependence on or abuse of alcohol, drugs, or other harmful 
     substances;
       ``(15) programs that focus on the needs of young girls at-
     risk of delinquency or status offenses;
       ``(16) projects which provide for--
       ``(A) an assessment by a qualified mental health 
     professional of incarcerated juveniles who are suspected to 
     be in need of mental health services;
       ``(B) the development of an individualized treatment plan 
     for those incarcerated juveniles determined to be in need of 
     such services;
       ``(C) the inclusion of a discharge plan for incarcerated 
     juveniles receiving mental health services that addresses 
     aftercare services; and
       ``(D) all juveniles receiving psychotropic medications to 
     be under the care of a licensed mental health professional;
       ``(17) after-school programs that provide at-risk juveniles 
     and juveniles in the juvenile justice system with a range of 
     age-appropriate activities, including tutoring, mentoring, 
     and other educational and enrichment activities;
       ``(c) Training and Technical Assistance to Mental Health 
     Professionals and Law Enforcement Personnel.--The 
     Administrator shall provide training and technical assistance 
     to mental health professionals and law enforcement personnel 
     (including public defenders, police officers, probation 
     officers, judges, parole officials, and correctional 
     officers) to address or to promote the development, testing, 
     or demonstration of promising or innovative models, programs, 
     or delivery systems that address the needs of juveniles who 
     are alleged or adjudicated delinquent and who, as a result of 
     such status, are placed in secure detention or confinement or 
     in nonsecure residential placement.''.

     SEC. 212. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

       Title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5611 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after part D, as added by section 111, the following:
       (b) Report.--The National Academy of Sciences shall submit 
     a report containing the results of the study required by 
     subsection (a), to the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the 
     Chair and ranking minority Member of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives, 
     and the Chair and ranking minority Member of the Committee on 
     Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, not 
     later than January 1, 2001, or 18 months after entering into 
     the contract required by such subsection, whichever is 
     earlier.

[[Page H4516]]

       (c) Appropriation.--Of the funds made available under 
     Public Law 105-277 for the Department of Education, $2.1 
     million shall be made available to carry out this section.

     SEC. 262. STUDY OF THE MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS OF JUVENILES IN 
                   SECURE OR NONSECURE PLACEMENTS IN THE JUVENILE 
                   JUSTICE SYSTEM.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator of the Office of Juvenile 
     Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention, in collaboration 
     with the National Institute of Mental Health, shall conduct a 
     study that includes, but is not limited to, all of the 
     following:
       (1) Identification of the scope and nature of the mental 
     health problems or disorders of--
       (A) juveniles who are alleged to be or adjudicated 
     delinquent and who, as a result of such status, have been 
     placed in secure detention or confinement or in nonsecure 
     residential placements, and
       (B) juveniles on probation after having been adjudicated 
     delinquent and having received a disposition as delinquent.
       (2) A comprehensive survey of the types of mental health 
     services that are currently being provided to such juveniles 
     by States and units of local government.
       (3) Identification of governmental entities that have 
     developed or implemented model or promising screening, 
     assessment, or treatment programs or innovative mental health 
     delivery or coordination systems, that address and meet the 
     mental health needs of such juveniles.
       (4) A review of the literature that analyzes the mental 
     health problems and needs of juveniles in the juvenile 
     justice system and that documents innovative and promising 
     models and programs that address such needs.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the 
     Congress, and broadly disseminate to individuals and entities 
     engaged in fields that provide services for the benefit of 
     juveniles or that make policy relating to juveniles, a report 
     containing the results of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a) and documentation identifying promising or 
     innovative models or programs referred to in such subsection.

     SEC. 263. EVALUATION BY GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

       (a) Evaluation.--Not later than October 1, 2002, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a 
     comprehensive analysis and evaluation regarding the 
     performance of the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency and 
     Prevention, its functions, its programs, and its grants under 
     specified criteria, and shall submit the report required by 
     subsection (b). In conducting the analysis and evaluation, 
     the Comptroller General shall take into consideration the 
     following factors to document the efficiency and public 
     benefit of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), excluding the Runaway 
     and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) and the 
     Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5771 et seq.):

  Mrs. ROUKEMA. For example, an assessment by a qualified mental health 
professional. Had this been applied when Harris and Klebold were in the 
probation system, perhaps it would not have occurred, and people would 
have diagnosed them with their problems earlier.
  I must say that the reforms are long overdue, and they are consistent 
with everything we know about corrective treatment. Above all, I want 
to say that these reforms will bring greater security to our schools, 
greater safety to our communities, and a brighter future for all 
America's families, and perhaps will save the lives of countless 
victims who are at risk.
  I would also like to point out that in addition to the block grant 
provision, we have a mental health assessment and a study that I was 
happy to work with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) on, 
and that study should give us a great deal of information for the next 
round of reforms.
  Let us all pray, that our efforts here will be the first meaningful 
step on the way to a complete overhaul of our culture of violence--
guns, videos, entertainment and a system that ignores the mental health 
and educational instruction reforms needed for our estranged and 
violent prone youth. Remember, ``an ounce of prevention is worth a 
pound of cure.''
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking minority member of the 
committee.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time. I want to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) for all of their hard work in pulling this legislation together. 
I want to thank them for accepting the language that the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) and I have offered on mental health 
services and the screening programs within this legislation.
  I think that this legislation is key, as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) pointed out in his remarks, to really 
dealing with the long-term problems within our society and with dealing 
with chronic delinquency and our best efforts at trying to prevent that 
behavior. We are here today reacting because of what 6 or 8, 10 kids 
have done across this country, killing dozens of young schoolchildren, 
but the fact is, 20 million children went to school last year, or this 
year, day in and day out and caused relatively little problem.
  We do now know from a great deal of study and research that a 
relatively small group of people contribute rather dramatically to the 
crime figures among young people in this country. But that same 
research and those same studies tell us that many of these children 
come as a confluence of a series of events in their lives, sometimes 
very early on, because of the status of the mother during pregnancy, 
because of neurological and biological factors during birth, low verbal 
ability, neighborhood characterized by social disorganization and 
violence, parental criminality, substance abuse, inconsistent and harsh 
parental practices. All of these combined, and the researchers tell us 
this is a very lethal combination of events in a young child's life. 
And when they come together, these children who now, in many instances, 
we are able to diagnose and to look at, and the question is will we be 
willing to treat them and be able to prevent the kind of horrible 
activity that they later engage in.
  This is a complicated problem and a complicated issue. There is not a 
silver bullet amendment that will answer this. We can attack Hollywood, 
we can attack Marilyn Manson, we can attack video games such as Mortal 
Kombat. What we really know is those are really insignificant if a 
child has had strong bonding and strong guidance and strong counseling 
from their parents, and they have a healthy relationship with their 
parents. But if they do not have that, and they do not have these 
resources to call upon, and then they engage in that kind of, or are 
subject to that kind of bombardment from media and from entertainment, 
they are candidates for serious problems.
  So this legislation that the Education and Labor Committee struggled 
with long and hard, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) especially, I think gives our 
country one of the best hopes we have in dealing with juvenile 
delinquency and hopefully preventing juvenile delinquency, because that 
is really our goal. It is not to be here next year reacting to the next 
set of violent activities by young people, but it is to give our 
communities, our schools, and our juvenile justice system the tools to 
try and treat these children and to prevent this activity from taking 
place.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend our committee for working in such a 
bipartisan fashion to come to this conclusion.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise to strongly support this 
bipartisan amendment. I think it is a very solid piece of work out of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  A lot of folks do not understand how this juvenile justice 
legislation works in the House, but we have the jurisdiction in the 
Committee on the Judiciary on juvenile crime matters, which are the 
base bill of H.R. 1501 here today, and all of the concerns that I have 
presented in the last few hours of yesterday and some of today over how 
we need to put consequences back into the law for juveniles and how we 
need to repair our broken juvenile justice systems around the States.
  But an equally important companion part of that, which is what the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce does and is doing here today, 
to deal with those programs that are prevention programs, and the 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and today we are 
seeing some major steps in the right direction. The formation of a 
block grant program instead of having it broken into many pieces; the 
idea of taking the mandates that are the requirements on the States in 
order to get this grant program, there are four of them that have

[[Page H4517]]

been around, core mandates, while protecting and preserving their basic 
principles, modifying them so that they can become more flexible and 
manageable and workable in ways that have been criticized in meetings 
that I have been to all around the country, a major step in improving 
them in this bill today.
  I want to commend the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) for 
the mental health provisions in here. I worked long and hard with her 
to try to help encourage the change of the law so that we are able to 
see juveniles who have mental health problems properly attended in that 
regard. That is a major part of the causes of the juvenile crime, the 
violent crime that we are addressing here today.
  So I strongly support this amendment, and I am very pleased to be 
here today supporting it.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  This legislation, which has been offered by the Chair of the House 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), is a reconstruction, redraft of the 
Juvenile Crime Control Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974.

                              {time}  1500

  It is a comprehensive document, 100 pages of great effort on the part 
of both sides, the majority and the minority, in the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  I want to concur with all the statements that have been made thus 
far, and compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for their tireless efforts in 
putting together a bipartisan product.
  It is not often, particularly from our committee, where the two sides 
can come together and have such a substantial agreement on an important 
piece of legislation dealing with our young people and dealing 
specifically with the issue of prevention of delinquency.
  This is not a matter that has come up since Littleton and school 
violence, this is a matter that has been under the jurisdiction of this 
committee for 25 years. These two gentlemen, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) have been laboring for years to put together a piece of 
legislation that will adapt from the previous enactment and try to 
comprehend the current circumstances that our young people are living 
under, the kinds of pressures that they must endure, and the need for a 
preventative system to be incorporated into our laws.
  It is regrettable, Mr. Chairman, that this magnificent piece of work 
was snatched away from the Committee on Education and the WorkForce and 
pulled away from the bill that is under consideration for the last 24 
hours, child safety and protection. There is no way that this Congress 
or this Nation can view the matter of child safety and protection only 
from the punitive aspects. It has to be dealt with from the 
preventative aspects, of how do we deal with problems before the child 
has to come into the justice system.
  That is what this amendment does that the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Goodling) has offered for our consideration. I am here today to 
rise in very strong support, and urge this House to add this very, very 
important title II to the bill that is under consideration.
  If we fail to enact this title II and agree to the Goodling 
amendment, we will have left out a significant portion of what this 
country expects this Congress to do in dealing with child safety and 
protection. That is, what can we do as a society to prevent our 
children from coming into harm's way, and how to deal with potential 
juvenile crime issues.
  The Goodling amendment represents responsible, bipartisan legislation 
that has been carefully worked out by our committee. It passed the 
subcommittee unanimously. It was about to be reported out to the floor 
when now we are faced with these circumstances of asking that this 
entire 100 pages be added to the pending legislation, because without 
it, we do not have substantial preventative measures.
  The goal of this amendment is to reduce crime, but primarily it is 
the prevention elements of this legislation that are so important. It 
contains a block grant program that allows States to carry out projects 
designed to prevent juvenile delinquency, including educational 
projects, mentoring projects, community-based projects, and many other 
strong prevention programs.
  It maintains the core focus of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act of 1974, prevention over punishment. We do not need 
punishment if we can prevent the crime in the first place, and prevent 
our young people from coming into the system.
  If we want to address the real problems of juvenile offenders, we 
need to put serious efforts into our prevention programs.
  I wanted to offer an amendment and went to the Committee on Rules, 
but I was not given that privilege, to talk about the importance of 
school counselors. But I am pleased today that this main amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) will help in 
this direction.
  The Goodling amendment is an excellent start. It focuses on early 
intervention, helping our youth before they get into trouble. The 
Goodling amendment creates a juvenile delinquency prevention block 
grant program which will allow monies to be allocated for projects in 
mental health, as we heard our colleague, the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) explain, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller) concur.
  It has educational projects, mentoring projects, literacy social 
service programs, substance abuse, substance abuse, educational 
scholarships, job training, after-school programs, and a whole other 
group of programs which the States can pick from in order to deal with 
their own individualized programs.
  I call upon this House to give unanimous consent to the Goodling 
amendment, because without it the Child Safety and Protection Act of 
1999 will not address the significant ways in which this Congress and 
this country must deal with juvenile crime, and that is to have 
substantial prevention programs.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Upton), a very active member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support for this 
amendment and sharing a commitment to finding a comprehensive solution 
to the problem. Education, parental involvement, youth activities, and 
accountability are just a few of the very important elements of this 
challenging issue.
  The rate of juvenile crime, particularly violent crime, is of growing 
concern throughout the country. This amendment, a bipartisan amendment, 
introduced by my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
acknowledges that prevention is the key to preventing juvenile crime 
for most of our youth.
  This amendment streamlines current law. It reduces burdensome State 
requirements, and it provides States and local providers with greater 
flexibility in addressing juvenile crime. The amendment acknowledges 
that most successful solutions to juvenile crime are developed at the 
State and local level of government by those individuals who understand 
the very characteristics of youth in that area.
  I know in my district, particularly in Kalamazoo, Michigan, a 
coalition of local law enforcement officials are working together to 
beef up enforcement of the State's curfew laws, to identify peak 
juvenile crime hours, and fight truancy from school.
  By working with existing groups such as the Kalamazoo public schools, 
the Ys, the boys and girls clubs, these groups hope to establish 
meaningful programming that in fact provide constructive alternatives 
to street activity.
  I know that the YMCA Lincoln Program Center in Kalamazoo in the North 
Side gives hundreds of kids, and I have visited there, ranging from 
ages 6 to 16 a safe and positive alternative to life on the streets. 
More than just a drop-in center, this program instills

[[Page H4518]]

the values of care, honesty, respect, and responsibility into virtually 
every single activity.
  The prevention components of this amendment would go a long way 
towards supporting similar delinquency programs and activities across 
the country.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, in the long run, our work today will have 
far-reaching effects on the quality of life for our neighborhoods and 
their children for years to come. I am looking forward to continuing to 
be involved and motivated in this effort.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey), a hard-working and knowledgeable member of 
the committee.
  (Ms. Woolsey asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for introducing the Goodling 
amendment and bringing it here today, which is a true bipartisan 
effort.
  No matter where Members stand on guns, no matter where they stand on 
the First Amendment, they must, they must stand for activities that 
prevent youth from committing crimes. If Members do, they will vote for 
the Goodling amendment.
  The Goodling amendment provides funds for the States to enact a 
comprehensive system of juvenile delinquency prevention. These funds 
can be used for a variety of prevention activities, such as after 
school programs, counseling services, anti-gun activity, mentoring, and 
tutoring. All of these programs are needed and wanted by our youth.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the biggest problems we have in this country is 
that we have too little time for our youth. We are not taking care of 
them, and we are not listening to them. If a child is lucky enough to 
have two parents, probably both of those parents are in the work force. 
They not only work an 8-hour day, they probably commute at least 2 
hours beyond that every single day, which results in not nearly enough 
time for our children and our families.
  When youth are ignored, Mr. Chairman, that neglect turns into 
frustration, which turns into anger, which oftentimes results in 
violence. This bipartisan amendment expands our community's resources 
to correct this problem, to work with our youth, to provide needed 
programs and support for them. It helps juveniles before they get into 
trouble. It uses Federal funds to prevent juvenile crime, rather than 
spending money to punish juvenile offenders.
  The Goodling amendment invests in our children, and that is the 
soundest investment this country can make. Stand for our children and 
vote for this bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo). (Mr. Tancredo asked and was given permission 
to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I 
want to also say that, although there have been times when I have 
disagreed with my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood), his commitment to address the problems of youth, the youth 
in our country, is extremely commendable. I just want to tell him that 
I sincerely appreciate his efforts on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to specifically support that provision of the 
amendment which deals with giving the ability to schools to use funds 
for the establishment of safe school hotlines.
  It was shortly after the incident in Colorado, after a brief 
discussion with a colleague of mine, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson) was telling me about the safe school hotline program that was 
operating in Georgia. He was telling me of the success of the program. 
I endeavored to replicate it in Colorado, and was able to do so with 
the help and participation of a number of organizations, including the 
State Department of Education and the CBI and AT&T.
  I want to speak about the specific issue that I know to be a very 
positive step in prevention. This is one thing that in fact does give 
us some ability to control the environment. It gives children the 
ability to control their own environment and to go back into schools. 
They are so afraid, and I get many, many calls from parents who talk 
about the fact that their kids were afraid to go back into schools 
after this event. This gives children and parents some degree of 
control over that environment. For that, I say it is the best possible 
thing that we can do.
  I heard many references to Colorado and to specifically Columbine 
during the debate on this bill. I must say that although I sincerely 
hope and pray that anything we do in this bill would work to prevent a 
replication of that incident, that it is also my sincere belief that, 
frankly, what these two gentlemen were talking about in Colorado, it 
was not necessarily more counseling they needed, as they had plenty of 
that, it was an exorcist.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I sincerely support the amendment.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 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 thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I enthusiastically rise to support this legislation, 
and I thank the gentleman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), 
for the very fine work that has been done.
  If this has been said already, let me just simply repeat it: 
Prevention, prevention, prevention. That is really what we should be 
discussing today and over the period of time. That is what this 
unfortunate crisis of school violence and troubled children should have 
gotten us to do, and that is to emphasize the need for doing something 
on behalf of our children.
  I am delighted to have joined my colleague, the gentleman from New 
Jersey, as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary to add the 
language that talks about mental health resources and risk assessment 
for our children, so that we are not always looking to lock them up, 
but we are intervening and trying to provide school counselors, social 
workers, guidance counselors, school nurses, to ensure that troubled 
children have somewhere to go; that someone is listening. When I visit 
my schools, that is what they emphasize, can someone simply listen to 
us?
  The urban scouting program in many of our cities, as I am a member of 
the Boy Scout Board in our community, they go into inner cities and 
develop scouting programs there as well, youngsters going into scouting 
as opposed to going into gangs. The Fifth Ward in Richmond program that 
takes inner city boys, it takes them and tells them there is more to do 
in life, they can be what they want to be. The PAL program, boys and 
girls clubs, these are the emphasis we should have. We should be 
fighting against gun violence, but attempt giving our children 
something to do.
  In my own school and community, in my own county, these particularly 
core values are going to be very important, and removing juveniles from 
jails with adults, because when you put them there, they become 
murderers, rapists, other things we want our children not to be.
  Lastly, let me say that we have a terrible problem in this country. 
That is the overrepresentation of minorities in the juvenile justice 
system. It happens every day in Harris County, Texas, that the largest 
numbers of those going through the juvenile system and being 
incarcerated are from the minority community.
  It is a shame that our juvenile judges in that community only have 
that to do. With this legislation, we will be able to give them 
alternatives, preventative programs, programs that give children an 
opportunity. That is all parents are asking, hard-working parents that 
work every day that are really trying to monitor their children's 
behavior, but they have responsibilities that sometimes overwhelm them.

                              {time}  1515

  We in the community do not have to take over the parenting but we can 
certainly emphasize the preventive measures that so many great 
organizations

[[Page H4519]]

are doing in our community, and they simply need the incentive in the 
juvenile justice system and in the educational system to be able to 
offer alternatives.
  I am hoping that Harris County juvenile justice system and the judges 
in particular in my community will stop locking up our juveniles, stop 
locking up minorities in an over-percentage as they do, and take 
advantage of the legislation that has been so wonderfully drafted and 
provide prevention, prevention, prevention.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), a member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity 
to rise and speak in favor of keeping the youth of America safe and 
secure and out of the juvenile justice system. I know the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), 
many Republicans and Democrats have worked many long hours for many 
years to put this good legislation together.
  The Goodling amendment contains important core principles, such as 
maintaining the separation of juveniles and adult criminals when they 
are held at the same facility. But the most essential thing of this 
amendment addresses how to keep youth out of the juvenile justice 
system.
  How does this amendment do this? We enable schools and community 
organizations to identify the needs of at-risk youth and to give these 
organizations the resources they need to craft solutions which best 
address these specific needs.
  This requires communities to work together on behalf of their 
children. Parents, teachers, schools, community leaders, businesses can 
band together to address the unique challenges presented to their 
teams. We should not live in a society in which schools are separated 
from the communities around them. The most important prevention 
programs, whether in schools, community centers or other locations, 
should take into consideration the needs of the youth in the 
communities.
  We already know the best deterrent to youth violence: family 
involvement. The National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health has 
some amazing but predictable findings. One of the most stabilizing 
factors in a youth's development is strong family involvement. It keeps 
them from getting into troublesome activities such as drugs, alcohol, 
sex or violent behavior.
  Some of the programs that communities can put into place as a result 
of the Goodling amendment encourages family involvement and provides a 
positive role model as well as positive activities for youth in our 
Nation. I support and trust parents, school officials, and local 
community leaders to craft strong juvenile delinquency prevention 
programs and, as I stated earlier, the primary goal of this amendment 
is to keep teens out of the juvenile justice system.
  Again, I support the adoption of the Goodling amendment, which 
returns dollars and decisions to communities.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say at this time we have before us an excellent 
bipartisan bill, and our special gratitude should go out to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott). Both of them have brought not only their 
expertise to this bill but their deep concern.
  That is extremely important, and I deeply appreciate it myself. I 
know this House appreciates it.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood), another member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, my thanks go to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for offering this amendment, which is 
much like a past bill we have debated many times. I am delighted we are 
going to have the opportunity to vote on it today.
  The fact is much of what we really have been hearing in the last 
couple of days, in my opinion, is a lot of political posturing. Many of 
the bills being offered are offered in order to secure political 
points, not to really deal with the problem of juvenile violence and 
violence in our schools.
  Well, this amendment actually does. This amendment actually deals 
with some of the problems and the causes of youth violence and offers, 
I think, some real help toward solutions of these problems.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to encourage prevention 
activities. I think we all recognize that prevention programs can be 
very helpful with juvenile crime. I do not, for example, for one 
moment, believe that prevention programs are the solution within 
themselves. That is not the whole answer. We do need very strong 
disciplinary actions and we have done so in other parts of this bill, 
but prevention programs are a part of the mix, a vital part of the mix, 
especially if we allow our States and cities and localities the time 
and space in their life to implement those most successful solutions 
that occur at home.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe we do just that with the Goodling amendment, 
and I want to urge all of our Members to support this.
  I would like to remind our Members that on July 15, 1997, most of my 
colleagues voted for H.R. 1818. That was legislation that is very, very 
similar to this amendment today, and those that have been around for 
awhile, I will remind them that the vote was 413 to 14. So they have 
every good reason to continue their good work from 1997 and vote for 
this amendment today.
  I urge all of our Members to support the Goodling amendment, and 
again I thank my friends on both sides over here for making this 
opportunity possible.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have spent much of yesterday and today trying rather 
desperately to devise a wide range of responses to the school 
shootings. Some of those we have supported; some of those we have 
rejected. One other component of the amendment that is before us, that 
I would like to mention, is the effort of the committee to actually try 
to understand precisely what happened in each of these terrible school 
shooting tragedies.
  This language before us contains funding, a nominal amount of 
funding, to get to the National Academy of Sciences, which will put 
together a group of the country's greatest experts on child development 
and on the impact of media on the development of children; other 
specialities in the social services. They will travel to each of the 
towns where these terrible school shootings have taken place, and they 
will interview, where possible, the shooters.
  They will interview their siblings, their parents, their teachers, 
their friends, their neighbors. They will pay particular attention to 
trying to understand the perpetrators' early development, the 
relationships with their families, community and school experience; the 
relationship between the perpetrators and their victims; how the 
perpetrators gained access to firearms; the impact of cultural 
influences and exposure to the media, video games and the Internet; and 
other issues that the panel deems important.
  What we hope, Mr. Chairman, is that at the conclusion of that study 
we will have a report that will be useful not only to our committee and 
to the Congress but to every community and school in the country, as 
every community tries to grapple with those issues that trouble our 
youth and to make sure that our children are safe and well nurtured.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, for the last 2 days we have heard from many 
of our colleagues talking about what Washington can do to combat crime 
on our streets. The amendment that I rise in support of goes a long way 
to achieving this very goal. However, it accomplishes it in a way that 
combats the crime but leaves Washington out of the combat.
  I support this amendment because instead of a Washington-knows-best 
approach, States and local leadership are

[[Page H4520]]

given the resources they need to design solutions best suited to combat 
violence in their streets.
  It accomplishes this by streamlining current law, reducing burdensome 
State regulations and providing States and local communities greater 
flexibility in addressing juvenile crime.
  The Goodling amendment begins with a basic acknowledgment that 
prevention is the key to stopping juvenile crime for most youth. It 
also puts teeth into this statement by combining current discretionary 
programs into a prevention block grant to States and local authorities 
allowing them broad discretion in how they use these funds.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is based on a bipartisan bill, H.R. 
1150, that I am a proud cosponsor of. This legislation and now this 
amendment will provide States and local governments the ability to be 
flexible in their approach while still maintaining a strong preventive 
record against juvenile crime. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman 
Goodling) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for their 
leadership and for bringing this amendment to the floor.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt), in yet another demonstration of the 
bipartisan nature of this work.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for yielding the time, and I apologize for 
being late to get into the debate.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment I am sure is going to pass almost 
unanimously, and I intend to vote for it. I think it is a good idea, 
but I did want to point out that this approach is just absolutely 
inconsistent with what we did yesterday under the McCollum amendment, 
when we federalized juvenile crime on the punishment side, and I rose 
on the floor yesterday to say, look, these are issues that are better 
dealt with at the local level.
  We should not be federalizing juvenile justice. We ought to be 
localizing juvenile justice. It is ironic that a number of the same 
people who will be voting for this amendment, which is a good 
amendment, and recognizing the fact that juvenile justice and 
prevention is best done at the local level, many of those same people 
were the folks who voted for the McCollum amendment yesterday, which 
essentially substantially federalized juvenile justice on the penalty 
side.
  I think that amendment was shortsighted and counterproductive and I 
think this amendment is a good amendment and is worthy of support. I 
just wish that more of my colleagues had had this same kind of States' 
rights spirit and local initiative spirit yesterday when we were 
debating the McCollum amendment, which should have failed and should 
have failed by the same margin that this amendment deserves to pass by.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me add one word of personal thanks. Members on both 
sides of the aisle have congratulated our staff on both sides of the 
aisle on the committee and personal staff, and I would like to take 
that opportunity as well. Judy Borger, my legislative director, has 
worked day and night on this issue for many months, not only this year 
but last year.
  So often the American public has negative thoughts about what happens 
here in Washington, and I only wish they had a fuller understanding of 
the gargantuan and Herculean efforts that our staff make when they 
devote their long evenings, well past midnight and often their 
weekends, and Judy Borger on my staff has been as instrumental as 
anyone in the process of perfecting this legislation, and I want to 
personally thank her.
  Mr. Chairman, not only have we provided a bipartisan product but we 
have done it in less than the time allotted to the debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 37 printed in part A of 
House Report 106-186.


                 Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Roemer

  Mr. ROEMER. 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. 37 offered by Mr. Roemer:
       At the end of the bill, add the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
       

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY 
                   PREVENTION ACT OF 1974.

       Section 223(a)(10) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5633(a)(10)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (N) by striking ``and'' at the end,
       (2) in subparagraph (O) by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and'', and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(P) programs that provide for improved security at 
     schools and on school grounds, including the placement and 
     use of metal detectors and other deterrent measures.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer), and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank our leaders, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) and also acknowledge the very important work of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  I want to thank the Committee on Rules for allowing this amendment to 
be considered on the House floor. I want to thank the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), my cosponsor, who is continually and 
constantly concerned about school safety and children's issues. I want 
to thank him for his help and his dedication in helping put together 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very easy amendment. I am going to ask, 
hopefully, that both sides accept it. The language in this amendment 
simply states that, under the bill's juvenile delinquency prevention 
block grants, that they permit as an allowable use certain school 
security improvement projects, including the placement and use of metal 
detectors.
  I say this for three or four reasons, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I 
think all of us agree that the local community and the local school is 
the best place to decide how to use, in hopefully preventive, in 
proactive ways, these monies. That is what this amendment says. Let us 
give the flexibility to the local school to decide if the placement and 
use of metal detectors is helpful and appropriate.
  Secondly, metal detectors have been an effective deterrent in 
schools. They have worked for the most part effectively in airports. A 
lot of schools want to use them. Let us have that be an allowable 
expense.
  Thirdly, we have seen from Littleton to Jonesboro, Springfield, 
Paducah, Pearl, and Conyers, Georgia, that many parents are saying in 
national polls and in our town meetings they do not feel like our 
schools are safe enough. This amendment helps provide some of that 
safety and maintains the local use, the local flexibility to determine 
that.
  Lastly, although this is not scientific, I recently received a letter 
from 30 of my students back home in South Bend, Indiana. Every single 
one of those students advocated that we have the option to use metal 
detectors. So I would hope that, in a bipartisan way, with bipartisan 
spirit, that this body would accept the Roemer-Rothman amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Rothman), the cosponsor of the amendment.

[[Page H4521]]

  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) for yielding me this time. It has been a great privilege and 
pleasure to have worked with the gentleman from Indiana on this 
amendment. He has been a leader on so many issues of concern to parents 
and schoolchildren, and his expertise and his dedication to the area of 
education is unparalleled in this House, and it has been an honor to 
work with him. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for allowing me to 
join with him as a cosponsor of this amendment. I thank the Committee 
on Rules for allowing our amendments to be joined together.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roemer-Rothman amendment. It 
is very straightforward. This amendment would allow a State or a local 
government to use this Federal grant money to purchase or lease metal 
detectors for their public elementary or secondary schools if they so 
choose.
  It is a terrible reality today that our schools are not as safe as 
they once were. Many children are afraid to go to school because they 
are afraid they are going to be shot. Tragically, these fears are not 
unfounded. The school shootings in Conyers, Littleton, Jonesboro, 
Springfield, Paducah, and Pearl have taught us that children are 
bringing guns to school. Worse, they are using them to shoot and kill 
other children.
  The schools in America are trying their best to deal with this 
problem in a variety of ways, but I believe that the only way to ensure 
that guns are kept out of schools is to install metal detectors.
  But as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) said, not every school 
will wish to exercise this option, and that is their right and their 
judgment as a local school district making this kind of local decision. 
But other school districts may feel that metal detectors are the way to 
go and are necessary for their districts.
  One thing we have learned is that metal detectors work. They have 
worked in the airports for the last 25 years. When the Federal Aviation 
Administration, in response to a horrific wave of terrorism that 
terrorized our Nation, decided to install metal detectors in our 
airports, they have worked. The amount of guns and terrorism brought on 
our airplanes has declined dramatically. We can and should have the 
same result for our schools and schoolchildren.
  Did they eliminate terrorism? No. Did they address the root causes of 
airplane hijackings? No. And so metal detectors in schools will not on 
their own address all the problems of gun violence or eliminate the 
root causes of juvenile crime. They will not even force parents or 
compel parents to spend more time with their children or to take more 
of an interest in their children's lives, or even to find ways to keep 
guns out of the hands of their children in the first place. But what 
metal detectors will do is keep guns out of our schools.
  We have, as a body, and as a Democratic Party, tried to address the 
whole host of reasons for gun violence and juvenile crime. But this 
amendment deals with keeping guns out of schools.
  I will just tell my colleagues a little bit about Elizabeth, New 
Jersey, my State, where 4 years ago they decided to install metal 
detectors in the middle schools and the high school. There has not been 
one single gun brought into those schools since metal detectors were 
installed.
  Why has every school in America that has wished to install metal 
detectors not done so? Because it is expensive. Walk-through metal 
detectors can cost up to $8,000 apiece. Hand-held metal detectors can 
cost several hundred dollars.
  Now, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) says, this is not a 
Federal mandate. It is an option for local school districts to make the 
choice whether to use this Federal grant money for metal detectors or 
some other safety devices in their own judgment for their own school 
need.
  Some schools will not apply for metal detectors, but those who will 
should know that they will then have the ability to get some of this 
Federal grant money for metal detectors which will be effective in 
keeping guns out of their schools.
  Metal detectors are one effective way to make our schools safer, and 
local school districts should have this choice. I urge the adoption of 
this amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 
time otherwise reserved for a Member in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Greenwood) is recognized for 10 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to support the amendment of the two 
gentlemen. It is consistent with the flexible provisions and with the 
other provisions that encourage cooperation between communities and 
schools. We support it heartily and look forward to its passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just would conclude by thanking again the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for his helpful suggestions during 
the course of the last couple of weeks when our bill made its way to 
the floor. I again thank the Committee on Rules and the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) for his hard work on this issue.
  I encourage the body to show their bipartisan support for this 
amendment. It is not going to be a panacea for school violence 
everywhere. Our families are going to do that. Parental involvement in 
schools are going to help with that. Some preventive school safety 
measures in this bill might help. Some measures forward on video 
violence might help. But this is a step in the right direction. I would 
appeal to both sides to support 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 Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38 printed 
in part A of House Report 106-186.


                Amendment No. 38 Offered By Mrs. Wilson

  Mrs. WILSON. 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. 38 offered by Mrs. Wilson:
       At the end of the bill, add the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY 
                   PREVENTION ACT OF 1974.

       Section 223(a)(10) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5633(a)(10)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (N) by striking ``and'' at the end,
       (2) in subparagraph (O) by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and'', and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(P)(i) one-on-one mentoring programs that are designed to 
     link at-risk juveniles and juvenile offenders, particularly 
     juveniles residing in high-crime areas and juveniles 
     experiencing educational failure, with responsible adults 
     (such as law enforcement officers, adults working with local 
     businesses, and adults working with community-based 
     organizations and agencies) who are properly screened and 
     trained; or
       ``(ii) programs to promote or develop partnerships with 
     established mentoring programs, including programs operated 
     by nonprofit, faith-based, business, or community 
     organizations to provide positive adult role models and 
     meaningful activities for juveniles offenders, including 
     violent juvenile offenders.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate over the last 2 days, and 
we have read the underlying bills and the amendments. They do a lot of 
the things that government does well. We have enhanced sanctions and 
built prisons. We have authorized States to use this $1.5 billion in 
block grant money to hire judges, more probation and parole officers 
and prosecutors, and buy metal detectors and buy computers and computer 
systems and all of the things that government is pretty good at.

[[Page H4522]]

  But for all the talk about litigation and gun control, there is one 
very simple thing that I think we overlooked; and that is the essence 
of this amendment.
  The amendment that I am proposing authorizes States and local 
communities to use monies for mentorship in partnership with 
organizations that have established programs for mentorship, whether 
they be nonprofits or business organizations or faith-based 
communities, to reach out to kids who are in trouble with the law.
  It is not a very glamorous thing, mentorship. It takes a lot of time 
and a lot of commitment. But it is really the only thing that helps a 
child turn their life around.
  I used to be the cabinet secretary of the State of New Mexico 
responsible for the juvenile justice system. I want to share with my 
colleagues some things about the kids that I met there.
  Most juvenile delinquents have lives that are outside of our 
experience. I know a boy who was 14 years old. We used to have a 
program, and we still do in New Mexico, where kids who are about to be 
paroled go to dinner with a business person from the community just 
before they get paroled. They usually go to a steak house or someplace 
nice for dinner, and the business person buys their dinner, and dinner 
usually for a boy. Ninety percent of our juvenile delinquents are boys.
  A friend of mine went to this dinner and was with a 14-year-old boy 
from eastern New Mexico. He watched him struggle with a steak. Most of 
our kids have never had steak before, and he had not. But the thing he 
was struggling with was how to use a knife and a fork.
  I was at the New Mexico Boys School in Springer in one of my many 
visits there and was being toured around by one of the boys, as I often 
did. He was a member of a gang, and I asked him about it at the end. He 
had a 2-year-old son.
  I said, ``When you leave here, are you going back to the gang?'' He 
said, yes, he was. He explained that his father had been in the gang, 
and he was in the gang, and it was part of his life. I said, ``What 
about your son?'' He said, ``No, it has to stop somewhere.''
  But the father is the role model for the son. Seventy percent of the 
kids who are incarcerated in this country have little or no contact 
with their fathers. We would all hope that the parent is the positive 
role model that they need, that one caring adult in their lives. But so 
many of these kids do not have that, and it is up to us to find those 
positive adult role models who can teach a child how to use a knife and 
a fork, how to become a good man, even if maybe they were not such a 
good boy.
  That is what this amendment is about, Mr. Chairman, is authorizing 
those kind of programs that bond a community with young people so that 
they do not throw their lives away and send all of us the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and I ask unanimous 
consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) 
for this excellent amendment. Because of her extensive background in 
juvenile justice, she knows what works and what does not work. We know 
that education works. Giving young people constructive things to do 
with their time also works, but also the adult interaction that is 
embodied in this amendment.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is perfectly consistent with the 
amendment that we just adopted and could probably be funded under one 
of those provisions. But I think it is important to highlight the 
successes and what the studies have shown about these particular kinds 
of programs, and for that reason I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico for this excellent amendment and urge the Members of 
Congress and Members of the House to approve it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and conclude by saying that I believe we will turn the corner on 
juvenile crime in this country when organizations like Methodist Youth, 
or the Baptist Choir, or the Boy Scouts of America start growing 
exponentially in the neighborhoods where my colleagues and I are afraid 
to go at night. We will turn this country around one kid at a time, and 
that is what this amendment offers.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Goodling

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, proceedings will now 
resume on the Goodling amendment, No. 36, on which further proceedings 
were postponed.
  The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) 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 424, 
noes 2, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 226]

                               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
     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
     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
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     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 (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
     Martinez
     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

[[Page H4523]]


     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     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
     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)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--2

     Bereuter
     Paul
       

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Evans
     Houghton
     Miller, Gary
     Shays
     Thomas
     Waxman

                              {time}  1609

  Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, UDALL of New Mexico, and GUTIERREZ 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 226, the Goodling 
amendment, I inadvertently pushed the ``no'' button on the voting box; 
it was my intention to vote ``aye'' and I want the Record to reflect my 
intent.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 39 printed 
in Part A of House Report 106-186.


                Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Norwood

  Mr. NORWOOD. 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. 39 offered by Mr. Norwood:
       At the end of the bill, add the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):

     SEC. ____. AMENDMENTS TO THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES 
                   EDUCATION ACT.

       (a) Placement in Alternative Educational Setting.--Section 
     615(k) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1415(k)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph (11); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) Discipline with regard to weapons.--
       ``(A) Authority of school personnel.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this Act, school personnel may discipline 
     (including expel or suspend) a child with a disability who 
     carries or possesses a weapon to or at a school, on school 
     premises, or to or at a school function, under the 
     jurisdiction of a State or a local educational agency, in the 
     same manner in which such personnel may discipline a child 
     without a disability. Such personnel may modify the 
     disciplinary action on a case-by-case basis.
       ``(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) 
     shall be construed to prevent a child with a disability who 
     is disciplined pursuant to the authority provided under 
     subparagraph (A) from asserting a defense that the carrying 
     or possession of the weapon was unintentional or innocent.
       ``(C) Free appropriate public education.--
       ``(i) Ceasing to provide education.--Notwithstanding 
     section 612(a)(1)(A), a child expelled or suspended under 
     subparagraph (A) shall not be entitled to continue 
     educational services, including a free appropriate public 
     education, under this title, during the term of such 
     expulsion or suspension, if the State in which the local 
     educational agency responsible for providing educational 
     services to such child does not require a child without a 
     disability to receive educational services after being 
     expelled or suspended.
       ``(ii) Providing education.--Notwithstanding clause (i), 
     the local educational agency responsible for providing 
     educational services to a child with a disability who is 
     expelled or suspended under subparagraph (A) may choose to 
     continue to provide educational services to such child. If 
     the local educational agency so chooses to continue to 
     provide the services--

       ``(I) nothing in this title shall require the local 
     educational agency to provide such child with a free 
     appropriate public education, or any particular level of 
     service; and
       ``(II) the location where the local educational agency 
     provides the services shall be left to the discretion of the 
     local educational agency.

       ``(D) Relationship to other requirements.--
       ``(i) Plan requirements.--No agency shall be considered to 
     be in violation of section 612 or 613 because the agency has 
     provided discipline, services, or assistance in accordance 
     with this paragraph.
       ``(ii) Procedure.--Actions taken pursuant to this paragraph 
     shall not be subject to the provisions of this section, other 
     than this paragraph.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 615(f)(1) of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1415(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting 
     the following: ``Except as provided in section 615(k)(10), 
     whenever''.
       (2) Section 615(k)(1)(A)(ii) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1415(k)(1)(A)(ii)) is 
     amended by striking ``but for not more than 45 days if--'' 
     and all that follows through ``(II) the child knowingly 
     possesses or uses illegal drugs'' and inserting ``but for not 
     more than 45 days if the child knowingly possesses or uses 
     illegal drugs''.

  Mr. CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and a Member opposed each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, to the chagrin of some of my colleagues, I 
yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I say that because I have had so much help in support 
of this amendment from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Petri) the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill) the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Shadegg) the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) 
and the list goes on. I thank them greatly for their support and help 
in bringing this to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to begin the debate on a very important 
reform that will help ensure safety in our school classrooms. When I 
talk to teachers and principals and superintendents at home, and I talk 
to them a lot, just like many of my colleagues do, I find that school 
safety is one of the greatest topics of concern. They are very, very 
concerned for the safety of themselves and the students, and they are 
very specific with me about one of the ways we can help them improve 
school safety at home.
  Schools must be allowed to have a consistent policy for disciplining 
children who bring weapons to school. As it stands now, Federal law 
requires schools to have two different discipline policies for those 
who do bring a weapon into the classroom, one policy for disabled 
students and another policy for non-disabled students.
  Current Federal law requires the student who brings a gun to school 
be suspended from school for a year. We rightly and should have a zero-
tolerance policy for guns at school. However, for disabled children, 
that rule simply does not apply. Schools are not allowed to have the 
same discipline rule for disabled students.
  A disabled student receives preferential treatment when it comes to 
being punished for bringing weapons to school. For all practical 
purposes, a disabled student would be suspended for no longer than 55 
days and even then must be provided educational services.
  My amendment begins the change. It allows schools to have a 
consistent discipline policy for students who bring weapons into the 
classroom. It allows students with disabilities who bring a weapon to 
school to be disciplined under the same policy as a non-disabled 
student in the exact same situation. It ends the two-tiered discipline 
policy that is in current law. It sends a message that weapons at 
school will not be tolerated.
  Additionally, this amendment clarifies that school personnel may 
modify

[[Page H4524]]

any disciplinary action on a case-by-case basis.

                              {time}  1615

  Let me repeat that. This amendment clarifies that school personnel 
may modify any disciplinary action on a case-by-case basis. I doubt 
that there can be a more important job in America today than teaching 
our children. This is especially true for special education teachers. 
Education for those with disabilities allow all of our children to have 
the opportunity to learn and succeed. We are for that. We all are for 
that. But at the same time, Mr. Chairman, we need to make sure that our 
teachers and students are protected. We need to be sure they are safe 
in schools. We need to ensure that our children, disabled and 
nondisabled alike, have a safe learning environment in their school. 
Learning itself will soon become a casualty if we do not do this. Make 
no mistake, a vote for the Norwood-Talent amendment is a vote for 
school safety. A vote against the Norwood-Talent amendment is a vote 
against school safety.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is recognized 
for 30 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This 
amendment guts an historic bipartisan legislative act which was signed 
into law just 2 years ago. When this very issue was considered after 
months of deliberation, it was rejected by a majority of witnesses at 
legislative hearings and rejected by Congress. The current policy of 
providing educational services to suspended and expelled disabled 
students prevailed as part of that historic bicameral, bipartisan 
legislation when we reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, known as IDEA. And so under current law, a child with a 
disability who is suspended or expelled from the regular classroom for 
any reason is still entitled to continued educational services. Now, 
those services may be provided at home, in an alternative school or 
even in prison. But, Mr. Chairman, I know of no public policy benefit 
which can be achieved by sending these children into the street without 
any educational services even if they are being involved with weapons.
  I would point out in this amendment, the definition of ``weapon'' is 
so vague and unworkable and overbroad that it would include a baseball 
bat, bringing a baseball bat to school. But that being aside, in fact, 
I see no public benefit of depriving any child of an education, whether 
they have a disability or not. It is difficult for any student who is 
expelled to ever catch up and graduate from school. We learned during 
hearings on youth crime that the link between crime and dropping out of 
school is very strong. For example, studies report that 82 percent of 
State and local prisoners are high school dropouts. For children with 
disability, the correlation is even stronger. Research shows that 
children with disabilities who are put out of school without 
educational services are much less likely than other children to ever 
catch up, much less likely to graduate from high school, less likely to 
be employed, and substantially more likely to be involved in crime.
  Some support cessation of services because they think it has a 
deterrent effect. But those who put any thought into that issue know 
that threatening a child with a 1-year vacation from school will not 
serve as a deterrent from misconduct. In fact we have heard from 
several law enforcement organizations who oppose the policy embodied in 
this amendment because they recognize that it will not make our 
communities safer.
  For example, a national coalition of police chiefs, prosecutors and 
crime victims wrote us a letter which said, in part, ``giving a gun-
toting kid an extended vacation from school and from all responsibility 
is soft on offenders and dangerous for everyone else. Please don't give 
those kids who need adult supervision the unsupervised time to rob, 
become addicted to drugs and get their hands on other guns to threaten 
students when the school bell rings.''
  Mr. Chairman, some have suggested that students with disabilities who 
are disciplined for involvement in weapons should be treated just like 
other students involved in weapons. In fact, they can be treated like 
anybody else with weapons. They can be removed from the classroom. But 
you must continue their education. The IDEA program is premised on the 
recognition that children with disabilities need more support than 
other students in order to maintain an education. There is nothing to 
suggest that less support is needed when they have disciplinary 
problems, even if there are serious disciplinary problems.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no reason to make matters worse by passing the 
problem on to other agencies. An alternative education is certainly 
cheaper than jail or prison and the phenomenal success of some States 
in preventing serious discipline problems from developing in the first 
place suggests that there are much better approaches to school safety 
and discipline than expulsions without educational services. Yet 
despite these successes and overwhelming evidence that interventions 
can reduce disciplinary problems, it is difficult to understand the 
rationale behind this amendment because it strips away some of the very 
provisions in IDEA that most experts would agree are the prudent things 
to do in order to prevent future disciplinary problems, provisions such 
as implementing an intervention plan in order to address the behavior 
that got the student in trouble in the first place.
  Even more disturbing about this amendment is the fact that it would 
cease educational services to students even when the behavior is 
directly related to the child's disability. This amendment would 
prevent vital educational services to be taken away from profoundly 
disabled students who did not even know what they were doing was wrong.
  Now, over the course of several years in which we have extensively 
debated the discipline provisions in IDEA, no one has ever suggested 
taking away services from children with disabilities where the behavior 
was determined to be related to the child's disability. In fact, the 
original Republican IDEA bills from the 104th and 105th Congress did 
not propose such an extreme provision. It has never been discussed in 
any of the hearings that we have had in IDEA.
  Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to 
reject this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. All of us up 
here know that anybody is an expert that agrees with you. There are 
experts on both sides of this issue. I want to just point out this 
business about the definition that they are complaining about, the 
definition of a weapon. Members really should have voted against that 
in 1997 if they did not like that definition. The current definition, 
they have already voted for at least once, in 1997, when that 
definition passed through the IDEA bill by 420-3. Now is a little late 
to be concerned about that. We have things in our bill that take care 
of that.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure and also a great honor for me to 
yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), a good 
friend of mine who has worked very diligently on this.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I want to say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), I know 
we have worked a long time on this issue. I am on the committee, too. 
It is a hard issue. I worked on that compromise we passed 2 years ago. 
We have had some events since that compromise passed 2 years ago. We 
have had some tragedies.
  When I talk to my teachers back home, my superintendents, my 
principals, my experts, the ones on the ground who are doing the 
teaching, and I talked to a group of them a couple of weeks ago, I 
said, ``What are you doing in response to these problems?'' They said, 
``The same thing we have been doing. We network with the kids, we have 
security, we try and stop this violence before it occurs.'' I said, 
``What do you need from the Federal Government?'' They did not mention 
a lot of the things that we have been working on the last 2 days and 
some of which I voted for. What they said is what they

[[Page H4525]]

 have been telling me year after year after year, ``Look, give us the 
authority to get violent kids out of the classroom.'' They do not have 
that authority now where the child is considered to be disabled under 
the IDEA program.
  That is what this amendment is designed to do. It is not an extreme 
amendment. Seventy-four members of the Senate voted for a very similar 
amendment. That covered guns, this covers all weapons. That is the only 
difference between them. Now, the reason we need to do this is first 
and foremost for the direct safety of the children involved and not 
just the other kids in the classroom but the child who is threatening 
them with a weapon or has a weapon and could threaten them. They are in 
danger, too. We need to get them out of that environment. This 
amendment allows the schools to do that as long as they treat that 
child the same way they would treat a child who is not disabled under 
the IDEA program.
  The other reason why it is so important and it may be even more 
important, because we have to promote a respect in the schools for the 
basic rules that allow all of us to live together. We have to send a 
consistent message to the students that this is the priority of the 
adult world, protecting the kids against violence, adhering to a basic, 
rudimentary standard that is the guarantor of all safety and order, 
particularly in the schools.
  We cannot have one group of kids, and one of 12 kids in the country 
are in this group. We cannot say to them, look, for whatever reason, 
maybe it is a good reason, but for whatever reasons, you can do these 
things, you can bring a knife to school, you can bring a gun to school 
and we really cannot do anything about it and you will be back in the 
classroom in a maximum of 45 days. We cannot say that anymore.
  I have examples coming from the State of Missouri. Everybody else 
here does. A child who brought a knife on a school bus and threatened 
the other kids, 45 days later she was back in the classroom and back on 
that school bus. What would you do if you were a parent of one of the 
other children after what has happened in Columbine? You know what you 
would do.
  Mr. Chairman, to close, what we have done with this amendment is what 
the Senate did except instead of applying it just to firearms, it 
applies to weapons. The gentleman from Georgia talked about what that 
is. It is knives, it is bombs, it is things that we would ordinarily 
and commonly understand as a weapon. The safeguard for the IDEA child 
is they have to be treated the same as everybody else. You cannot 
single them out. Other than that, we adopted the Senate amendment which 
got 74 votes.
  I urge the House to approve this. We are going to have the K through 
12 reauthorization bill coming up later in the year. We will be able to 
address other aspects of it then, but in the meantime, let us give our 
superintendents and our principals and our teachers what they have been 
telling us all for years that they really need and they really have to 
have, and which the parents in our districts as a matter of common 
sense expect to have. Give the schools the opportunity to deal with 
weapons and violence in the classrooms.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I will just read the definition that has been cross-referenced. The 
term ``dangerous weapon'' means a weapon, device, instrument, material 
or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for or readily capable 
of causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does 
not include a pocketknife with a blade of less than 2\1/2\ inches in 
length.
  That would include a baseball bat, Mr. Chairman, and Members know it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Norwood amendment. I have 
come to have a great deal of affection for the gentleman from Georgia 
because of his rough and tumble style and his straightforwardness, but 
on this amendment I must disagree with him.
  I guess I have been here a long time. I was here long enough to write 
the education for all handicapped children's act along with other 
Members of Congress. I wrote the language that said that these children 
were entitled to a free and appropriate education and they were 
entitled to an education in a least restrictive environment. Many years 
later, I also wrote the first Federal gun-free school legislation that 
was passed several years ago which said if you bring a gun to school, 
you are out for a year, because I thought we needed very clear and 
bright lines. Then when we rewrote the education for handicapped 
children, what is now known as IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, we pondered and discussed this problem and had hearings 
and went around and around in our committee and this bill passed, I 
think he said, 400 something to 3, or unanimously in both Houses.

                              {time}  1630

  And we recognized that there were two distinct populations. There 
were children with disabilities, and there were children who we call 
normal, if you will, and those children with disabilities, children 
with Down's Syndrome, retarded children, children who have cerebral 
palsy, with conduct disorders, with multiple sclerosis, with attention 
deficit disorder, those children were different, and yes, there is a 
different policy. But if either of those children bring a weapon to 
school, they can both be immediately suspended from school or expelled 
from school. If you are a child with disabilities, you can be suspended 
for 10 days, and then we have to sit down and figure out why did you 
bring this weapon to school. Was it because of your disability? Is this 
something you understood or you did not understand?
  One can be out for 45 days. There is no requirement that one go back 
to that school, one go back to that classroom. One can be put in an 
alternative setting. And in that alternative setting, those schools in 
Florida and Iowa, and those districts, California and others, in Iowa, 
after adopting a program to deal with children who act out in class, 
who present a threat, not with guns and knives, but because of their 
own behavior, because of their disability, these are children who are 
trapped with a disability. They have cerebral palsy, they act out, they 
flail around. They have multiple sclerosis, they have Down's Syndrome, 
they bump into other kids, they threaten and they say things. You do 
not think they would give up that disability in a minute, in a minute? 
But they cannot, they cannot.
  But in Iowa, after adopting model management programs, they took the 
suspensions of disabled children from 220 a year to zero, to zero. We 
can work with these children, we can help these children.
  But what does this amendment do? It says, if you bring a weapon to 
school, you go out on the streets, and that is why the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) told us, police chiefs and prosecutors and victims 
of crime have said do not do this. Work with these children.
  What do we know about how we can do this? We can do this because we 
understand the disabilities, and we sit down with the parents and we 
work out a plan to deal with this violence. This is not some kid who 
knows what he is doing and cavalierly, recklessly walks in with a gun 
in school or a knife in school: You are out. That is a law I wrote. We 
should have zero tolerance. But with a child where that may be as a 
result of their disability, we ought to know that before we have them 
pay that kind of price. Because again, as the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) pointed out, when we throw these children out of school, 
they do much worse, and as the police chiefs have pointed out to us, 
they engage in one heck of a lot of activity. Some have suggested when 
we throw them out, give them back a gun and a mask, because they 
certainly show up in the crime statistics after they are out of here.
  But we should not be doing this. We should not be doing this to these 
young kids.
  Mr. Chairman, there is two distinct populations. Let me just say, 20 
million children went to school day in and day

[[Page H4526]]

out this school year, and a dozen of those children, for what reasons 
we have not yet to fathom, engaged in violence against their 
schoolmates and killed and injured their schoolmates. Not one of those 
children was an IDEA child.
  This is the equivalent of hitting the Chinese Embassy. This is the 
equivalent of bombing the Chinese Embassy. We are trying to deal with 
those children who are shooting other children, who are engaging in 
that kind of violence against other children in schools, and now we 
have chosen to target in some ways the most vulnerable population in 
those schools, those children with disabilities, those children with 
disabilities.
  If we want consistency, let us not take the child that has a 
disability and have them pay a greater price, although I think we can 
deal with them in the same way in terms of suspension and expulsion, as 
long as they have some educational services. Here we have children that 
are targeted. The kid in Oregon that shot his schoolmates was suspended 
with no services, no education, no nothing; came back to school later 
and shot them. We now have kids who are crying for them, and your 
answer is to throw them out of school with no requirement to engage 
them in a plan. That does not sound to me very encouraging for parents 
who are worried about school safety, and it certainly does not deal 
with these children as we know we must under the laws of this land. We 
must deal with them with respect to their civil rights and make sure 
that we are not discriminating against them. Mr. Norwood said these 
children have preferences. I want to meet the child with Down's 
Syndrome who has a preference or cerebral palsy that has a preference, 
or a child with serious attention disorder, that has a preference? No, 
they have a disability.
  Mr. Chairman, because they have the courage and their parents have 
the courage and school districts have the courage, they have an 
opportunity to possibly get a decent education and become productive 
members of this society, and this Norwood amendment would throw this 
all out. It should be rejected out of hand.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would need probably an hour and a half 
to respond to that diatribe, but I will take 30 seconds, if I could.
  Let me just simply point out, we are not throwing anybody out in the 
streets, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) knows that. We 
are saying that you have to be treated equally, and that the paramount 
issue in schools is the safety for 99 percent of the children. We are 
saying they are treated equally. They are suspended for 10 days, that 
is true, and then another 45 days, but the reality of the fact is that 
many of them are getting back in school.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague 
from the great State of Georgia for yielding me this time.
  As the gentleman on the other side just said, there are two distinct 
populations. Well, he was right. There are, indeed, two distinct 
populations that bring us to this point, that this legislation offered 
by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and myself and others today 
bring us. There is the population of students who do not bring guns to 
school, and there is the population of those students that do bring 
guns to school. That is the essence of the problem here, equipping our 
teachers, our school administrators, and our parents with the tools to 
remove that second population: students that bring weapons to schools 
for whatever reason, for whatever reason.
  One has to question, of course, if a parent would send a child with 
cerebral palsy to a school with a weapon to wave around. Very frankly, 
it would make me perhaps even somewhat more concerned if we started 
seeing that sort of thing in our schools. It does not really matter to 
those parents who have children who have been shot, wounded and killed 
with weapons that the bringing of that weapon to the school might have 
been a manifestation of anger or a manifestation of a disability. Their 
son or their daughter is just as injured, is just as dead as if the 
weapon that did that damage were brought to school by a child without a 
disability.
  This is fair; this is common sense.
  By the way, Mr. Chairman, why are we not hearing those two terms, 
fairness and common sense, from the other side today? All day 
yesterday, all day the day before, all morning today we hear about 
common-sense approaches to gun control. We hear about fairness.
  Well, there is something that the American public perceives as very 
fair, and that is treating all students who pose a danger to their sons 
and daughters and their teachers by bringing a weapon to school, 
treating them the same. There is something that strikes the American 
public, although not the folks on the other side, as common sense, and 
that is any student who brings a weapon, a gun, to a school poses a 
danger to the other students and ought to be, if, in the judgment of 
the local school officials, which is what the Norwood-Barr amendment 
does, if they believe that the student poses a danger, they may, they 
may, not they shall, but they may expel that student, remove that 
student for whatever length of time they believe is necessary to ensure 
the safety of the other students.
  This amendment to the IDEA legislation is the most fair, the most 
common-sense approach imaginable, because it simply tells our parents 
that when they send their sons and daughters to schools, that if there 
is another student who brings a weapon and thereby endangers their sons 
and daughters, they will be treated the same as other students.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the Norwood-Barr amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, these children have 
disabilities. These children are the kind of children that years ago we 
used to put in institutions and take the key and throw it away. These 
are the kinds of children that parents would come to the school 
districts and cry and plead, do something for us. These children are 
treated unequally, and we have tried to treat them equally by providing 
services for them.
  I do not know where we are going with this. We do not want violence 
in our schools. We do not want to have children in classes intimidated 
by those with weapons. But we are talking about disabled children.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) made it clear. This is not 
something that has been going on for years. We have only been able to 
deal with Down's Syndrome, the child with cerebral palsy, the child 
that is mentally disabled; only in recent years have we given them 
opportunity for education. We need to come to the floor of the House; 
no matter what the Senate rushed to do, let us be deliberative.
  I would just ask my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), listening 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), would the gentleman from 
Georgia accept a friendly amendment that says that what we will do with 
these children is to provide them with the alternative services that 
they need, such as other types of educational facilities; that the 
gentleman amend his amendment to provide for not the, if you will, the 
expulsion for a year, but to provide and refer them to services that 
they might need? Would the gentleman take a friendly amendment right 
now?
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would have considered it 3 days ago, but 
I will not consider it right now on the House floor. I will tell the 
gentlewoman, though, that one can offer services. Nothing in this bill 
says that the schools back home cannot offer services.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the gentleman. I was hoping that the gentleman would come in a 
bipartisan way and recognize that expelling a mentally or physically 
disabled child does nothing for the parent or the child but create 
havoc. I wish the gentleman had accepted that friendly amendment.
  Yes, they can have services after they are expelled, and maybe the 
services will not last long. We are talking about children whose civil 
rights will

[[Page H4527]]

be denied. That is why we have the IDEA, because we knew that these 
children are different. They are different, they are in need. Their 
parents are frustrated, their parents are crying.
  The question is on the record today: What will we do for America's 
children? Will we throw them to the wolves and let them be at your door 
with a gun because they are physically challenged or mentally 
challenged, or will we say that whatever the Senate rushed to do, we 
know that they are different, not because they desire to be different, 
but because God made them different, and if God made them different, 
then why do we not do something to help them with their disability as 
opposed to destroying them and not letting them be contributing adults?
  I think this is an incredulous amendment. I wish I could come here 
and have accepted the willingness of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood) to say we will forget about expulsion and we will make sure 
that they are expelled, if you will, to a year-long set of services 
where they can be taken care of. That is not the case. The gentleman is 
telling me that they are expelled.
  I would just simply thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce for having the wisdom to 
provide for our disabled children in America. Vote this amendment down, 
because it discriminates against people who cannot do for themselves.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Bryant)
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
With all due respect to my good friends and colleagues who oppose this 
amendment, this is not the end of the world.
  Let us think about this a minute. We have a school somewhere in 
America where in most instances there is a zero tolerance policy if one 
brings a gun or weapon to school. That means one gets kicked out of 
school, because people have looked at this and weighed the interest of 
public education or an education versus the physical safety of other 
students. If one student brings a gun to school, that student forfeits 
that right to an education for that year, in the interest of the other 
students' safety there. That is good policy.
  Now, we are not talking about every student that might, could have 
been sent to an institution at one time. Right now, the statistics show 
that anywhere from 11 to 12 percent of our student population in 
America right now would be covered by this bill. They have some sort of 
disability. Very many of them are marginal, and very many of them know 
the extent that they can push these laws that they cannot be sent out 
of school. And primarily, it is to those that we are talking about, 
although there is an equal application.
  So if one has two students in that school that has a zero tolerance 
policy, and one of those students is part of the 88 percent who are not 
covered by this act and gets caught with a gun, this student gets 
kicked out for a year. But if we have another student, his friend, who 
is part of that 12 percent that is covered by the disabilities act, he 
gets caught with another gun, he does not suffer that same type of 
punishment.
  Now, in Washington and in society and in courts and in our system of 
justice, very often we have to deal with competing, competing good 
values. The IDEA bill is a good bill. We ought to ensure people with 
special disabilities have an education. But there is that competing 
value of safety for our other children, and I urge my colleagues to 
stand up and support this amendment for all of the students, and equal 
treatment for all of the students.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez).
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Here we go again, make a deal and break it. They want us to work in a 
bipartisan way. We did work in a bipartisan way on IDEA. IDEA had this 
debate. We had this debate fully in the last Congress. We came to a 
resolution on it. There are protections in the bill that provide for 
the principals and teachers and everybody else to take care of 
situations as the gentleman is trying to take care of here, but in a 
very deleterious way.
  The fact is the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) says treat them 
like everybody else. They were not treated like everybody else until 
the law was passed to force the local school districts to treat them 
like everyone else and give them an equitable education. But they have 
not been.
  Let me tell the Members, if they really believe these children are a 
threat to the rest of our children by guns and knives, these particular 
kinds of children, then I have some ocean-front property in Arizona I 
will sell to the Members. That is the biggest baloney I have ever 
heard.
  What we are trying to do here is circumvent a program we all voted 
on, and it passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate and was signed 
into law by the President. We all went to the White House, both 
Republicans and Democrats, to see this consensus bill signed into law. 
Now here in the next session of Congress we are trying to break the 
agreements that we made in that Congress. I find that very unlikable.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I did not make any agreement in the last 
Congress never to come back and try to make this better.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. I take back my time, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman was 
part of the Committee on Education and the Workforce that passed that 
out. The gentleman was also part of this Congress that voted on it. I 
do not know how the gentleman voted because I did not look up the 
record, but the gentleman was part of that Congress.
  That Congress agreed that we would take care of these situations in a 
very definite way. Most of the States have already figured out that 
kids with special disabilities who get into this kind of a problem need 
some kind of alternative schooling, not being kicked out of school, not 
being denied education.
  We held a hearing before that markup of that bill. In that hearing 
some very conservative people testified that it was the most stupid 
idea in the world not to continue these children's education.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill), who has been so very helpful 
in helping us put this together.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the overriding concerns that has been debated 
through many amendments on this floor over the last 2 days is that we 
want to have zero tolerance of violence in our schools. That is an 
admirable goal. I think everybody that has come here has been working 
to try to achieve this.
  A parent who is sending their child to school this morning wants to 
know one thing: that there are not going to be any guns at school when 
their child gets there. This amendment is probably the most commonsense 
way to help achieve that.
  Under current Federal law, local schools do not have the authority to 
establish a single universal standard for disciplining kids who would 
bring a gun to school. But beyond that, schools can be required to 
incur incredible costs, legal fees, extraordinary education costs, 
special placement costs for kids who would bring a gun to school and 
threaten their fellow students or their teachers.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very confusing, complicated, and difficult 
problem. But what this amendment simply says is that schools can hold 
all the students in that school to the same standard. If students bring 
a gun to school, there is going to be a consequence. That consequence 
is going to apply to everybody. It does not dictate what those local 
school standards ought to be. It leaves that up to the local school 
board. It is narrowly drafted. It applies only to weapons.
  We need to make clear, this amendment does not prohibit schools from 
providing special services to those children who have special needs. 
This Congress has gone on record time and

[[Page H4528]]

again, repeatedly stating that it supports greater flexibility, more 
empowerment for local decision-makers, reducing red tape, cutting 
unnecessary and wasteful regulations. This amendment continues that 
effort.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this amendment is 
endorsed by my Montana School Board Association, the National School 
Board Association. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens).
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I am very surprised and disappointed that 
this amendment is being introduced today. What this action represents 
is a kind of back-door ambush of children with disabilities. It is a 
violation of a covenant of the community of people with disabilities, 
because we had a lengthy dialogue with them. We had hearings, we had 
long discussions when we were considering the refunding of IDEA.
  At that time we took it through the process of conference committees 
with the Senate and House together. We voted on the floor. We all came 
to the conclusion finally that we did not want this provision in the 
legislation.
  So here we are today, unprepared. The community of people with 
disabilities certainly did not know this ambush was going to take 
place. The majority party, which always appears or wants to appear to 
be in harmony with the goals of the community with disabilities, comes 
through the back door with this kind of amendment.
  The call that I have heard from the other side to get violent 
children out of schools implies that children with disabilities are 
violent. Where does that information come from? Generally children with 
disabilities are not violent and do not deserve to be labeled as being 
violent. The equation of this being a move to make schools safer by 
getting violent children out, when the amendment is addressed, it is 
getting out children with disabilities.

  The evidence is that the violence is originating from those who are 
not disabled. All of the most dramatic incidents that have taken place 
recently do not involve children who have been identified as being 
children with disabilities. Some might have disabilities, but they were 
not identified as such. They would not have come under the purview of 
this amendment, anyhow.
  Why have a special rule for children with disabilities, I have heard 
the question asked. That is what the legislation was all about that we 
developed years ago. We said they need special attention, that they are 
vulnerable. All children are vulnerable, but children with disabilities 
are more vulnerable, and because of the way they have been treated in 
this country, we had to have a Federal law to make sure that they were 
getting equal treatment.
  Equal treatment required they had to have some kind of special 
attention. This is accepted generally when children have physical 
disabilities. It is accepted you are not going to require a child with 
a physical disability to go to the same physical education classes. It 
is accepted that they can use certain kinds of procedures in entering 
and exiting schools.
  A lot of things are accepted. The problem is that there is a great 
prejudice against children who do not have physical disabilities being 
put in the category of children with disabilities. That is what this is 
really all about. The mentally retarded, the mentally ill, they look 
physically normal. Somebody has just described them on the other side 
as being marginal. That is the source of the great controversy. There 
is a great pressure from school boards and pressure from people who 
appropriate money at every level to get rid of all of these children 
who have non-physical disabilities which are obvious, get them out of 
the situation where they require extra funding.
  If that were not so, then the solution to this would be that if 
Members are really fearful of children with disabilities in the regular 
classroom setting, and we remove them from the classroom setting for 
some reason, then we provide an alternative.
  But no, this amendment will not accept or mandate that there be an 
alternative. We agreed in the committee that all right, if you have to 
do this, you must provide alternative education for children with 
disabilities. But that does not solve the problem they are really 
after. They want to cut costs, the costs of providing alternatives, 
which would be even greater than leaving the child in the classroom, so 
they do not have the cleansing operation for the so-called mentally 
retarded and the mentally ill and those who are marginal. We are always 
questioning whether they really belong there or not.
  We have said children with disabilities are vulnerable. All children 
are vulnerable. We have special rules and we make special rules at the 
Federal level and other levels for children for that reason. These are 
the most vulnerable children, and these are children who should be 
treated with great care.
  The mission and thrust of the Federal law is to deal with the special 
situations. The fact that so much of it happens to be mental and not 
physical is something we are going to have to live with and be able to 
pay the cost for.
  Fairness and common sense was mentioned a few minutes ago. Fairness 
and common sense demand that we have more evidence that there is really 
a problem. I have not heard the evidence that our schools are under 
siege by children with disabilities bringing weapons to school. Where 
is the evidence? I have heard the statement made, but there is no 
evidence. We do not have a problem. This amendment is fixing a problem 
that does not exist.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let me just say that special needs children are treated differently. 
Everybody who is sponsoring this amendment totally agrees in that, that 
they deserve special attention. But when it comes to weapons and when 
it comes to guns, everybody in school must be treated the same, so that 
we can protect the 99 percent of the other students.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Norwood 
amendment. I do so with personal experience in my own life, and with 
now 5 years service in this Congress, where I have talked to teachers, 
I have talked to principals, I have talked to school administrators, 
and I have talked to State legislators about this issue.
  I want to make it very clear, IDEA is a well-intended law. Indeed, it 
does a great deal of good. No one on this side of this issue would 
argue that there are not disabled children who deserve protection, that 
there are not seriously disabled children who need the protection of 
this law, children with Downs syndrome, children with cerebral palsy, 
children with other severe disabilities.
  My friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) is right to say 
we need to fight to protect those children, and fight to protect the 
parents of those children who are trying to take care of those 
children.
  But the sad truth is that there are other children who are misusing 
the law, who are perverting IDEA to protect their disruptive conduct. 
These are not Downs syndrome children, these are not cerebral palsy 
children. These children are not severely disabled.
  They do understand the rules of conduct. Their disability does not 
prevent them from complying with the rules of conduct. They understand 
those rules and they can conform. But my colleagues, the sad fact is, 
some of these children are gaming the system. They game the system by 
saying, I am disabled, and getting a psychiatrist or psychologist to 
say they are disabled, to protect their disruptive behavior in class.
  If my colleagues on the other side do not recognize that there are 
people in our system today, kids, aided by their parents, using IDEA to 
shield them from their discipline misconduct, which allows them to 
disrupt the classroom, prevent schools from having appropriate learning 
atmospheres, and destroy the education of other children, if they do 
not understand that that is occurring, if Members do not understand 
that there are children and

[[Page H4529]]

parents perverting the system, and that they are disrupting the 
education of every child, then Members are not talking to the teachers 
in their district, they are not talking to the principals in their 
district, and they are not talking to parents in their district, or the 
administrators in their district.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members, this is a commonsense amendment, 
but we need to go much further than this. This is closing the barn door 
after the horse is out. We need to give parents, teachers, and 
principals the ability to control schools when children pervert a good 
law to use it to their benefit.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Norwood amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman who has just 
spoken, I would like to say that I would be happy to join the gentleman 
in perfecting an amendment similar to one that I offered in the 
committee, which was not accepted, which would deal with the problem of 
mislabeled children. If that is what the gentleman wants to deal with, 
that children are labeled as being disabled who are not disabled, do 
not have disabilities, that is another kind of problem which is a 
serious problem.
  Why do we not address that problem, instead of addressing the problem 
through the back door this way, saying that those who do have 
disabilities, that is what this amendment says; those who do have 
disabilities, bona fide disabilities, those who have been through a 
certification process and, there is no question. You are saying that 
they should be kicked out.
  If the gentleman wants to raise questions after the incident occurs, 
if there is a weapon and a student has been charged with not being 
really a disabled student, let us have a process by which they are 
again reviewed and there is another recertification process. Those are 
things we need. We need to wade into that. I would be happy to join the 
gentleman in an amendment for that effect.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), to respond to that question.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, one, I am happy to join with the gentleman 
on his amendment in ESEA reform which is coming later this year.
  Number two, I offered such an amendment in the Committee on Rules and 
it was rejected but, number three, I think the flaw in the gentleman's 
logic is the flaw in the logic of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller) when he argued the language says ``may discipline,'' not ``must 
kick out.'' May discipline; not, must kick out. It does not say they 
must be kicked out. It says they may be disciplined.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has 10\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT. I am the last speaker and we have the right to close, I 
believe.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood) and congratulate him on a very measured and reasonable 
amendment, which I certainly support.
  Let me tell a story that actually happened in my home State. Four 
students were caught passing a gun among themselves at a school-
sponsored event. Three of these students were expelled. The student who 
actually brought the gun to the school-sponsored event was not 
expelled. Why was he not expelled? Because he was identified as a 
special needs child under the IDEA program and was only put in an 
alternative program.
  This actually happened and is happening across the United States of 
America. Unfair, unequal justice and I think we should all agree, Mr. 
Chairman, that even juvenile justice should be equal and consistent.
  When I go back home to my district and talk about education, it is 
not just the parents who want safety in schools. Talk to the teachers, 
talk to the administrators and they tell me, Congressman, if you want 
to do something about education, to help us at the local level, give us 
the flexibility and authority to impose fair discipline and equal 
discipline in our schools.
  Actually, Mr. Chairman, they wish we would go farther and extend this 
not only to weapons but to other forms of school safety.
  Yesterday I voted against an amendment that sounded good. It sounded 
like we would have zero tolerance on drugs in our schools, but it 
imposed a new Federal mandate on local government and local school 
districts. This Norwood amendment takes a different approach. It gives 
school districts and local governments more flexibility. It provides 
more flexibility to educators and allows local school boards and 
administrators to impose fair, equal and consistent discipline across 
the board.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), our newest Member from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time yielded from my 
colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), and I appreciate 
the opportunity to speak.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a couple of things to my colleagues 
on the other side.
  I am married to a wonderful lady for 31 years, a special speech and 
hearing, special child teacher. I was in the State legislature and 
helped to implement 42-194, which Mr. Miller coauthored in this House 
in the 1970s, and I am pleased the last 2 years to chair the Georgia 
Board of Education, where 1,368,000 kids are in school, taught by 
87,000 teachers.
  I want to make one thing real clear. There have been some 
misstatements, not intentionally I am sure, but I want to clarify. 
Number one, I would say to my dear friend, the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Norwood), it is not 1 in 100. It is 13 in 100. It is a number of 
students who fall in this category.
  Number two, this bill does not have the word ``shall'' in it. This 
bill has the word ``may'' in it.
  Number three, with regard to the civil rights, I am committed to the 
civil rights of every child in the classrooms of America. They are 
God's gift to us, regardless of their special need or their gift.
  I would submit that there may be an occasion, may, where a special 
needs child may threaten the life in a self-contained environment of 
another special needs child, or in a mainstream environment, which Mr. 
Miller passed and I support, where we ensure that those that may have 
an infirmity or disability or a special need are mainstreamed with our 
most gifted.
  This does not say they will not get an education. It does not say 
they must be suspended. It does not stigmatize them. Nor does it 
violate their rights, but it says that every child, every gift of God 
to us, has the right to expect that if the need is there, that we can 
apply the discipline to ensure a safe environment in our schools.
  I know of no educator cavalier enough or no one brazen enough to take 
advantage of a disadvantaged child all because the word says ``may.''
  If the time were available, I could quote case after case where had 
the school system had the flexibility at the time, they could have 
treated the civil rights of every child equally and maybe turned around 
the life of a special needs child rather than otherwise having to have 
their discipline governed by an external act not close to the 
situation.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), a good friend who has been so helpful on 
this.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) for taking this important 
amendment forward. This is not a mandate. It is discretionary with 
local school boards. There is not any issue in education today that is 
more controversial than the IDEA program. Every time I go to the 
district, school teachers, principals, board of education members are 
complaining about this program and the fact that individual students 
are treated differently. I think that this

[[Page H4530]]

amendment will be a vital step in trying to restore some order into our 
schools.
  I would like to read a statement from one of the principals. I could 
bring forth many statements like this, but it simply says that students 
under the IDEA umbrella cannot be disciplined like other students. 
Students who have discipline problems in school know their limits and 
generally push until they have gone beyond the limits. This is where 
the problem starts.
  What do schools do with the ever-increasing number of students who 
have exceeded their disciplinary limits and know that the school can do 
nothing about it?
  We can only wait until the school is totally overwhelmed and then the 
lawmakers will be forced to act. So I support the Norwood amendment.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I want to join with my colleagues here in 
encouraging the efforts of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) in 
dealing with this question. It does give school districts, school 
boards, school administrators the flexibility they do not have right 
now. As the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) just said, when we 
talk to people in schools, whether they are teachers, whether they are 
administrators, whether they are school board members and say, what is 
the single biggest problem with the Federal Government, we really do 
not even need to ask that question.
  I now ask what their second biggest problem is with the Federal 
Government because they all have the same single biggest problem. It 
relates to this topic. It makes evenhanded, fair discipline at school 
impossible. It creates an atmosphere that leads to all kinds of 
situations. It needs to be part of this legislation. It is an important 
addition to this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Norwood) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I join with my co-authors to this amendment in thanking 
them for their support on behalf of so many school districts, school 
board members, principals, superintendents back in Iowa, teachers and 
even parents, that are concerned that for some reason people out here 
in Washington, as soon as they cross the Beltway, think that they know 
how to do everything with regard to discipline back home in schools.
  First of all, we think one size fits all, that every child and every 
situation deserves the exact same approach and so we mandate down to 
the local levels exactly how discipline ought to be taken care of. We 
should not really do that.
  I happen to be the parent of a child with a special need. Let me just 
invite my colleagues to be concerned. Let me invite my colleagues to 
advocate on behalf of her needs. Let me invite my colleagues to worry 
about her education. But please, let her mom and me, let her teachers, 
let her school board members and her community leaders and their 
principals and superintendents worry about how to make sure she gets 
the best education possible and make sure she behaves while she is 
there and make sure that it is appropriate when she misbehaves.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, the Norwood, the Talent, the Barr, the 
Petri, the Hill, the Shadegg, the Nussle, the Hutchinson, the Bryant 
amendment is about safety and security in the classroom for all the 
students, special needs and not special needs.
  It is about allowing these individuals charged with the awesome 
responsibility of providing for the education of our youngsters, the 
authority to take the necessary steps, absent bureaucratic barriers 
from Washington, D.C., to secure that classroom for all students.
  Having special needs can mean many things. It can mean emotionally or 
mentally disturbed. It can mean blindness or deafness. It can mean many 
other types of behavioral problems, even a learning disability like a 
poor reader or language skills. Too often the fact that someone has 
some type of problem that might lead them to bring weapons to school in 
the first place becomes the very license to get them back in the school 
room, despite the fact that they brought a weapon into the room.
  I cannot, to save me, understand that. The very problem that they 
have allows them to come back into the classroom 8 months later with a 
weapon. That is wrong, Mr. Chairman. If a child has a special need that 
causes him to bring a gun to school, that child should not be in the 
classroom. It does not mean the child should not be educated, if at all 
possible, but not in a situation that endangers the lives of the other 
children in the classroom, including the other special needs children.
  Our primary concern, Mr. Chairman, has to be for the safety, for the 
safety, of the 99 percent of our children in the classroom; 85 percent 
without special needs, 14 percent with special needs.
  Now, the effect of this amendment is that all children are treated 
equally when it comes to weapons and safety in the classroom. Special 
needs children are not treated the same. They are given special 
privileges, but when it comes to guns, all are treated equally. The 
14th amendment recognizes that there should be equality under the law 
and equal application of the law, and we do not do that now.
  This amendment expresses the sense of Congress that all students, 
disabled, nondisabled, special needs, nonspecial needs, are entitled to 
a free and appropriate public education. My goodness, who can disagree 
with that?
  The word ``appropriate'' must mean safety first, and there must be a 
zero tolerance for guns in our schools. Appropriate, being alive is 
more important than appropriate learning. We have lost 27 people over 
the last few years, students and teachers, in school rooms. We must say 
to the world, no one may, under any circumstances, bring a gun or a 
weapon to our classrooms in the United States of America; period, the 
end.
  This amendment is supported by the National Association of Secondary 
School Principals. I submit that for the record. It is supported by the 
American Association of School Administrators, and I submit that for 
the record.
  It is supported by the 95,000 local school board members. Vote for 
this amendment, for goodness sakes.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following letters for the Record:
                                       The National Association of


                                  Secondary School Principals,

     Reston, VA, June 16, 1999.
     Hon. Charles Norwood,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Norwood: The National Association of 
     Secondary School Principals (NASSP)--the nation's largest 
     school administrator organization--thanks you for 
     introduction of an amendment to the Violent and Repeat 
     Juvenile Offender, Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 
     1999 (H.R. 1501) which amends the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). For several years, 
     principals have vocalized the tremendous difficulties created 
     by a ``dual discipline'' system that requires certain 
     students be disciplined differently than others. This 
     legislation will finally allow schools to discipline all 
     students equally in relation to possession of a weapon.
       While we support the amendment, we are very concerned about 
     language in the measure relating to cessation of educational 
     services for suspended or expelled youth. As advocates for 
     students, NASSP believes that all children should have 
     alternative education options available to them if the 
     general education classroom is not the most appropriate 
     setting for learning. If we do not address the educational 
     needs of those children who are most vulnerable by providing 
     a ``safety net'' of services for rehabilitation purposes, the 
     costs to society will be greater in the future--both 
     monetarily and in humanistic terms. We encourage Congress to 
     provide additional funding for alternative education options 
     to address these needs.
       Thank you for recognizing the inequities related to 
     discipline which are created under differing sets of laws, 
     and for taking action to remove these legislative and 
     regulatory barriers. We also thank you for taking under 
     consideration the need for alternative educational services 
     and the financial resources needed to accommodate this goal.
           Sincerely,
                                            Gerald Tirozzi, Ph.D.,
                                               Executive Director.

[[Page H4531]]

     
                                  ____
                                           American Association of


                                        School Administrators,

                                     Arlington, VA, June 15, 1999.
     Hon. Charles Norwood,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Norwood: The American Association of 
     School Administrators would like to thank you for your effort 
     to address the issue of school safety and contradictions in 
     current law. All children should be safe at school. Teachers 
     cannot teach, and students cannot learn in an atmosphere of 
     fear and disruption. Yet Congress and the federal regulations 
     have tied the hands of teachers and administrators to fulfill 
     this responsibility to all children. Your amendment to H.R. 
     1501 responsibly addresses these issues in a consistent 
     manner.
       Although well intended, provisions of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandate a double standard 
     for violent and disruptive behavior in our schools. We know 
     what works to improve school safety and discipline; clear 
     discipline codes that are fairly and consistently enforced. 
     IDEA, as currently written, makes that impossible.
       Schools should be able to adopt a simple, fair system of 
     discipline. Your amendment would allow them to do just that. 
     Students committing identical infractions should not be 
     treated differently depending on whether or not they are 
     identified as disabled. As schools and parents work to 
     include special education students to the general curriculum, 
     the disparate treatment of students misbehaving in the same 
     way in the same classroom aggravates this problem.
       The top priority of public school parents regarding public 
     schools is students' safety and classroom discipline. This 
     was made abundantly clear by the tragic incidents of the last 
     school year. Parents are genuinely frightened for the safety 
     of their children and are demanding, appropriately, that 
     schools respond by ensuring a safe learning environment. We 
     are in danger of losing the public's trust, if we do not 
     address the issues of discipline, including disciplining 
     students with disabilities.
       Effective education for citizenship and achievement is not 
     possible when students either feel that they are exempt from 
     punishment or that the punishments are unfair. The objective 
     must be to treat students the same and to keep them all safe. 
     The challenge is to reach that objective, fairly, and 
     efficiently. The prohibition against total cessation of 
     services should be maintained and states should be required 
     to develop alternative settings for students who commit 
     infractions that merit expulsion or long term suspensions.
       When students are punished, it is AASA's position that 
     every state should implement a system of alternative 
     schooling for dangerous students administered by juvenile 
     authorities that are experienced in serving such students. In 
     this setting, students would continue their education, but 
     other students would not be imperiled. This system should be 
     administered by an agency skilled at working with 
     incarcerated and dangerous youth, where dangerous students 
     can be schooled until they are able to rejoin their peers in 
     a regular public school or complete their education in 
     safety. The public concern for safety and the issue of 
     fairness calls for action now.
       Some may say that the states cannot afford a system of 
     alternative schools. That is simply wrong. The states are 
     awash with surpluses from the strong economy. Even if state 
     coffers were not overflowing, the number of dangerous 
     students is so small (about 6,000) that the cost would be 
     negligible when spread across 50 states. For example, 6000 
     students could receive an education funded at the national 
     per pupil average of $6,700 for only $40 million, a tiny 
     fraction of current state surpluses. Moreover, this amount 
     represents a diminutive portion of the funds states receive 
     from the federal government through the crime bill, the 
     juvenile justice bill and the safe and drug free schools act.
       Thank you again for your leadership on this important 
     issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bruce Hunter,
     Director of Public Affairs.
                                  ____



                           National School Boards Association,

                                    Alexandria, VA, June 16, 1999.
     Re support for the IDEA safety amendment to the juvenile 
         justice bill.

     Hon. Charlie Norwood,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Norwood: On behalf of the nation's 
     95,000 local school board members, the National School Boards 
     Association wishes to express its full support for your 
     school safety amendment to the Consequences for Juvenile 
     Offenders Act of 1999 (H.R. 1501). Your amendment would allow 
     school officials to treat students receiving special 
     education services in the same manner as other students when 
     guns or weapons are involved. This amendment will help local 
     schools and communities better address the serious safety 
     issues involved when a student brings a gun to school.
       By giving school officials a broader range of options, your 
     amendment will better enable them, on a case-by-case basis, 
     to balance the needs of a particular child with the goal to 
     keep schools safer and more conductive to learning for all. 
     Further, your amendment sends an important message to all 
     students that carrying or possessing firearms on school 
     grounds will not be tolerated. That message is not clear 
     under the dual system, currently created by the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
       At the same time, your amendment carries three important 
     protections relating to the rights of children with 
     disabilities. First, the amendment only authorizes 
     disciplinary action if it is provided in the same manner as 
     the discipline for other children who bring weapons to 
     schools. Second, students would be able to assert the defense 
     that their actions were unintentional or innocent. Third, 
     during their suspension or expulsion, students served by IDEA 
     can only be denied services if state law permits the denial 
     of education services to other students during their 
     suspension or expulsion. Additionally, local school officials 
     could, if they chose, provide services.
       Under current practice, school systems across the United 
     States (consistent with the federal Gun-Free Schools Act) 
     maintain policies authorizing the removal of students who 
     bring firearms to school. Federal law very substantially 
     limits that option if a child is served under the IDEA. 
     Currently school officials may only assign students to an 
     alternative placement for up to 45 days. In practice, this 
     may not result in the removal of an unsafe student.
       In sum, your amendment creates a very narrow exception--
     with appropriate protections--to the IDEA discipline system 
     in order to cover a very important safety issue. School 
     officials needs this case-by-case discretion to ensure that 
     America's schoolchildren and school employees are not subject 
     to unnecessary risks or occurrences of students bringing 
     firearms to schools.
       If you have any questions, please call Michael A. Resnick, 
     associate executive director.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Anne L. Bryant,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Norwood) for making a great speech.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Say it again.
  Mr. SCOTT. I will say again, I would like to congratulate the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) for making a great speech.
  Unfortunately, when we consider measures like this we ought to focus 
on deliberation, not great speeches at the last minute.
  The fact is that we considered this very proposal for over a year in 
the deliberations in the reauthorization of the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act. We had numerous hearings. Teachers, 
educators, police officers, everybody had their say; advocates; every 
view was considered. We considered this proposal for over a year. In 
fact, it was one of the major provisions.

                              {time}  1715

  It was a provision that, in fact, got most of the attention in the 
reauthorization.
  This proposal was rejected after that deliberative process. Now 
without deliberation, we are subjected to great speeches, and we are 
trying to change the law on the floor of the House. This did not even 
go through committee. Here it is on the floor.
  Now, we heard a lot of talk about may and shall, what happens if they 
may, and what happens if they shall. Let us go back to where the 
Individuals with Disabilities Act was passed in the first place. When 
it was passed, disabled students got no education. Millions of students 
were given no educational services, and now they get educational 
services because the law makes them provide it.
  Now, they talk about a big problem. There is a big problem, Mr. 
Chairman, and that is because school systems want to stop serving 
disabled children. They want to kick them out of the classroom and fail 
to provide any services at all. So of course it is a big problem. They 
do not want to provide. They do not want to abide by the law. They want 
to stop serving children.
  Now, let us get a couple of facts on the table. First of all, the 
schools can remove the students for public safety. They can take them 
right out of the classroom just like everybody else, same penalty as 
everybody else, get them out of the classroom. But they must continue 
educational services, which may be provided in an alternative school, 
may be provided at home, might even be provided in prison. They can get 
the student out of the regular classroom for safety, but they have to 
continue educational services.
  Now, everybody knows that stopping the services to children is a bad 
idea, that the crime rate will go up if we just suspend people without 
any services. Now, if we are interested in equality, what we ought to 
be doing is continuing services for everybody else in addition to those 
under IDEA.

[[Page H4532]]

  Let me remind my colleagues what I said in my opening remarks, a 
letter from ``Fight Crime/Invest in Kids,'' the National Coalition of 
Police Chiefs, Prosecutors and Crime Victims said, ``Giving a gun-
toting kid an extended vacation from school, and from all 
responsibility, is soft on offenders and dangerous for everyone else. 
Please don't give those kids, who most need adult supervision, the 
unsupervised time to rob, become addicted to drugs, and get their hands 
on other guns to threaten students when the school bell rings.''
  But if we insist on a bad policy for some, please do not change the 
law to inflict that bad policy on disabled children. The fact is that 
the children will not disappear when they are suspended from school 
without services. They remain in the community without support and are 
more likely to endanger the public. Then what happens after the end of 
the year, when they come back a year later, further behind than they 
left? Obviously the schools will not be any safer in that situation.
  But, finally, Mr. Chairman, this is a juvenile crime bill. We ought 
to get serious. If this amendment is adopted, the crime rate will go 
up.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support, as one of 
the cosponsors of the Norwood, Barr, Talent IDEA amendment which will 
allow schools to enforce a uniform discipline policy for all students 
who bring weapons into the schools.
  Mr. Chairman, after the tragic incidence at Columbine High School I 
met privately with superintendents from around my district. I was 
interested in finding out what they were doing to combat violence in 
their schools, and what the federal government could do to help. They 
are already quite active in trying to stop this violence before it 
starts, chiefly by keeping in close touch with students. They had one, 
concrete, urgent request. They wanted the authority to discipline 
violent students, even students classified as disabled, under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). In fact, their request was 
consistent with what I have been hearing from parents, teachers, 
principals, school boards and superintendents from across the state of 
Missouri for years.
  Currently, schools are forced to administer two separate and 
conflicting discipline codes for dealing with dangerous or violent 
behavior in schools--one for non-disabled students and one for disabled 
students. Nationwide, of the 45.6 million students--5.8 million 
students were covered by IDEA in 1996-1997. In other words 12%--or 1 in 
8 students nationwide and 1 in 7 in Missouri are subject to more 
permissive discipline rules under IDEA.
  The parents, teachers, principals, school boards and superintendents 
in my district are telling me that the federal government is sending a 
mixed message to students on the issue of weapons in the schools. An 
IDEA student who possesses a weapon in school is subject to an entirely 
different discipline standard than other students simply because of his 
disability.
  For example in a school in Missouri a non-disability student gave a 
weapon to an IDEA student. The IDEA student was caught in possession of 
the weapon. The IDEA student was removed from the classroom and placed 
for 45 days in an alternative education setting. On the other hand, the 
non-disability student, who gave the IDEA student the weapon, but was 
not actually caught in possession of the weapon--received a one year 
suspension and no alternative education services.
  One school district in Missouri had 9 incidents of weapons in the 
middle and high school this school year--2 cases involving explosives 
and 7 cases involving knives. Of these 9 cases 6 were IDEA students and 
as such the schools could only remove these students from the classroom 
for up to 45 days. In addition, the school district was required to 
provide alternative service to these students at either their 
suspension school off campus or through personal instruction at home. 
On the other hand, the 3 general education students were either 
expelled or suspended for the year and the school district was not 
required to provide alternative services to these students. What sort 
of message does this send to the students of this district?
  In Southwest Missouri an IDEA student brought a knife on the school 
bus and threatened to kill specific students. The school district's 
hands were tied--all that could be done was remove the student from the 
classroom and place in an alternative education setting for 45 days. 
Pending the outcome of a manifestation determination review, and due to 
IDEA's stay put provision, this violent student returned to the 
classroom after only 45 days. The parents of the other students were 
very upset about the school's inability to keep this dangerous student 
out of the classroom and threatened to pull their children out of 
school.
  This amendment is very simple, Mr. Speaker--it gives school 
authorities at the local level the ability to remove from the classroom 
any student who brings a weapon--regardless of whether or not they are 
a disability student. This amendment will allow school personnel to 
discipline, including expel or suspend a student with a disability who 
intentionally carries or possesses a weapon at school--just as they 
would for a regular student. School districts would then have the 
discretion to decide whether or not to provide alternative services to 
the IDEA student removed from the classroom, provided that they treated 
that student the same as other students in similar circumstances.
  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 Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 300, 
noes 128, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No 227]

                               AYES--300

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--128

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn

[[Page H4533]]


     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Knollenberg
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Slaughter
     Souder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Houghton
     Salmon
     Shays
     Thomas

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART and Mr. BLAGOJEVICH changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. VENTO and Mr. WYNN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  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. 40 printed in part A of House Report 106-186.


                Amendment No. 40 Offered by Mr. Fletcher

  Mr. FLETCHER. 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. 40 offered by Mr. Fletcher:
       Page 4, line 18, strike, ``and''.
       Page 4, line 21, strike the period and insert a semicolon.
       Page 4, after line 21, insert the following:
       ``(14) establishing partnerships between State educational 
     agencies and local educational agencies for the design and 
     implementation of character education and training programs 
     that reflect the values of parents, teachers, and local 
     communities, and incorporate elements of good character, 
     including honesty, citizenship, courage, justice, respect, 
     personal responsibility, and trustworthiness; and
       ``(15) implementing other activities that foster strong 
     character development in at-risk juveniles and juveniles in 
     the juvenile justice system.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today we are addressing a growing problem that has 
stemmed from a cultural change that has robbed some of our youth of 
their moral pinnings. We have often failed to give our children the 
guidance necessary to understand the difference between right and wrong 
and the real-life consequences of violent behavior. While we can and 
should hold our youth more accountable for their behavior, I believe we 
should foster families, schools and communities that engender 
character.
  The recent rash of school violence stuns us all and raises the 
question, ``Where have we gone wrong?'' Noted criminologist James Q. 
Wilson says his studies have all led to the same conclusion: Crime 
begins when children are not given adequate moral training and when 
they do not develop internal restraints on impulsive behavior. Forensic 
psychologist Shawn Johnson says the killings reflect ``A deterioration 
of moral teaching'' and of the social structure that traditionally 
imparted that teaching. Chuck Colson said, ``We're experiencing the 
death of conscience in this generation of young Americans.''
  There is no question that loving, caring parents are primary in 
building our children's character, but with latchkey kids, the 
prevalence of violence and obscenity in popular culture, and the 
deterioration of the family, teachers are assuming a role of growing 
importance.

                              {time}  1745

  Children spend the majority of their day in the classroom, and too 
often many lessons taught fail to emphasize the importance of 
citizenship and respect in our shared community.
  The Founding Fathers believed that education serves a dual purpose, 
to prepare children academically as students and ethically as citizens. 
They acknowledge the importance of individuality without ignoring the 
fact that the freedom to exercise their rights as an individual is a 
privilege afforded to responsible members of a democratic society.
  Thomas Jefferson said, ``The government is best which governs least 
because its people discipline themselves.''
  Personal liberties are the product of personal responsibility. In the 
event that individuals do not keep up their part of the social 
contract, we have the judicial system, which is rooted in a system of 
absolutes where people are deemed law-abiding or law-breaking.
  To some, the idea of moral absolutes is outdated, and some believe it 
is too controversial to teach. It is no wonder that we have seen an 
increase in juvenile crime, especially crime based on prejudice, 
hatred, and anger.
  Former Secretary of Education William Bennett had this to offer: ``We 
should not use the fact that there are indeed many difficult and 
controversial moral questions as an argument against basic instruction 
in this subject. We do not argue against teaching biology or chemistry 
because gene splicing and cloning are complex and controversial.''
  Especially in light of the recent school tragedies, I believe that 
the time has come to emphasize character education in our schools. We 
need to encourage the work that is already being done in some States. 
For example, my own State, Kentucky, has developed a character 
education curriculum which is being used in many schools, and many 
school districts across the country are using the Character Counts 
program successfully. This grant from this amendment would be available 
for such programs.
  That is why I am offering an amendment to the Consequences of 
Juvenile Offenders Act of 1999 that will allow local education agencies 
to form partnerships designed to implement character education programs 
that reflect the values of parents, teachers, and local communities and 
incorporate elements of good character, including honesty, citizenship, 
courage, justice, respect, personal responsibility, and 
trustworthiness. Surely no one could oppose these.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in 
opposition although I may be supporting the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the sponsor of the amendment a 
question. Several people have asked a question as to whether or not it 
is the intent of the sponsor and the legislative intent to read the 
amendment in light of the Supreme Court cases interpreting the 
establishment of free exercise clauses of the Constitution. The 
question is whether or not they are trying to overturn those cases or 
whether this should be read in light of the existing law.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott), there is nothing in this amendment that would impose anything 
against the Constitution and that amendment. It clearly supports the 
local character education curriculum, which is already being conducted. 
It will provide grants for the instruction, as well as activities. And 
these are things that have withstood constitutional muster so far.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank 
the

[[Page H4534]]

gentleman for that answer, because if it is to be read in light of the 
Supreme Court cases, then it is obviously the kind of amendment that is 
perfectly consistent with the underlying bill. In fact, I think it 
probably could be funded under some of the provisions of 1150 that we 
have already adopted. But it is the kind of partnership and kind of 
education that can help our young people stay out of trouble in the 
first place.
  With that answer, Mr. Chairman, I would heartily endorse the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my friend and colleague 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) in co-sponsoring this 
amendment. I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Our amendment will allow local schools to go to work with their 
communities to develop character-based education programs that will 
complement their current coursework. I believe that we need to give 
local schools the resources to teach character-based education and deal 
honestly with forces in our culture that are diminishing the family.
  I visited two elementary schools in the 8th District of North 
Carolina over the Memorial Day work period. At East Washington Street 
Elementary School in Rockingham, the principal specifically asked me to 
speak to the students about the importance of character and 
citizenship.
  The second school I am especially proud of. Shiloh Elementary in 
Monroe was recognized as a Blue Ribbon School by the Department of 
Education. In fact, Shiloh Elementary has also been nominated for an 
award by the Department of Education for its character education 
programs. I will insert their efforts at the end of my remarks.
  The school's administration has incorporated parent and local 
community groups to help instill the values of honesty and good 
citizenship into the everyday lives of their students. They, too, asked 
me to speak about character and citizenship, and I was glad to do that 
for them.
  ``Shiloh Elementary School is where it all comes together,'' states 
the Department of Education Blue Ribbon School Report. This simple 
statement speaks volumes about Shiloh's vision, caring adults who lead 
by example to share what stewardship for our world is about.
  Students come here and meet parents who only want the best for their 
children. The local Kiwanis Club in Monroe sponsors the Terrific Kids 
awards program, which puts emphasis on character education not only in 
school, but throughout the community. Great satisfaction comes from 
cooperation among all the stakeholders in the community.
  Volunteers frequent the halls of Shiloh, adding extra support where 
needed. Administrators and teachers search for creative means of 
enabling the school to fulfill its vision. This kind of commitment 
makes Shiloh stand out. Through this team effort, the result is 
predictable: Students who practice caring and sharing and kindness.
  Shiloh, unfortunately, is the exception to the rule. Most schools do 
not have a successful character education program.
  This amendment provides the resources for schools across the country 
to develop a local character and value based program, like Shiloh 
Elementary, without having to divert the resources for their other 
essential needs, like books, teacher pay, and supplies.
  Parents today are faced with incredible challenges in raising 
children. We need to give our schools leadership, resources, and 
flexibility to help parents meet these challenges. We need to empower 
our local teachers and families to work with their communities to 
incorporate the timeless aspects of character, honesty, integrity, 
citizenship, courage, respect, personal responsibility and 
trustworthiness. Let's send a strong message home that we want to help 
our students blossom into responsible citizens and are willing to do 
whatever it takes to help them accomplish their goals.

                         Special Emphasis Area


                          character education

       Strolling through the halls of Shiloh Elementary School is 
     a delight--much care has been taken to create a nurturing 
     learning environment and emphasize the importance of 
     character education in the life of the school and the 
     children. In effective ways, the Bullseye Class of the Month 
     is spotlighted (complete with the class' picture), keywords 
     (e.g., honesty, loyalty, and respect) are displayed in many 
     innovative ways: Incorporated into the gymnasium red, white 
     and blue theme, in classrooms hanging from the ceiling, and 
     on TV monitors in the cafeteria. Blaze the Bulldog (the 
     school's mascot) displays the Bullseye words for each month. 
     It was interesting that March's word (honesty) was also 
     posted in Spanish. In the interview with students 
     (individually and as a group) they were very proud of wearing 
     a badge for being one of Shiloh's Best Behaving Bulldogs--a 
     program which awards badges to wear on Monday for displaying 
     excellent behavior. (The site visitor toured the building on 
     Monday, and it was rewarding to see so many buttons!)
       An effective recognition initiative tied very closely to 
     the schoolwide emphasis on character education is the 
     Terrific Kids Program sponsored by the local Kiwanis Club. 
     Students from each classroom are honored monthly for 
     displaying good citizenship, improved behavior, and/or 
     improved academics by posting their pictures and celebrating 
     this recognition in a breakfast (provided by the PTA) with 
     parents invited as well. (Again, on the site visit it was 
     heartening to so proud parents of Terrific Kids enjoy the 
     before-school celebration with their Terrific Kids. In 
     summary, this overall category focusing on Character 
     Education came alive through reading Cathy Frailey's 
     newspaper article about the success of the Bullseye class 
     published in the local newspaper, The Enquirer Journal, and, 
     above all, the respect demonstrated by the students and 
     teachers. When students open the door for adults (like the 
     site visitor) and respect school and classroom rules, these 
     are evidence that character education is an integral part of 
     the total school program, and decisionmaking is based on the 
     core values necessary to create a caring and democratic 
     community.
       (1) Shiloh Elementary School clearly puts into practice 
     restitution (along with using consequences) for violations. 
     For example, when students do not complete homework, the 
     principle of restitution comes to the forefront by assigning 
     homework hall according to school guidelines. For students 
     who do not demonstrate appropriate behavior (and these are 
     absolutely minimal), schoolwide discipline policy takes over 
     with described restitution (e.g., fulfilling a cafeteria 
     responsibility if that was the violation site). Respect and 
     responsibility go hand-in-hand at Shiloh.
       (2) Developing an intrinsic commitment to values begins the 
     first day students begin school. Pride, honesty, and loyalty 
     are instilled in children in the early grades as verified by 
     an entire school building (halls, classrooms, common areas 
     like the cafeteria, gymnasium, and restrooms) and grounds 
     which are immaculate and cared for as a result of students' 
     making responsible decisions. Children in this school 
     community follow school rules because it is the right thing 
     to do--without any fanfare or rewards involved. When new 
     students enter Shiloh, present students, as well as the 
     entire staff, model respectful behavior which serves as 
     intrinsic teaching tools. Keywords reflecting the basis of 
     character education are discussed in the classroom, for 
     example, through literature and are on display throughout the 
     building in creative ways (e.g., TV monitors in the 
     cafeteria)--all of which develop an intrinsic commitment to 
     values.

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment to help put character 
education in our Nation's schools.
  As the former superintendent of my State's schools, I know firsthand 
that character education can make a difference to teach our children 
values and make our students well-rounded and prepare them for good 
citizenship. We installed character education in the schools of North 
Carolina in the 1992-1993 school year.
  Across my congressional district today, school leaders have developed 
character education initiatives that are making a difference for 
stronger schools and better communities.
  Wake County, our capital county, has become a leader through its 
innovative effort called ``Uniting for Character.'' In Johnston County, 
the principal of Selma Elementary School directly attributes 59 fewer 
suspensions between the 1995-1996 school year to their character 
education program. And CBS News in the last couple of weeks has 
profiled the successful character education program on their national 
program in the Nash-Rocky Mount school system.
  Mr. Chairman, character education works because it teaches our 
children to see the world through a moral lens.

[[Page H4535]]

 Children learn that their actions have consequences. Teachers work 
with parents and the entire community to instill the spirit of shared 
responsibility.
  Character education emphasizes values such as courage, good judgment, 
integrity, kindness, perseverance, respect, and self-discipline.
  As the father of two public school teachers, my heart aches for the 
victims of the recent violence in our public schools. Character 
education will help build solid citizens and safe schools.
  This amendment will allow State and local educational agencies to 
form partnerships designed to implement character education. These 
programs will reflect the values of parents, teachers, and local 
communities. They will incorporate elements of good character, as I 
have said, which include honesty, citizenship, courage, respect, 
personal responsibility, and trustworthiness.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, character counts. At least, it should 
count. Children are not born with good character. It is learned through 
direct teaching and through observation.
  I, consequently, rise in very strong support of the Fletcher-Hayes 
amendment to allow State and local educational agencies to work 
together to develop character education programs.
  Children make up about 27 percent of the population, but they are 100 
percent of our future. We must help them develop habits of good 
character that are essential to the well-being of America.
  I want to point out that I am very proud that within my congressional 
district, the city of Gaithersburg, Maryland, is a ``character counts'' 
city. Gaithersburg first embraced this ethics education program in 
1996, and it does work. A commitment was made to bring the program to 
every child in the city, and it even incorporated ``character counts'' 
into the mission statement and vision of the city.
  The city is guided by six pillars of ethics. They are responsibility, 
respect, caring, fairness, trustworthiness, and citizenship.
  The city tries to set a model example for other cities to follow by 
addressing citizen needs with a caring attitude, promoting a spirit of 
fairness, trustworthiness, and respect among city officials.
  The city advocates good citizenship and feels it has a responsibility 
to its citizens to strive for excellence in all of their endeavors. As 
a matter of fact, it has the school, the business communities, the 
religious organizations, the social organizations all using the same 
motto and the same six pillars of character.
  The Fletcher-Hayes amendment will help other communities implement 
character education programs that reflect the standards of their 
citizens. The amendment will encourage community leaders, school 
systems, nonprofit organizations, business groups, youth groups, and 
individuals to join together to take a stand for values in American 
society.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Fletcher-Hayes amendment.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  (Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Kentucky (Mr. 
Fletcher) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I like this amendment because I think it will empower 
and encourage parents. There is discussion going on all around this 
country following the tragic Columbine shootings. The discussions we 
have had on the House floor over the last 2 days is only one place that 
is happening. It is happening in school board meetings. It is 
happening, very importantly, around kitchen tables. It is happening in 
State legislatures.
  I think the one thing that all of us need to focus on is that despite 
a lot of ideas that have been put forward that are meant to address the 
problem of youth violence and what happened in Columbine, none are 
going to work unless we focus on character and I think unless we focus 
on family and parents.
  We might feel better having passed some of the legislation we are 
going to pass here in the next day, but I really do not believe it is 
going to change the root causes of youth violence. That is why I like 
this amendment, because it gets parents engaged, it empowers them to 
get involved.
  If we are going to solve the problems in our society of youth 
violence, substance abuse, all the data shows, as James T. Wilson says, 
and I am glad the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) quoted him 
earlier, we have got to get our family back engaged with our children.
  As a parent, a father of three young children, I know that, and I 
think most of my constituents know that. And I think they believe that 
anything we can do here in the U.S. Congress to encourage our families 
to go stay together, to encourage families to provide guidance, to 
encourage families to give children a sense of right and wrong, that 
that will make the most fundamental difference in terms of avoiding 
future tragedies like the one that occurred in Columbine.
  So again, Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to support this amendment, and 
I urge its passage.
  The tragic shootings at Columbine High School have started a national 
discussion on what we can do to prevent such violent acts in the 
future. The debate we had here in the House of Representatives over the 
past 2 days has taken place across the country in state legislatures, 
town halls--and, more importantly, in school board meeting rooms, at 
the workplace and around the kitchen table.
  There's been a lot of soul-searching--and some of the ideas that have 
been put forward--including those aimed at cleaning up our popular 
culture--are helpful and should be adopted. Other proposals may make us 
feel as though we're doing something, but I don't believe they will 
change the root causes of youth violence.
  Throughout this national dialogue, I hope we do not overlook what I 
view, as a legislator--but, more importantly, as a father of three 
young children--as the most important factor in preventing these 
shocking and senseless acts of violence. There is no more powerful 
influence on a young person's life than a family, particularly an 
engaged, concerned and caring parent--and, where there is not a parent 
in the home, then a caregiver, a role model, who takes on the solemn 
responsibilities of parenthood.
  I've seen it firsthand in my work on the problem of reducing teenage 
substance abuse and have read it in many studies on drug abuse and 
reshaping adolescent behavior. In fact, based on sound surveys, 
researchers believe we could reduce teenage drug use by as much as 50 
percent if parents would simply engage and talk to their kids about the 
dangers of drugs. That's a remarkable statistic, and a true testament 
to the power of family, and to the dangers of disengagement and apathy.
  Unfortunately, we've seen too many examples of problems that arise 
when parents aren't actively involved in their children's lives. A 
recent Letter to the Editor in one of my local papers--the Cincinnati 
Post--put it well, ``Parents are so involved in their own activities 
and life that they have forgotten . . . how much the children look to 
them as the example.''
  Children look to us--their parents--as role models, and they also 
look to us for guidance. I hope the Columbine tragedy and the dialogue 
it has spawned leads us; as parents, to do a better job of setting 
boundaries for our kids.
  I thought Cincinnati Enquirer columnist Laura Pulfer described our 
challenge as parents in a recent column she wrote: ``Right and wrong. 
Good and bad. Yes and no. We can say these words, especially to our 
children. In fact, it is our duty.''
  Mr. Speaker, let's keep our eye on the ball. The best way to get at 
the root cause of youth violence is for all of us to take a more active 
role in the lives of our young people. America's future depends on it.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment. So much of the debate today has been either/or, either we do 
gun control or we do character programs, or we put more religion in the 
schools and so on. For the most part, all of the above is the right 
answer. We ought not suggest that doing one thing enables us to exclude 
the other. Values do matter. Character counts. And schools are 
increasingly the one place where we can really get kids' attention. It 
is a captive audience. Unfortunately, as we have more and more families 
both of whose parents are in the work force,

[[Page H4536]]

schools may present the best opportunity to instill an appreciation and 
respect for the values that, in fact, have made this country great, and 
enable us to live within a civil society.

                              {time}  1800

  I have seen this Character Counts program. I was impressed with it. I 
did not think I would be as impressed as I was. It works, the amendment 
is a good idea, let us include it.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fletcher-Hayes 
character education amendment. Our children spend at least 7 hours a 
day, 5 days a week in their schools. It is a large part of their day 
away from their parents. When parents entrust their sons and daughters 
to our Nation's schools, they hope that their children will continue to 
be taught things like honesty, citizenship, courage, respect, personal 
responsibility and trustworthiness. That is what this amendment 
attempts to ensure, by giving local communities the freedom to develop 
a character education program consistent with local values.
  I have with me an example of the type of character education that 
could be taught to our children. This is a lesson on attentiveness. The 
goal is to teach children to look at people when they speak to them, 
ask questions if they do not understand, sit or stand up straight, not 
draw attention to themselves, keep their eyes, ears, hands, feet and 
mouth from distractions. These sound like good lessons for all of us.
  In April of this year, the Florida legislature passed a law requiring 
character development in elementary schools. One of the supporters of 
that law said, ``This is Florida's answer to the tragedy in Littleton, 
Colorado.''
  While I do not believe that character education will solve all the 
problems of our Nation's youth, I do believe that the character of our 
Nation's youth is worth investing in. I urge support for the amendment
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I really appreciate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
and the others that have spoken in bipartisan support for this bill. I 
think it is just crucial as we look at what has happened recently with 
these tragedies in the schools that we have a national focus on 
character education. What this amendment does is provide for grants 
that can be used for character education curriculum and for other 
activities. For those students also that are identified as having 
problems, troubled students, that they can provide activities that 
build character for them, also.
  I think with this national attention, and let me make the point this 
is not a mandate and this is not a national curriculum. This gives the 
flexibility and the resources and the encouragement of local 
communities, schools, with parents and teachers and a partnership that 
they can implement character education, have the resources to implement 
that program to certainly encourage the character of our youths.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLETCHER. 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 Kentucky 
(Mr. Fletcher) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41 printed in part A of 
House Report 106-186.


          Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Franks of New Jersey

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

       Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. Franks of New Jersey:
       At the end of the bill, add the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
               TITLE ____--CHILDREN'S INTERNET PROTECTION

     SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Children's Internet 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. ____02. NO UNIVERSAL SERVICE FOR SCHOOLS OR LIBRARIES 
                   THAT FAIL TO IMPLEMENT A FILTERING OR BLOCKING 
                   TECHNOLOGY FOR COMPUTERS WITH INTERNET ACCESS.

       (a) In General.--Section 254 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 254) is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following:
       ``(l) Implementation of an Internet Filtering or Blocking 
     Technology.--
       ``(1) In general.--An elementary school, secondary school, 
     or library that fails to provide the certification required 
     by paragraph (2) or (3), respectively, is not eligible to 
     receive or retain universal service assistance provided under 
     subsection (h)(1)(B).
       ``(2) Certification for schools.--To be eligible to receive 
     universal service assistance under subsection (h)(1)(B), an 
     elementary or secondary school shall certify to the 
     Commission that it has--
       ``(A) selected a technology for computers with Internet 
     access to filter or block--
       ``(i) child pornographic materials, which shall have the 
     meaning of that term as used in sections 2252, 2252A, 2256 of 
     title 18, United States Code;
       ``(ii) obscene materials, which shall have the meaning of 
     that term as used in section 1460 of title 18, United States 
     Code; and
       ``(iii) materials deemed to be harmful to minors, which 
     shall have the meaning of that term as used in section 231 of 
     the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 231); and
       ``(B) installed, or will install, and uses or will use, as 
     soon as it obtains computers with Internet access, a 
     technology to filter or block such material.
       ``(3) Certification for libraries.--To be eligible to 
     receive universal service assistance under subsection 
     (h)(1)(B),a library shall certify to the Commission that it 
     has--
       ``(A) selected a technology for computers with Internet 
     access to filter or block--
       ``(i) child pornographic materials, which shall have the 
     meaning of that term as used in sections 2252, 2252A, 2256 of 
     title 18, United States Code;
       ``(ii) obscene materials, which shall have the meaning of 
     that term as used in section 1460 of title 18, United States 
     Code; and
       ``(iii) materials deemed to be harmful to minors, which 
     shall have the meaning of that term as used in section 231 of 
     the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 231); and
       ``(B) installed, or will install, and uses or will use, as 
     soon as it obtains computers with Internet access, a 
     technology to filter or block such material.
       ``(4) Time for certification.--The certification required 
     by paragraph (2) or (3) shall be made within 30 days of the 
     date that rules are promulgated by the Federal Communications 
     Commission, or, if later, within 10 days of the date on which 
     any computer with access to the Internet is first made 
     available in the school or library for its intended use.
       ``(5) Notification of cessation; additional internet-
     accessing computer.--
       ``(A) Cessation.--A school or library that has filed the 
     certification required by paragraph (3)(A) shall notify the 
     Commission within 10 days after the date on which it ceases 
     to use the filtering or blocking technology to which the 
     certification related.
       ``(B) Additional internet-accessing computer.--A school or 
     library that has filed the certification required by 
     paragraph (3)(B) that adds another computer with Internet 
     access intended for use by the public (including minors) 
     shall make the certification required by paragraph (3)(A) 
     within 10 days after that computer is made available for use 
     by the public.
       ``(6) Posting of notice.--A school or library that has 
     filed a certification under paragraph (2) or (3) shall post 
     within view of the computers which are the subject of that 
     certification a notice that contains--
       ``(A) a copy of the filter or block certification;
       ``(B) a statement of such school's or library's filtering 
     or block policy; and
       ``(C) information on the specific block technology in use.
       ``(7) Penalty for failure to comply.--A school or library 
     that fails to meet the requirements of this subsection is 
     liable to repay immediately the full amount of all universal 
     service assistance the school or library received under 
     subsection (h)(1)(B) after the date the failure began.
       ``(8) Local determination of material to be filtered.--For 
     purposes of paragraphs (2) and (3), the determination of what 
     material is to be deemed harmful to minors shall be made by 
     the school, school board, library or other authority 
     responsible for making the required certification. No agency 
     or instrumentality of the United States Government may--
       ``(A) establish criteria for making that determination;
       ``(B) review the determination made by the certifying 
     school, school board, library, or other authority; or
       ``(C) consider the criteria employed by the certifying 
     school, school board, library, or other authority in the 
     administration of subsection (h)(1)(B).
       ``(9) No preemtion or other effect.--Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed--

[[Page H4537]]

       ``(A) to preempt, supersede, or limit any requirements that 
     imposed by a school or library, or by a political authority 
     for a school or library, that are more stringent than the 
     requirements of this subsection; or
       ``(B) to supersede or limit otherwise applicable Federal or 
     State child pornography or obscenity laws.''.
       (b) Conforming Change.--Section 254(h)(1)(B) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)(1)(B)) is 
     amended by striking ``All telecommunications'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided by subsection (l), all 
     telecommunications''.

     SEC. ____3. FCC TO ADOPT RULES WITHIN 4 MONTHS.

       The Federal Communications Commission shall adopt rules 
     implementing section 254(l) of the Communications Act of 1934 
     (as added by this Act) within 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) and the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks).


  Modification to Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Franks of New Jersey

  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the amendment be modified by the modification placed at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. Franks of 
     New Jersey:
       On page 2 of the amendment on line 18 before the word 
     ``materials'' insert ``during use by minors,'' and on page 3 
     of the amendment on line 17 before the word ``materials'' 
     insert ``during use by minors,''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
modified.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. The Internet has opened up an exciting world of discovery 
for our children. Today across America an estimated 15 million kids 
have access to the Internet. According to the Department of Education, 
more than half the classrooms in the Nation are now wired to the net. 
Within seconds, our children can find up-to-date information on every 
conceivable topic that they are studying in school.
  But this extraordinarily powerful learning tool can also have a dark 
and threatening side. Pedophiles and other criminals are using the 
Internet to contact our children in those places where we want to 
believe they are most secure, in our homes, our schools and our 
libraries. The reality is that materials breeding hate, violence, child 
pornography and even personal danger can be waiting only a few clicks 
away.
  The group Cyber Angels, a computer savvy affiliate of the Guardian 
Angels, has documented more than 17,000 Internet sites devoted to child 
pornography and pedophilia. Moreover, the FBI reports that pornography 
sites are now the most frequently accessed sites on the Internet.
  And our children do not have to be actively looking for pornographic 
web sites to be exposed to adult-only material. For example, a child 
researching the presidency of the United States for a school report 
would probably turn to the White House web site, whitehouse.gov, but if 
they mistakenly typed in whitehouse.com, they would find themselves 
exposed to hard-core pornography. In fact, a recent study conducted by 
the Internet monitoring group Cyvelliance found that operators of 
pornographic sites frequently use brand names that are popular with 
kids in an effort to draw unsuspecting children to their web sites. The 
most popular names invoked by the pornography industry relate to 
Disney, Nintendo and Barbie.
  Yet in spite of all these potential dangers, I believe every child in 
America should have access to these amazing learning tools, provided we 
take special precautions to protect our youngest, most vulnerable 
citizens.
  The amendment that I am offering would require schools and libraries 
to use filtering technology if they accept Federal subsidies to connect 
to the Internet. Filtering technology, which many parents have already 
installed on their home computers, would keep materials designed for 
adults only out of the reach of our children.
  I recognize that some in the educational community, including some in 
the American Library Association, believe that all Americans, 
regardless of age, should have unlimited, unfettered access to all the 
material on the Internet. But the concept of placing restrictions on 
the kind of information available to our children is nothing new. For 
generations, schools and libraries have routinely decided what books 
are appropriate for our children to read.
  This amendment would merely require that these institutions use that 
same standard of care when it comes to the latest advances of the 
Information Age.
  Lastly, it is important to note that while this amendment requires 
schools and libraries to use blocking technology, it leaves it up to 
the local school district and library board to determine the type of 
filtering technology to use. It is important that parents and educators 
in our local communities set their own standards. In light of the 
Federal Government's important continuing role in supporting Internet 
access to schools and libraries, this amendment is prudent and 
necessary. It will ensure that our children can take advantage of this 
revolutionary learning tool without being assaulted by materials that 
are not only inappropriate but dangerous for our children.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2-3/4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, we all want to protect children and 
provide them with safe communities in which to grow. To achieve this 
worthy goal, we must work with local governments, schools and 
libraries. The amendment before us is not helpful. A new mandate would 
set regulations that would be nearly impossible to meet and would 
deprive schools of sorely needed funds.
  The most important action Congress has taken to promote both the goal 
of quality education and connections to the broader world through the 
Internet is to be found in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This 
special education rate, known as the E-rate, was part of the Federal 
Universal Service Fund providing important discounts of 20 to 90 
percent on telecommunications services, Internet access and internal 
communications for public schools, public and private, as well as our 
library systems. It enjoys broad bipartisan support.
  No one advocates allowing children access to pornographic materials, 
but this amendment is simply too draconian. Assuring that the 
children's Internet activity is safe is most appropriately made at the 
local level, not one by a new Federal mandate. There is no need for the 
amendment. We should recognize that students accessing the Internet 
from their local library or schools typically are receiving as much or 
more supervision than what occurs commonly in some homes.
  This amendment imposes extraordinary financial and administrative 
burdens on schools and libraries as well as the risk of liability for 
the technical and constitutional shortcomings of filtering technology. 
The purchasing, installing and maintenance of this software is 
expensive and administratively burdensome at a time when most schools 
and libraries are struggling just to connect to the Internet. It allows 
only 30 days for districts and libraries to comply with the law after 
the FCC has promulgated the rules. With every State setting different 
procurement laws, there is no possible way schools and libraries all 
across the country could come up to speed, write an RFP, wait the 
allotted time for incoming bids, choose a provider, install the 
software, and provide the training, all within 30 days.
  After giving us an impossible deadline, the amendment requires 
schools that fail to meet the requirements repay the full amount of 
universal service assistance back to the date the failure began. 
Retroactive repayment of universal service support for noncompliance is 
unrealistic.
  Across the Nation, communities are already working to assure that 
children's Internet access is properly guided. They are utilizing all 
the options available to them and choosing those that best meet the 
needs of those local communities. We ought to trust our local library 
boards and school boards. Imposing a Federal mandate is inappropriate 
and unnecessary.

[[Page H4538]]

  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), my original cosponsor.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I am proud and pleased to rise in 
support of the amendment as an original cosponsor with the gentleman 
from New Jersey.
  I would like to take a second to address some of the issues raised by 
the gentleman from Oregon. In 1996, the Telecommunications Act was 
passed that set up the E-rate that is now providing $1.6 billion in 
subsidies to link our schools and libraries to the Internet. Now, this 
opens up educational and discovery opportunities and learning 
opportunities as a tool for our teachers. It is a zone of discovery but 
it is also a danger zone.
  The gentleman from Oregon said that this is costly and difficult to 
do. What is the cost of not protecting our children? Let me share one 
example that I have learned of today. An 11-year-old boy went to a 
public library and began viewing a pornographic site. He returned to 
his neighborhood where there was a 5-year-old little girl next door and 
he molested her, acting out the scenes he saw at the public library. He 
was arrested. Pornography destroys families, as it destroyed the youth 
and the innocence of this little girl. The gentleman from Oregon 
mentioned cost, most of these filtering products are $25 to $50. Is 
that too high of a cost to protect our children from pornography? Each 
school district has the opportunity to decide which technology is best. 
It is flexible, it is workable, it is the right thing to do to protect 
our children. It is constructed in a constitutionally sound way. The 
Littleton violence that we saw, the young, violent offenders of 
Littleton were looking at Internet sites to see how to construct a 
bomb, hate-filled sites.

                              {time}  1815

  With these commonsense filters, we can protect our children from 
access to violent, hate-filled sites, to pornographic sites, to obscene 
sites, which then lead them to act out very destructive behaviors.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members of this body to support this 
amendment, to protect our children, and to do what is right.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today against the Franks-Pickering 
amendment. The Franks-Pickering amendment would terminate the E-rate 
benefits for schools and libraries that fail to implement filtering 
technology for computers with Internet servers and Internet access. 
While I agree with this premise, I feel that this amendment goes much 
too far.
  The amendment would require schools and libraries to return their E-
rate funds within 30 days if the schools do not comply with FCC rules. 
This requirement will financially and administratively burden schools 
and libraries that have to purchase and install this filtering 
software.
  Most schools that receive E-rate funding are located in inner-city 
and rural areas. These schools are struggling to connect with the 
Internet, and this amendment would be an imposition that would set them 
back even more so.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not widen the digital divide that already exists 
among our children. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the Chair 
how much time remains on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Franks) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining; and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 6\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues were given a choice today 
as to whether or not to pass a bill that would provide Federal funds 
for the installation of Internet services and connections to our 
schools and libraries in a fashion that allowed the spending of that 
money without filters so that children could, in fact, access 
pornographic sites in those schools and libraries, if my colleagues had 
a choice of doing that, or they had a choice of passing a bill that 
provided Federal funds to schools and libraries which included 
filtering devices to make sure that the kids in those schools and 
libraries use the Internet for good reasons and not to access these 
sites, which would my colleagues choose?
  Is there any doubt they would choose the latter? Is there any doubt 
that my colleagues would tell the FCC in this case, which is spending 
this money, that give to the schools only on condition that they put 
these filters in.
  These filters are inexpensive, they are easy to install. The 
government is putting up the money anyhow, and if Federal dollars 
collected by the FCC are being spent to install these systems, is it so 
draconian to say that we ought to spend 50 of those dollars to make 
sure that that computer system has such a filtering device?
  If the filters were not available, if the technology was not readily 
and cheaply available on the marketplace, my colleagues might have an 
argument. But this technology is abundantly available, it is 
inexpensive, and it is inexcusable for our Federal Government to be 
spending money, putting in Internet systems into schools and libraries 
without it.
  What the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) and the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) are saying is that when this money is 
spent by the Federal Government to assist our schools and libraries in 
connecting our children to the Internet, we have this simple little 
requirement that they include in their plan a filtering device, cheap, 
inexpensive, easily installed. Not to pass this would be a crime.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, this is unfortunate that we are coming here without any 
hearings. We do not know how much these things cost, whether they are 
effective or not. We do know that there have been complaints that the 
filters filter out some stuff that we might not want filtered, like 
AIDS education; or even the Society of Friends, the Quakers, or the 
Heritage Foundations have had their sites blocked by this kind of 
filter. Many pornographic sites are not blocked because they fail to 
use the magic words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have not had any hearings, so we cannot get coherent 
answers to these questions. But we know that the measure is opposed by 
the National Education Association, the Education and Library Networks 
Coalition, the United States Catholic Conference, and the American 
Library Association, and the International Society for Technology in 
Education.
  But if we are going to be serious about crime, we ought to use a 
deliberate process, enact those measures that will actually work to 
reduce crime, and stop coming up at the last minute with amendments for 
which we have had no hearings.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our 
time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  I want to commend my friends from Mississippi and New Jersey for 
their foresight. Many of us who worked on the Child On-Line Protection 
Act and voted for it, which means virtually everybody within the sound 
of my voice who has a vote in this Chamber, as well as those on the 
floor who have worked on this issue understand the issue.
  Let me just tell my colleagues what is at stake. The ACLU is sending 
out information trying to get Members to vote against this legislation, 
just the same kind of thing they did when they opposed the Child On-
Line Protection Act, which passed unanimously in this body just less 
than a year ago.
  Let me tell my colleagues about the ACLU and what they are telling us 
about children's exposure to graphic content. This is from a 
Communications Daily article where ACLU attorney Ann Beson is arguing 
against our Child On-Line Protection Act and is quoted as saying that 
there is, quote, ``no real harm,'' end quote, to children

[[Page H4539]]

in viewing sexually graphic material, and that it will not, quote, 
``turn kids into sexual deviants.'' Since repression turns kids into 
deviants, that is the kind of opposition we are getting from common-
sense legislation and amendments that are put forward by our friends 
from New Jersey and Mississippi, and why I was proud to join these two 
gentlemen as a cosponsor. That is the real crux of the issue. Is it too 
much to ask that those filtering processes be there? I think not. Let 
us support this amendment.
  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 today to express my 
strong opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey. As 
a father of two children attending public school systems in New York, 
and with another child on the way, I am for finding sensible approaches 
to address what our children are exposed to without infringing on any 
individual's constitutional rights.
  Assuring that children's Internet activity is safe is a goal that we 
all strive to achieve. However, this amendment is not about addressing 
child safety at all. What it really is about is an attempt by those 
Members who fundamentally disagree with the E-rate program and want to 
eliminate it. This amendment imposes extraordinary financial and 
administrative burdens on schools and libraries as well as the risk of 
liability for the technical and constitutional shortcomings of 
filtering technology.
  Before this body looks to find ways to eliminate the E-rate program, 
let us examine how this program benefits communities across this 
country, and in schools and libraries in low-income and urban and rural 
areas. They qualify for the highest discounts to assure that every 
American, regardless of age, income or location, has access to 
essential tools of the information age.
  In the first year of the E-rate program, 47 percent of the dollars 
requested of the E-rate program were for schools and libraries serving 
economically disadvantaged students and library patrons. In addition, 
discount requests were received from all 50 States and several special 
jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the 
American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands.
  This program benefits everyone: children, adults, lifelong learners, 
everyone. Communities across this country are already working to ensure 
that children's Internet access is properly guided. They are utilizing 
every available option and choosing those that conform to local needs 
and standards.
  This amendment is unnecessary. What this technology does, it levels 
the playing field for the first time in the history of this country.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) and the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering). The amendment would eliminate E-rate 
benefits for schools and libraries that fail to implement filtering or 
blocking technology for computers with Internet access.
  Let me be clear. I do not advocate allowing schoolchildren access to 
pornographic materials, but the scope of this amendment is too broad 
and undefined. For example, it would require repayment of E-rate funds 
within 30 days if the school district is unable to comply with FCC 
rules. Procurement rules for individual school districts make it highly 
unlikely that schools will be able to comply, even though many are 
already seeking to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, the strange thing about all of this is this: The 
Congressional Black Caucus went over to the FCC when the vote was taken 
for E-rate. The only people who voted against it were Republicans, 
despite the fact we made a lot of pleas with our colleagues about the 
digital divide, between the haves and the have-nots, and some of the 
same ones who spoke on this floor today who are against E-rate for poor 
children, for children who do not have access, are now here trying to 
set up another roadblock.
  The E-rate program is instrumental in closing the digital divide that 
exists between the haves and the have-nots. The reality is that only 27 
percent of America's classrooms are linked to the Internet. In poor and 
minority communities, only 13 percent of the classrooms are linked to 
the Internet. Schools in high-minority enrollment areas are almost 
three times less likely to have Internet access in the classrooms than 
predominantly white schools. While 78 percent of schools have at least 
one Internet connection, that connection is often only in the 
administrative office.
  It is for these reasons, among others, that I have been an ardent 
supporter of the E-rate program. I am among the 74 percent of Americans 
who recognize that computers improve the quality of education. Let us 
not sacrifice the access to technology that our children in poor 
districts need so badly by succumbing to the rhetoric of this poorly 
drafted amendment. I urge a vote of no.
  Let me just say this: For all of those Members who forever talk about 
how families should raise their children, let me just tell them 
something. I have a grandson who is a whiz, loves the computer, knows 
it backwards and forwards. I said to my daughter, do not block 
anything. You tell your son, my grandchild, what he is to do and what 
he is not to do, and you discipline him if, in fact, he violates the 
rules of your house.
  For those people who want the government to take over the rearing of 
their children by dictating, by censuring, where is their ability to 
raise their children? Where is their will to discipline? Where is their 
desire to have some faith in their ability to instruct, to rear, and 
provide the kind of parenting that we all need to see in America, 
rather than thinking somebody else is going to do it for us?
  My grandson will not be censured, and guess what? He is going to do 
what his mama tells him and what his grandmother tells him, and that is 
what is going to be the order of the day in their house.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 42 printed 
in part A of House Report 106-186.


                Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. McIntosh

  Mr. McINTOSH. 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. 42 offered by Mr. McIntosh:
       At the end of the bill, add the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
                TITLE ____--TEACHER LIABILITY PROTECTION

     SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Teacher Liability 
     Protection Act of 1999''.

     SEC. ____02. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The ability of teachers, principals and other school 
     professionals to teach, inspire and shape the intellect of 
     our Nation's elementary and secondary school students is 
     deterred and hindered by frivolous lawsuits and litigation.
       (2) Each year more and more teachers, principals and other 
     school professionals face lawsuits for actions undertaken as 
     part of their duties to provide millions of school children 
     quality educational opportunities.
       (3) Too many teachers, principals and other school 
     professionals face increasingly severe and random acts of 
     violence in the classroom and in schools.
       (4) Providing teachers, principals and other school 
     professionals a safe and secure environment is an important 
     part of the effort to improve and expand educational 
     opportunities.
       (5) Clarifying and limiting the liability of teachers, 
     principals and other school professionals who undertake 
     reasonable actions to maintain order, discipline and an 
     appropriate educational environment is an appropriate subject 
     of Federal legislation because--
       (A) the scope of the problems created by the legitimate 
     fears of teachers, principals and other school professionals 
     about frivolous, arbitrary or capricious lawsuits against 
     teachers is of national importance; and
       (B) millions of children and their families across the 
     Nation depend on teachers, principals and other school 
     professionals for the intellectual development of children.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to provide 
     teachers, principals and other school professionals the tools 
     they need to undertake reasonable actions to maintain

[[Page H4540]]

     order, discipline and an appropriate educational environment.

     SEC. ____03. PREEMPTION AND ELECTION OF STATE 
                   NONAPPLICABILITY.

       (a) Preemption.--This title preempts the laws of any State 
     to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this 
     title, except that this title shall not preempt any State law 
     that provides additional protection from liability relating 
     to teachers.
       (b) Election of State Regarding Nonapplicability.--This 
     title shall not apply to any civil action in a State court 
     against a teacher in which all parties are citizens of the 
     State if such State enacts a statute in accordance with State 
     requirements for enacting legislation--
       (1) citing the authority of this subsection;
       (2) declaring the election of such State that this title 
     shall not apply, as of a date certain, to such civil action 
     in the State; and
       (3) containing no other provisions.

     SEC. ____04. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY FOR TEACHERS.

       (a) Liability Protection for Teachers.--Except as provided 
     in subsections (b) and (c), no teacher in a school shall be 
     liable for harm caused by an act or omission of the teacher 
     on behalf of the school if--
       (1) the teacher was acting within the scope of the 
     teacher's employment or responsibilities related to providing 
     educational services;
       (2) the actions of the teacher were carried out in 
     conformity with local, state, or federal laws, rules or 
     regulations in furtherance of efforts to control, discipline, 
     expel, or suspend a student or maintain order or control in 
     the classroom or school;
       (3) if appropriate or required, the teacher was properly 
     licensed, certified, or authorized by the appropriate 
     authorities for the activities or practice in the State in 
     which the harm occurred, where the activities were or 
     practice was undertaken within the scope of the teacher's 
     responsibilities;
       (4) the harm was not caused by willful or criminal 
     misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or a 
     conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of 
     the individual harmed by the teacher; and
       (5) the harm was not caused by the teacher operating a 
     motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other vehicle for which 
     the State requires the operator or the owner of the vehicle, 
     craft, or vessel to--
       (A) possess an operator's license; or
       (B) maintain insurance.
       (b) Concerning Responsibility of Teachers to Schools and 
     Governmental Entities.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any civil action brought by any school or 
     any governmental entity against any teacher of such school.
       (c) Exceptions to Teacher Liability Protection.--If the 
     laws of a State limit teacher liability subject to one or 
     more of the following conditions, such conditions shall not 
     be construed as inconsistent with this section:
       (1) A State law that requires a school or governmental 
     entity to adhere to risk management procedures, including 
     mandatory training of teachers.
       (2) A State law that makes the school or governmental 
     entity liable for the acts or omissions of its teachers to 
     the same extent as an employer is liable for the acts or 
     omissions of its employees.
       (3) A State law that makes a limitation of liability 
     inapplicable if the civil action was brought by an officer of 
     a State or local government pursuant to State or local law.
       (d) Limitation on Punitive Damages Based on the Actions of 
     Teachers.--
       (1) General rule.--Punitive damages may not be awarded 
     against a teacher in an action brought for harm based on the 
     action of a teacher acting within the scope of the teacher's 
     responsibilities to a school or governmental entity unless 
     the claimant establishes by clear and convincing evidence 
     that the harm was proximately caused by an action of such 
     teacher which constitutes willful or criminal misconduct, or 
     a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of 
     the individual harmed.
       (2) Construction.--Paragraph (1) does not create a cause of 
     action for punitive damages and does not preempt or supersede 
     any Federal or State law to the extent that such law would 
     further limit the award of punitive damages.
       (e) Exceptions to Limitations on Liability.--
       (1) In general.--The limitations on the liability of a 
     teacher under this title shall not apply to any misconduct 
     that--
       (A) constitutes a crime of violence (as that term is 
     defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code) or act 
     of international terrorism (as that term is defined in 
     section 2331 of title 18, United States Code) for which the 
     defendant has been convicted in any court;
       (B) involves a sexual offense, as defined by applicable 
     State law, for which the defendant has been convicted in any 
     court;
       (C) involves misconduct for which the defendant has been 
     found to have violated a Federal or State civil rights law; 
     or
       (D) where the defendant was under the influence (as 
     determined pursuant to applicable State law) of intoxicating 
     alcohol or any drug at the time of the misconduct.
       (2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to effect subsection (a)(3) or (d).

     SEC. ____05. LIABILITY FOR NONECONOMIC LOSS.

       (a) General Rule.--In any civil action against a teacher, 
     based on an action of a teacher acting within the scope of 
     the teacher's responsibilities to a school or governmental 
     entity, the liability of the teacher for noneconomic loss 
     shall be determined in accordance with subsection (b).
       (b) Amount of Liability.--
       (1) In general.--Each defendant who is a teacher, shall be 
     liable only for the amount of noneconomic loss allocated to 
     that defendant in direct proportion to the percentage of 
     responsibility of that defendant (determined in accordance 
     with paragraph (2)) for the harm to the claimant with respect 
     to which that defendant is liable. The court shall render a 
     separate judgment against each defendant in an amount 
     determined pursuant to the preceding sentence.
       (2) Percentage of responsibility.--For purposes of 
     determining the amount of noneconomic loss allocated to a 
     defendant who is a teacher under this section, the trier of 
     fact shall determine the percentage of responsibility of that 
     defendant for the claimant's harm.

     SEC. ____06. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title:
       (1) Economic loss.--The term ``economic loss'' means any 
     pecuniary loss resulting from harm (including the loss of 
     earnings or other benefits related to employment, medical 
     expense loss, replacement services loss, loss due to death, 
     burial costs, and loss of business or employment 
     opportunities) to the extent recovery for such loss is 
     allowed under applicable State law.
       (2) Harm.--The term ``harm'' includes physical, 
     nonphysical, economic, and noneconomic losses.
       (3) Noneconomic losses.--The term ``noneconomic losses'' 
     means losses for physical and emotional pain, suffering, 
     inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, 
     disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and 
     companionship, loss of consortium (other than loss of 
     domestic service), hedonic damages, injury to reputation and 
     all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind or nature.
       (4) School.--The term ``school'' means a public or private 
     kindergarten, a public or private elementary school or 
     secondary school (as defined in section 14101 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     8801)), or a home school.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession 
     of the United States, or any political subdivision of any 
     such State, territory, or possession.
       (6) Teacher.--The term ``teacher'' means a teacher, 
     instructor, principal, administrator, or other educational 
     professional that works in a school, a local school board and 
     any member of such board, and a local educational agency and 
     any employee of such agency.

     SEC. ____07. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--This title shall take effect 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Application.--This title applies to any claim for harm 
     caused by an act or omission of a teacher where that claim is 
     filed on or after the effective date of this Act, without 
     regard to whether the harm that is the subject of the claim 
     or the conduct that caused the harm occurred before such 
     effective date.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I rise today in strong support of this important school safety 
amendment, and I am pleased to be joined in by my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady) in this effort.
  Mr. Chairman, it is apparent from the debate over the last 2 days 
that many different lessons are being drawn from the recent school 
shooting tragedies that have staggered our Nation. However, I think 
there is one lesson that is clear to each and every one of us in this 
body. America's teachers must be freed up to use and to keep discipline 
in the classroom.

                              {time}  1830

  It is about time that Congress plays its part in protecting our 
teachers. I have traveled across Indiana and talked to teachers from 
all parts of that State. They tell me over and over again, they do 
their job but they do it in fear. They fear physical harm in the 
classroom from unruly students who may be violent, and educators 
equally fear lawsuits being brought against them by overzealous trial 
lawyers, lawsuits filed because a teacher breaks up a fight or because 
a teacher hugs a child who has fallen on the playground.
  In Texas we have a report of a lawsuit of that type. What happened 
here was a student was throwing fruit in the classroom and being 
extremely disruptive. The teacher went over to this

[[Page H4541]]

young student and repeatedly asked him to stop. That is inappropriate 
behavior. The student began yelling obscenities, including the F word 
at the teacher, and continued his behavior.
  So the teacher took the student, took him out of the room, took him 
down to the principal's office for appropriate discipline. Later the 
student and his family sued that teacher, saying that they had acted 
inappropriately. This case fortunately was dismissed, but it sent a 
pall throughout the classrooms in America when teachers can be subject 
to that type of lawsuit.
  Frankly, it is just plain wrong to put our teachers in this 
predicament. We need to take lawsuits out of the classroom. Teachers 
should not fear losing their jobs, their livelihood, and their life 
savings as a result of those types of frivolous lawsuits.
  That is why I have joined today with my colleagues to introduce this 
amendment, which takes an important first step toward protecting our 
teachers from unfair lawsuits. This amendment provides limited immunity 
from civil liability for teachers who are attempting to maintain order, 
control, or discipline in the classroom or in the school. It allows 
principals and administrators to take charge and provide leadership. It 
allows them to do so without fear of being subject to a lawsuit because 
some lawyer sees an opportunity to make a fast buck.
  In fact, I want to share with the Members a letter from Bobby Fields, 
who is a teacher and assistant principal from LaPel High School, in my 
district. Mr. Fields wrote to me telling me of this real problem. I 
will quote from his letter:
  ``In recent years the threat of lawsuits have really hampered my 
ability to enforce adequate discipline in the classroom.'' We have no 
discipline in the classroom, and when that happens, there is no 
learning going on. Perhaps the most important benefit of this amendment 
is that teachers will be able to teach, not only the subject of the 
class, but a more general lesson, that there are limits, certain 
behavior is unacceptable, and that there are consequences when children 
do something that is wrong.
  These more subtle yet very profound lessons will do more to ensure 
that our young people grow up with the values they need to be 
responsible. Frankly, I think it will help to ensure that we do not see 
a future Columbine or Springfield, Oregon, or Paducah, Kentucky.
  Let me state emphatically what this amendment does not do. It does 
not provide protection if the professionals act inappropriately, act 
illegally, use drugs or are on alcohol. Second, it does not override 
State laws that provide for greater relief or immunity.
  I would also like to remind my colleagues that the Senate passed a 
nearly identical amendment by voice vote when they addressed this view. 
So I ask my colleagues today to join me to free teachers from the 
threat of unnecessary lawsuits. Our teachers need and deserve our help. 
We can think of many of them who have influenced our lives. Let us give 
something back to them. Let us give them the freedom to teach again.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and am pleased to be 
here with my colleagues, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) and 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) as cosponsors.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. SCOTT. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is 
recognized for the time in opposition.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides that a teacher acting within 
the scope of his or her employment, acting within conformity with 
local, State, and Federal laws, rules, and regulations would have 
immunity. But it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that they would not need 
immunity because they would not be liable in that situation.
  To the extent that that provision gives comfort and aid to teachers, 
it would be appropriate. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, it does not just 
provide immunity, it changes the laws on joint and several liability, 
and provides new standards for punitive damages which are well 
established in State law.
  We ought not be trying to change State law. States have the 
capability of doing their own laws in liability cases, and we should 
not be changing them. The joint and several liability and punitive 
damage issues have been before us on other bills. It just seems to me 
that this is a matter for States to decide. They have been doing this 
for hundreds of years, and they can continue.
  For that reason, I think the bill is either unnecessary or goes into 
areas it should not be going into.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the gentleman aware 
of section B, that gives the States an opt out provision for the entire 
bill. If they want to pass a different law, they can. So what we are 
doing really by this amendment is filling in the blanks when the States 
have not acted to provide that type of relief.
  Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the States also have the 
option of passing whatever law they want. They should not have to act 
because we tell them to act, they ought to be able to act and do what 
they want to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant), who is also a cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  (Mr. BRYANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Indiana, for yielding time to me. I thank my other colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for joining in this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as I sat here and listened to the debate about what is 
going on, I hope those that are viewing this debate from the audience 
can understand that we are about constructing a bill that would be 
effective in combatting what we see and read about every day in the 
newspaper and hear about on the radio and television, this culture of 
violence that we have come into in this country, particularly among our 
youth.
  We are trying to do this as a reaction to an action that we believe 
has carried this country too far one way. We are reacting bit by bit, 
piece by piece today, in trying to build a very solid constitutional 
measure that will give parents and society, schoolteachers, 
administrators, some ability to react.
  We are doing this in a way that we have done because we are listening 
to the people out there. We are going into the schools and talking to 
the principals and teachers. That is why we had an amendment just a 
couple of amendments ago that said we do not want guns in schools, no 
matter who brings those guns to school. We just had an amendment before 
this where we said, we do not want all sorts of trash and terrible 
information coming through the Internet into the schools that we would 
not let into our own homes.

  I was certainly persuaded by the argument of one of my colleagues on 
the other side from California about how she is a good grandparent and 
how her daughter is a good parent. It sounds like that is a great 
situation. I admire that. It is not her grandchild, it is not 
necessarily my children or anyone else's children here or children of 
good parents that we worry about, it is those children out there who do 
not have these positive influences around them, and that yet are 
subject to these negative influences through the Internet or through 
whatever source of influence they are subject to.
  In the instance of this amendment, it is children who come to school 
and misbehave in a terrible way, that create an environment in our 
classroom where nobody can learn; that the teacher feels unsafe, and 
that the fellow students feel unsafe. When some action is taken, the 
next thing we know, the people in charge are drug into court to defend 
themselves over that.
  All this bill simply does is establish some parameters, some limited 
liability for teachers, to give them some confidence, some security 
that they

[[Page H4542]]

need to properly enforce the discipline and keep the order in the 
classroom which, in the end, everybody wins. So it is for that reason 
and on that basis and with that logic that I submit that this is good 
legislation, an amendment that I urge my colleagues to support.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in opposition to this 
amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
McIntosh).
  I have one question I would like to ask the gentleman: Where in the 
Constitution does the Federal government have the authority to 
interfere, to govern, to establish rules of civil liability in areas 
involving local school districts, especially in light of the 
gentleman's philosophy, which is the same as mine, that the Federal 
government should stay as far away from local education as possible?
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
will give the gentleman a short answer. Essentially I think it comes as 
an ancillary of our spending programs in the area of education, which 
this body has decided repeatedly to continue and to amplify. It is not 
possible for that spending to be wisely spent if we do not have order 
in the classroom.
  As I mentioned, we have been very mindful of the Federalism concern. 
We have allowed States to opt out if they disagree. We have not 
preempted when the States had additional protections for the teachers.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the fact that the 
Federal government gives about 6 percent of the total school budget 
allows the Federal government the authority under the Constitution to 
establish State rules of tort liability?
  The gentleman has not answered my question because there is no answer 
to it. What we have here is the Federal government, and I think this is 
a very dangerous piece of legislation, though it is well-intended. If I 
were a member of the State legislature, I would vote for it. But what 
this is saying is that Congress knows best; that Congress is here with 
a great idea on tort liability.
  The problem here is every State, including my State of Illinois, has 
a tort immunity act involving teachers, people working. Every State in 
this Nation has its own body of laws dealing with State and local 
governments. What we are doing here is attempting to have a one-size-
fits-all plan, though it looks good on its face, imposed upon the 
States. That sets a very dangerous trend. It is the same trend that we 
set for voluntary organizations.
  I was one of five members, I believe, of this House that voted 
against that law that imposed a Federal standard on voluntary 
organizations. This is a usurping of the power of the States to concern 
and to regulate their own tort laws. I would suggest to my good friend, 
the gentleman from Indiana, that this is not a conservative measure, 
this is not an anti-Federalist measure, which goes along with our 
conservative opinions, but this goes way beyond what our Constitution 
envisions is the proper role for the Federal government with regard to 
local State claims.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo). We disagree. I think we have the 
constitutional power to enact this as a Federal standard, particularly 
with the safeguards for allowing the States to choose to do otherwise 
as they see fit.
  But I appreciate the gentleman's dedication to that Federalism 
principle, and reluctantly reach a different conclusion from him. I 
wanted to say, although we disagree on this, I do appreciate the 
concern. We have thought a great deal about it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady), my colleague and the other cosponsor of this bill.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, it happens every school day, every afternoon. A mom 
waits at home, watches nervously for the school bus. Another mom at 
work keeps looking at the phone, awaiting a phone call. One is hoping 
her child returns home safely that day. The other breathes a silent 
sigh of relief when the phone rings and a small voice utters three very 
magic words, ``I'm home, mom.''
  Schools are becoming more and more dangerous. Teachers tell me they 
do not feel safe in their schools. Too many tell me that they are 
afraid to discipline unruly students, and for good reason: They may 
face an expensive and a career-ending frivolous lawsuit by overzealous 
lawyers.
  Worse yet, they stand a good chance of being humiliated again when 
they are not backed up in their decision for discipline in their 
school. They are not backed up by principals in school districts who 
try their best but are intimidated with constant threats of expensive 
and very unfair litigation.
  It is time to take the lawyers out of our classrooms. It is time to 
shield responsible educators from frivolous lawsuits so our children 
have a safe school we can learn in. Responsible teachers should not be 
afraid of violent bullies with intimidating attorneys.
  I will tell the Members what, when we maintain order in the 
classroom, the first call a teacher makes should not be to her 
attorney, it ought to be the parents that of that unruly student. 
School boards should not have to choose between doing what is right for 
their kids or risking their local tax dollars to fight an empty, 
frivolous lawsuit where even if they win, the children lose.

                              {time}  1845

  This measure shields educators when they do the right thing to 
maintain order. Some States have recognized the role discipline plays. 
They have passed some laws, but most have not. We need to shield, and 
what this does is it ensures that each State can adopt this law, opt 
out or choose whatever version they feel safe with, but we are going to 
shield our educators.
  So who opposes restoring order and discipline to our schools? The 
same people who believe that when a burglar breaks into someone's home, 
slips and falls, he ought to be able to sue; the same person who says a 
Good Samaritan who races to the aid of a stranger and things do not 
turn out perfectly, he ought to have a right to take everything they 
possess.
  It is those who place the rights of the destructive student who does 
not want to learn over the rights of the good kids who do want to 
learn. The teacher liability protection amendment by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) 
offers a clear choice: good kids, responsible teachers and safe schools 
versus violent bullies and their reckless attorneys.
  I choose the children.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the solution that is being proposed here in 
this amendment is far-reaching. I do not think any parent in America 
would like to give immunity to all of the school personnel and send 
their kids off to school with personnel that may or may not go beyond 
their duties in disciplining.
  Now, if there is a student that is acting out in the ways that have 
been described, no teacher should have the responsibility of 
disciplining a violent student. That teacher should be able to call the 
appropriate persons and have that student removed. Do not put the 
teacher in the position of limiting liability, or eliminating 
liability, so that they are responsible for handling or taking care of 
a violent student. They should not have to do that under any 
circumstances.
  So as my colleagues reach into the States to dictate to the States 
and to the school districts how they should handle violent students, 
they really are doing violence to the Constitution of the United States 
of America, and that should not be done.
  As a matter of fact, it is safer for the students and the families to 
have the liability responsibilities, and it is safer for the teachers 
not to have to confront it. I would ask that my colleagues vote no on 
this amendment.
  In closing, let me just say, if anyone knows of a teacher who was 
acting

[[Page H4543]]

within their framework for doing their job and they have been sued and 
they have to pay out of their own pockets, tell them to see me. I am 
not a lawyer and I will get their money back for them.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
in the debate?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. McIntosh) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of the 
McIntosh amendment. The value and overwhelming good that will amount 
from this amendment certainly justifies its approval here now.
  I have met with teachers in my Congressional district in Florida and 
have listened carefully to what problems they have in their classrooms. 
In fact, my mother was a teacher, so I am very aware of how important 
this amendment is for teachers and other educational professionals.
  They must be empowered to assume full leadership in the classroom, 
without the anxiety of facing frivolous lawsuits.
  The McIntosh amendment protects our teachers from just that: 
excessive and frivolous lawsuits. There is absolutely no reason why our 
public school teachers should walk into their classrooms day after day 
and fear lawsuits, all because they are exercising their right, in fact 
their duty, to maintain order and discipline in their classrooms.
  The idea that teachers in my district are even restrained from 
exercising authority over students, better yet unruly and disruptive 
students, is an outrage. Our teachers should be empowered to maintain 
control of the classroom, without fearing the backlash of liability 
lawsuits.
  This amendment will help protect the majority of students and it will 
enhance the learning environment. The McIntosh amendment is carefully 
crafted to protect our teachers from lawsuits when they are taking 
steps to maintain order in the classroom. It creates a standard for 
education professionals by giving them limited immunity from civil 
liability.
  Now we are not talking about protecting teachers when they are part 
of a criminal activity or violations of State or Federal civil rights 
laws. I am talking about when a teacher is unable to take necessary 
disciplinary action against an unruly student just because they are 
nervous or fearful about a potential lawsuit from parents or 
overzealous attorneys.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to pass this amendment, and I want to conclude 
by pointing out that this amendment does not preempt State laws when 
those State laws provide the teachers with greater liability 
protections than the language in this amendment. It sets a minimum 
standard, and I believe this is an appropriate action for us. I 
encourage its approval.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) what percentage of teachers have been sued under 
the conditions that he has described in the last 5 years?
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. McINTOSH. There have not been a large percentage of teachers who 
have been sued, but what we have seen----
  Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Well, the gentlewoman only let me answer half of the 
question.
  Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman said he does not know, 
and there has not been a large percentage. I am sorry, that is 
precisely what I needed to know.
  Secondly, what teachers does the gentleman know that have been sued 
that have not had their defense paid for by the school district or the 
State in which the suit took place?
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. McINTOSH. By the way, there has been a 200 percent increase in 
lawsuits involving teachers in the last decade, which is to me 
phenomenal.
  Ms. WATERS. Does that mean that there are 4 instead of 2?
  Mr. McINTOSH. Those teachers who are sued are the ones that 
ultimately risk having to defend themselves because the State is not 
required in every circumstance to defend them. Plus, there are memos 
going out to teachers that say do not touch the children; do not hug 
them if they fall down on the playground because they might get sued 
and the school might have to take taxpayer money to defend them.
  Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has just admitted that, 
number one, they do not have any data. They do not have any information 
that shows that there is a rash or increase in lawsuits. There is not 
that information available; he is absolutely correct. It is minuscule. 
That is number one.
  Number two, the gentleman is not able to represent that anybody that 
may have been sued, and the few that may have taken place, have not 
been protected by their school districts or their States. They do not 
know of anybody who are out-of-pocket because they have been sued, they 
have been ruined because they have been sued.
  This is a fallacious argument. It is one that does not deserve the 
attention of this floor. I would ask my colleagues to disregard it and 
vote no.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), who I understand will give a real-life 
circumstance in which these lawsuits are wreaking devastating havoc 
upon the school system in his State.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would appeal to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who has always been fair, and say 
that in San Diego our new superintendent is Alan Bersin. He was a 
Clinton appointee, prior on the border. I have met with him many times 
and his number one problem is the IDEA program. The lawyers are suing 
the teachers, and most of this was happening before Secretary Riley, 
who is a good friend, put out the guidelines for IDEA.
  It is not just that they are getting sued. We are losing good 
teachers. All they had to do is help special education children, but 
yet because of the cottage organizations and the lawsuits and them 
having to go before the courts, we are losing good teachers.
  This is an area where my friend and I and the committee should work 
together to protect those teachers, because they are going through 
tremendous harassment. It is a difficult environment in the first place 
and when they are subjected to those kinds of ridicule and abuse by 
lawyers in the field, I would give the gentleman Alan Bersin's phone 
number and let him talk to the gentleman.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, am I correct that I have 1 remaining 
minute?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close on our side and say simply, I would ask my 
colleagues to think about in their own lives, the 2 or 3 people, other 
than their family members, who have influenced them the most. I will 
bet in almost every case they will think of a teacher.
  Now, think about that teacher who is subject to a chilling effect of 
being threatened with a lawsuit and had to hold back and could not 
motivate them, could not challenge them to do the best in school, could 
not have inspired them to go on and be successful and be men and women 
who represent the United States in this body of Congress. That is what 
we have to put an end to, that chilling effect that these lawsuits are 
causing, that does not allow the teachers to inspire our children to be 
the next generation of leaders, of Congressmen and Congresswomen.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment so we may 
free up the teachers to be a great influence in the next generation of 
Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem with this amendment is we have not had any

[[Page H4544]]

hearings. This has profound educational implications; no hearings in 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Profound litigation 
implications; no hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary. So it 
sounds good. It might be a good idea; it might not. We do not know 
because we have not had any hearings. We do not have any concrete 
evidence of the experience across the country with hundreds of 
thousands of teachers.
  How many have been sued? What were the conditions? Who had to pay? We 
do not know.
  We have constitutional implications, and whether or not we have the 
authority to impose this situation on the States, we have not had an 
opportunity to consider that. There are significant and profound 
changes in the law in terms of punitive damages, and the burden of 
proof, joint and several liability. The preponderance of the evidence, 
the burden of proof that is needed. We have not had the opportunity to 
propose amendments to clarify which might be good ideas and which may 
not. We do not know.
  Mr. Chairman, with all the unanswered questions, I think we would be 
ill-advised to adopt this amendment. We should vote no and have 
hearings, and if it is a good idea it will survive the normal 
legislative process.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McINTOSH. 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. 
McIntosh) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment 43 printed in part A of 
House Report 106-186.


                Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Schaffer

  Mr. SCHAFFER. 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. 43 offered by Mr. Schaffer:
       At the end of the bill, add the following (and make such 
     technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):

     SEC. 3. EVALUATION BY GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

       (a) Evaluation.--Not later than October 1, 2002, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a 
     comprehensive analysis and evaluation regarding the 
     performance of the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency and 
     Prevention, its functions, its programs, and its grants under 
     specified criteria, and shall submit the report required by 
     subsection (b). In conducting the analysis and evaluation, 
     the Comptroller General shall take into consideration the 
     following factors to document the efficiency and public 
     benefit of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), excluding the Runaway 
     and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) and the 
     Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5771 et seq.):
       (1) The outcome and results of the programs carried out by 
     the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and 
     those administered -through grants by Office of Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
       (2) The extent to which the agency has complied with the 
     provisions contained in the Government Performance and 
     Results Act of 1993 (Pub. Law 103-62; 107 Stat. 285).
       (3) The extent to which the jurisdiction of, and the 
     programs administered by, the agency duplicate or conflict 
     with the jurisdiction and programs of other agencies.
       (4) The potential benefits of consolidating programs 
     administered by the agency with similar or duplicative 
     programs of other agencies, and the potential for 
     consolidating such programs.
       (5) Whether the agency has acted outside the scope of its 
     original authority, and whether the original objectives of 
     the agency have been achieved.
       (6) Whether less restrictive or alternative methods exists 
     to carry out the functions of the agency. Whether present 
     functions or operations are impeded or enhanced by existing, 
     statutes, rules, and procedures.
       (7) The number and types of beneficiaries or persons served 
     by programs carried out under the Act.
       (8) The extent to which any trends or emerging conditions 
     that are likely to affect the future nature and the extent of 
     the problems or needs the programs carried out by the Act are 
     intended to address.
       (9) The manner with which the agency seeks public input and 
     input from State and local governments on the performance of 
     the functions of the agency.
       (10) Whether the agency has worked to enact changes in the 
     law intended to benefit the public as a whole rather than the 
     specific businesses, institutions, or individuals the agency 
     regulates or funds.
       (11) The extent to which the agency grants have encouraged 
     participation by the public as a whole in making its rules 
     and decisions rather than encouraging participation solely by 
     those it regulates.
       (12) The extent to which the agency complies with section 
     552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the 
     ``Freedom of Information Act'').
       (13) The impact of any regulatory, privacy, and paperwork 
     concerns resulting from the programs carried out by the 
     agency.
       (14) The extent to which the agency has coordinated with 
     state and local governments in performing the functions of 
     the agency.
       (15) Whether greater oversight is needed of programs 
     developed with grants made by the Office of Juvenile Justice 
     and Delinquency Prevention.
       (16) The extent to which changes are necessary in the 
     authorizing statutes of the agency in order that the 
     functions of the agency can be performed in a more efficient 
     and effective manner.
       (b) Report.--The report required by subsection (a) shall--
       (1) include recommendations for legislative changes, as 
     appropriate, based on the evaluation conducted under 
     subsection (a), to be made to the Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), 
     excluding the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 
     et seq.) and the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5771 et seq.), and
       (2) shall be submitted, together with supporting materials, 
     to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
     President pro tempore of the Senate, and made available to 
     the public, not later than October 1, 2003.

     SEC. 4. CONTINGENT WIND-DOWN AND REPEAL OF JUVENILE JUSTICE 
                   AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT OF 1974.

       If funds are not authorized before October 1, 2004, to be 
     appropriated to carry out title II of the Juvenile Justice 
     and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5611-5676) 
     for fiscal year 2005, then--
       (1) effective October 1, 2004--
       (A) sections 205, 206, and 299, and
       (B) parts B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I,

     of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 
     1974 are repealed, and
       (2) effective October 1, 2005--
       (A) the 1st section, and
       (B) titles I and II,

     of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 
     1974 are repealed.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  (Mr. SCHAFFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am truly moved by Members here who have participated 
in the debate over the last couple of days on youth violence and 
juvenile crime prevention. I am persuaded by the arguments by all 
individuals who have come to the floor that we all care deeply about 
youth violence and wish to sincerely see a resolution to the crisis 
that confronts the country, and warrants our attention.

                              {time}  1900

  We focused a lot on all of the amendments, amendments of all sorts. 
But I am here to remind the Members that there is an underlying bill 
that compels us to come here on the floor in the first place, and that 
is a reauthorization process in which we are scheduled to consider in 
ordinary fashion the continuation of existing programs that are already 
on the book.
  The purpose of my amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to ask Members to 
consider the $4.5 billion that is spent on various juvenile justice 
programs and youth crime prevention programs presently under current 
law and ask the question, the most fundamental question, I believe, in 
all of this debate, is the money we are already spending being spent in 
a way that yields real results?
  Just a month or so ago, the Justice Department appeared before one of 
the education subcommittees and offered in the course of their 
testimony this report, this report published by the Center for the 
Study and Prevention of Violence. The report, when I took a look at it, 
has some pretty scathing comments that suggests that the amendment I 
offer here today is something we ought to adopt.
  I am quoting from the report, ``To date, most of the resources 
committed

[[Page H4545]]

to the prevention and control of youth violence, at both the national 
and local levels, has been invested in untested programs based on 
questionable assumptions and delivered with little consistency or 
quality control. Further, the vast majority of these programs are not 
being evaluated. This means we will never know which (if any) of them 
have had some significant deterrent effect; we will learn nothing from 
our investment in these programs to improve our understanding of the 
causes of violence or to guide our future efforts to deter violence; 
and there will be no real accountability for the expenditures of scarce 
community resources. Worse yet, some of the most popular programs have 
actually been demonstrated in careful scientific studies to be 
ineffective, and yet we continue to invest huge sums of money in them 
for largely political reasons.''
  The amendment I offer, Mr. Chairman, is one that proposes a 
comprehensive review by the Government Accounting Office, asking 
several specific questions about the performance of the programs we 
adopt today by amendment and those we renew by reauthorization in the 
underlying bills.
  Finally, it sets up a mechanism whereby this Congress must act 
affirmatively in its next reauthorization process in order for these 
programs to be continued; and that decision would, of course, be made 
based on the results of the report that is rendered and submitted to 
Congress.
  That, Mr. Chairman, is the amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Does the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) claim the time in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. SCOTT. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. 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, I want to commend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Schaffer) for offering studies. We do not have enough studies. We end 
up doing a lot of things that we ought not do because we do not know 
what we are talking about. We think things on the fly, like we have 
been taking a lot of these amendments. So more study, we cannot be hurt 
by more studies.
  The problem with this amendment, however, Mr. Chairman, is the sunset 
provision, because not only would it sunset some funding, it would 
sunset some protection for juveniles if we are late in reauthorizing 
the bill 4 years from now. We are always late in reauthorizing it.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we ought not have the sunset provision in 
there. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the sunset provision is an essential part. I am 
persuaded by the abundance of compassion and concern for youth violence 
exhibited on the floor here today that, in 2004, when it is time for 
Congress to reauthorize these programs again under the mechanism and 
vision in this amendment, that those programs which truly result in 
beneficial outcomes for our Nation's youth will, in fact, be 
reauthorized and renewed.
  So I am banking on the success of the programs proposed and believe 
this Congress will act responsibly at that point in time.
  To fail to enact that portion of the amendment would simply allow the 
current mechanism that allows these programs to run on and on and on 
without any accountability or without any real challenge as to the 
efficiency of the dollars spent. Four and a half billion is a lot of 
money. I think we ought to make sure that these dollars actually work.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
amendment that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) is offering. 
I would hope that it would not be necessary, and maybe he can withdraw 
it.
  I say it for this reason. The study that he cites from the Center on 
the Prevention of Violence, and I think it is actually in Denver, 
Colorado, has gone through a number of these programs that we have 
authorized and appropriated money for over the last several years.
  I think the study draws the right conclusions. We are spending a lot 
of money on a lot of programs that have not been properly tested, that 
politically are quite popular.
  The DARE program, every politician, every police department loves it, 
it just does not happen to do much good. In fact, I think the Center 
for the Study of Violence found that it was probably, in many cases, at 
the lower grades counterproductive. Either it kind of made icons out of 
some drug dealers, or the kids could not assimilate the information.
  Because of the Center study, DARE is now being reformulated and, 
apparently with some success, being offered in the middle school as 
opposed to with very young children.
  I do not think we need the GAO. I think what we need is, when the 
appropriations bill comes to this floor later this year, we ought to 
ask whether or not there is any proof of efficacy of some of the 
programs.
  Now, a lot of our colleagues are going to get upset about that, but 
we should forget the GAO, do not pay for the GAO, take that study the 
gentleman from Colorado has in his hand, and what he will find out is, 
when he is talking about youth violence and he is really talking about 
the problems of serious delinquency and chronic delinquency, there is 
probably about four or five programs in the Nation that are really 
doing this in a comprehensive fashion.
  Most of them are things that politicians do not want to hear about. 
They are dealing with very young children in a very comprehensive 
fashion who have very serious problems. But in some cases, it is 7, 8, 
10 percent of the kids who are 61 percent of the crimes; in other 
words, 20 percent of the kids are 70 percent of the crimes.
  So we are able to identify many of these kids, but when we do, it 
requires the kind of help that most politicians do not want to deliver. 
They would rather  cut a ribbon. They would rather have a grant. They 
would rather lean on our appropriators to fund these programs.

  But as the Center properly points out, in most cases, these are not 
terribly effective programs. For this kind of money, the taxpayers 
ought to get a bigger bang for the buck.
  I would hope that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) would 
withdraw his amendment, but I think he raises a very important point. I 
am concerned about the sunset, because the unintended consequences of 
Congress, as the gentleman knows, can be rather dramatic.
  I think that we ought to make sure, and I know that the gentleman 
knows we did this with some of the education programs, we want 
nationally tested, effective programs, and that is what we ought to be 
funding and not every pilot program that walks through the door that 
politically sounds great because it involves the police department or 
involves somebody else, but has no effect in terms of the outcomes of 
violence.
  So I would oppose the amendment if the gentleman continues, but I 
would hope that, instead of spending money on a GAO study, we take the 
work of the National Center and put it up against the appropriations 
process and then ask our colleagues, is this what they really want to 
spend money on? I think they would have trouble answering, in light of 
that study and other studies that the Center has sponsored, answering 
in the affirmative if they really want to deal with the problems of 
youth violence.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me read one more passage from the report that we 
have been talking about today. ``When rigorous evaluations have been 
conducted, they often reveal that such programs are ineffective and can 
even make matters worse.''

[[Page H4546]]

  That is the underlying motivation for this amendment. It gives the 
Congress in the year 2000 substantial leverage to do a better job of 
evaluating these programs and making sure that the $2.4 billion spread 
across 117 different programs and 15 different agencies actually help 
children.
  This is, in my opinion, the most important and the best thing we can 
do in this whole entire debate, to make sure the money we are spending 
actually works.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record  the summary of the Center for 
the Study and Prevention of Violence, as follows:

                         Editor's Introduction


                              introduction

       The demand for effective violence and crime prevention 
     programs has never been greater. As our communities struggle 
     to deal with the violence epidemic of the 1990s in which we 
     have seen the juvenile homicide rate double and arrests for 
     serious violent crimes increase 50 percent between 1984 and 
     1994,\1\ the search for some effective ways to prevent this 
     carnage and self-destructiveness has become a top national 
     priority. To date, most of the resources committed to the 
     prevention and control of youth violence, at both the 
     national and local levels, has been invested in untested 
     programs based on questionable assumptions and delivered with 
     little consistency or quality control. Further, the vast 
     majority of these programs are not being evaluated. This 
     means we will never know which (if any) of them have had some 
     significant deterrent effect; we will learn nothing from our 
     investment in these programs to improve our understanding of 
     the causes of violence or to guide our future efforts to 
     deter violence; and there will be no real accountability for 
     the expenditures of scarce community resources. Worse yet, 
     some of the most popular programs have actually been 
     demonstrated in careful scientific studies to be ineffective, 
     and yet we continue to invest huge sums of money in them for 
     largely political reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       There are several reasons for this situation. First, there 
     is little political or even program support for evaluation. 
     Federal and state violence prevention initiatives rarely 
     allocate additional evaluation dollars for the programs they 
     fund. Given that the investment in such programs is 
     relatively low, it is argued that every dollar available 
     should go to the delivery of program services, i.e., to 
     helping youth avoid involvement in violent or criminal 
     behavior. Further, the cost of conducting a careful outcome 
     evaluation is prohibitive for most individual programs, 
     exceeding their entire annual budget in many cases. Finally, 
     many program developers believe they know intuitively that 
     their programs work, and thus they do not think a rigorous 
     evaluation is required to demonstrate this.
       Unfortunately, this view and policy is very shortsighted. 
     When rigorous evaluations have been conducted, they often 
     reveal that such programs are ineffective and can even make 
     matters worse.\2\ Indeed, many programs fail to even address 
     the underlying causes of violence, involve simplistic 
     ``silver bullet'' assumptions (e.g., I once had a counselor 
     tell me there wasn't a single delinquent youth he couldn't 
     ``turn around'' with an hour of individual counseling), and 
     allocate investments of time and resources that are far too 
     small to counter the years of exposure to negative influences 
     of the family, neighborhood, peer group, and the media. 
     Violent behavior is a complex behavior pattern which involves 
     both individual dispositions and social contexts in which 
     violence is normative and rewarded. Most violence prevention 
     programs focus only on the individual dispositions and fail 
     to address the reinforcements for violence in the social 
     contexts where youth live, with the result that positive 
     changes in the individual's behavior achieved in the 
     treatment setting are quickly lost when the youth returns 
     home to his or her family, neighborhood, and old friends.
       Progress in our ability to effectively prevent and control 
     violence requires evaluation. A responsible accounting to the 
     taxpayers, private foundations, or businesses funding these 
     programs requires that we justify these expenditures with 
     tangible results. No respectable business or corporation 
     would invest millions of dollars in an enterprise without 
     checking to see if it is profitable. Our failure to provide 
     this type of evidence has seriously undermined the public 
     confidence in prevention efforts generally, and is at least 
     partly responsible for the current public support for 
     building more prisons and incapacitating youth--the public 
     knows they are receiving some protection for this 
     expenditure, even if it is temporary.
       The prospects for effective prevention programs and a 
     national prevention initiative have improved greatly during 
     the past decade. We now have a substantial body of research 
     on the causes and correlates of crime and violence. There is 
     general consensus within the research community about the 
     specific individual dispositions, contextual (family, school, 
     neighborhood, and peer group) conditions, and interaction 
     dynamics which lead to involvement in violent behavior. These 
     characteristics, which have been linked to the onset, 
     continuity, and termination of violence, are commonly 
     referred to as ``risk'' and ``protective'' factors for 
     violence. Risk factors are those personal attributes and 
     contextual conditions which increase the likelihood of 
     violence. Protective factors are those which reduce the 
     likelihood of violence, either directly or by virtue of 
     buffering the individual from the negative effects of risk 
     factors.\3\ Programs which can alter these conditions, 
     reducing or eliminating risk factors and facilitating 
     protective factors, offer the most promise as violence 
     prevention programs.
       While our evaluation of these programs is quite limited, we 
     have succeeded in demonstrating that some of these programs 
     are effective in deterring crime and violence. This 
     breakthrough in prevention programming has yet to be 
     reflected in national or state funding decisions, and is 
     admittedly but a beginning point for developing the 
     comprehensive set of prevention programs necessary for 
     developing a national prevention initiative.
       Each of these proven programs is described in this series 
     of Blueprints for Violence Prevention. To date, we have 
     identified ten such programs. These Blueprints (which will be 
     described later in this Editor's Introduction) are designed 
     to be practical documents which will allow interested 
     persons, agencies, and communities to make an informed 
     judgment about a program's appropriateness for their local 
     situation, needs, and available resources.


                               background

       The violence epidemic of the 1990s produced a dramatic 
     shift in the public's perception of the seriousness of 
     violence. In 1982, only three percent of adults identified 
     crime and violence as the most important problem facing this 
     country; by August of 1994, more than half thought crime and 
     violence was the nation's most important problem. Throughout 
     the '90s violence has been indicated as a more serious 
     problem than the high cost of living, unemployment, poverty 
     and homelessness, and health care. Again, in 1994, violence 
     (together with a lack of discipline) was identified as the 
     ``biggest problem'' facing the nation's public schools.\4\ 
     Among America's high school seniors, violence is the problem 
     these young people worry about most frequently--more than 
     drug abuse, economic problems, poverty, race relations, or 
     nuclear war.\5\
       The critical question is, ``How will we as a society deal 
     with this violence problem?'' Government policies at all 
     levels reflect a punitive, legalistic approach, an approach 
     which does have broad public support. At both the national 
     and state levels, there have been four major policy and 
     program initiatives introduced as violence prevention or 
     control strategies in the 1990s: (1) the use of judicial 
     waivers, transferring violent juvenile offenders as young as 
     age ten into the adult justice system for trial, sentencing, 
     and adult prison terms; (2) legislating new gun control 
     policies (e.g., the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 
     1993); (3) the creation of ``boot camps'' or shock 
     incarceration programs for young offenders, in order to 
     instill discipline and respect for authority; and (4) 
     community policing initiatives to create police-community 
     partnerships aimed at more efficient community problem 
     solving in dealing with crime, violence, and drug abuse.
       Two of these initiatives are purely reactive: they involve 
     ways of responding to violent acts after they occur; two are 
     more preventive in nature, attempting to prevent the initial 
     occurrence of violent behavior. The primary justification for 
     judicial waivers and boot camps is a ``just desserts'' 
     philosophy, wherein youthful offenders need to be punished 
     more severely for serious violent offenses. But there is no 
     research evidence to suggest either strategy has any 
     increased deterrent effect over processing these juveniles in 
     the juvenile justice system or in traditional correctional 
     settings. In fact, although the evidence is limited, it 
     suggests the use of waivers and adult prisons results in 
     longer processing time and longer pretrial detention, racial 
     bias in the decision about which youth to transfer into the 
     adult system, a lower probability of treatment or remediation 
     while in custody, and an increased risk of repeated offending 
     when released.\6\ The research evidence on the effectiveness 
     of community policing and gun control legislation is very 
     limited and inconclusive. We have yet to determine if these 
     strategies are effective in preventing violent behavior.
       There are some genuine prevention efforts sponsored by 
     federal and state governments, by private foundations, and by 
     private businesses. At the federal level, the major 
     initiative involves the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
     Communities Act (1994). This act provided $630 million in 
     federal grants during 1995 to the states to implement 
     violence (and drug) prevention programs in and around 
     schools. State Departments of Education and local school 
     districts are currently developing guidelines and searching 
     for violence prevention programs demonstrated to be 
     effective. But there is no readily available compendium of 
     effective programs described in sufficient detail to allow 
     for an informed judgment about their relevance and cost for a 
     specific local application. Under pressure to do something, 
     schools have implemented whatever programs were readily 
     available. As a result, most of the violence prevention 
     programs currently being employed in the schools, e.g., 
     conflict resolution, peer mediation, individual counseling, 
     metal detectors, and locker searchers and sweeps have either 
     not been evaluated or the evaluations

[[Page H4547]]

     have failed to establish any significant, sustained deterrent 
     effects.\7\
       Nationally, we are investing far more resources in building 
     and maintaining prisons than in primary prevention 
     programs.\8\ We have put more emphasis on reacting to violent 
     offenders after the fact and investing in prisons to remove 
     them from our communities, than on preventing our children 
     from becoming violent offenders in the first place and 
     retaining them in our communities as responsible, productive 
     citizens. Of course, if we have no effective prevention 
     strategies or programs, there is no choice.
       This is the central issue facing the nation in 1997: Can we 
     prevent the onset of serious violent behavior? If we cannot, 
     then we have no choice but to build, fill, and maintain more 
     prisons. Yet if we know how to prevent the onset of violence, 
     can we mount an efficient and effective prevention 
     initiative? There is, in fact, considerable public support 
     for violence prevention programming for our children and 
     adolescents.\9\ How can we develop, promote, and sustain a 
     violence prevention initiative in this country?


               violence prevention programs--what works?

       Fortunately, we are past the ``nothing has been 
     demonstrated to work'' era of program evaluation.\10\ During 
     the past five years more than a dozen scholarly reviews of 
     delinquency, drug, and violence prevention programs have been 
     published, all of which identify programs they claim have 
     been successful in deterring crime and violence.\11\
       However, a careful review of these reports suggests some 
     caution and a danger of overstating the claim that research 
     has demonstrated the effectiveness of many different violence 
     or delinquency prevention programs. First, very few of these 
     recommended programs involve reductions in violent behavior 
     as the outcome criteria. For the most part, reductions in 
     delinquent behavior or drug use in general or arrests/
     revocations for any offense have been used as the outcome 
     criteria. This is probably not a serious threat to the claim 
     that we have identified effective violence prevention 
     programs, as research has established that delinquent acts, 
     violence, and substance use are interrelated and involvement 
     in any one is associated with involvement in the others. 
     Further, they have a common set of causes, and serious forms 
     of violence typically occur later in the developmental 
     progression, suggesting that a program that is effective in 
     reducing earlier forms of delinquency or drug use should be 
     effective in deterring serious violent offending.\12\ Still, 
     some caution is required, given that very few studies have 
     actually demonstrated a deterrent or marginal deterrent 
     effect for serious violent behavior.
       Second, the methodological standards vary greatly across 
     these reviews. A few actually score each program evaluation 
     reviewed on its methodological rigor,\13\ but for most the 
     standards are variable and seldom made explicit. If the 
     judgment on effectiveness were restricted to individual 
     program evaluations employing true experimental designs and 
     demonstrating statistically significant deterrent (or 
     marginal deterrent) effects, the number of recommended 
     programs would be cut by two-thirds or more. An experimental 
     (or good quasi-experimental) design and statistically 
     significant results should be minimum criteria for 
     recommending program effectiveness. Further, very few of the 
     programs recommended have been replicated at multiple sites 
     or demonstrated that their deterrent effect has been 
     sustained for some period of time after leaving the program, 
     two additional criteria that are important. In a word, the 
     standard for the claims of program effectiveness in these 
     reviews is very low. Building a national violence prevention 
     initiative on this collective set of recommended programs 
     would be very risky indeed.


                   blueprints for violence prevention

       In 1996, the Center for the Study and Prevention of 
     Violence at the University of Colorado at Boulder, working 
     with William Woodward, Director of the Colorado Division of 
     Criminal Justice (CDCJ), who played the primary role in 
     securing funding from the Colorado Division of Criminal 
     Justice, the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, and 
     the Pennsylvania Council on Crime and Delinquency, initiated 
     a project to identify ten violence prevention programs that 
     met a very high scientific standard of program 
     effectiveness--programs that could provide an initial nucleus 
     for a national violence prevention initiative. Our objective 
     was to identify truly outstanding programs, and to describe 
     these interventions in a series of ``Blueprints.'' Each 
     Blueprint describes the theoretical rationale for the 
     intervention, the core components of the program as 
     implemented, the evaluation designs and findings, and the 
     practical experiences the program staff encountered while 
     implementing the program at multiple sites. The Blueprints 
     are designed to be very practical descriptions of 
     effective programs which allow states, communities, and 
     individual agencies to: (1) determine the appropriateness 
     of each intervention for their state, community, or 
     agency; (2) provide a realistic cost estimate for each 
     intervention; (3) provide an assessment of the 
     organizational capacity required to ensure its successful 
     start-up and operation over time; and (4) give some 
     indication of the potential barriers and obstacles that 
     might be encountered when attempting to implement each 
     type of intervention. In 1997, additional funding was 
     obtained from the Division of Criminal Justice, allowing 
     for the development of the ten Blueprint programs.


                  blueprint program selection criteria

       In consultation with a distinguished Advisory Board,\14\ we 
     established the following set of evaluation standards for the 
     selection of Blueprint programs: (1) an experimental design, 
     (2) evidence of a statistically significant deterrent (or 
     marginal deterrent) effect, (3) replication at multiple sites 
     with demonstrated effects, and (4) evidence that the 
     deterrent effect was sustained for at least one year post-
     treatment. This set of selection criteria establishes a very 
     high standard; one that proved difficult to meet. But it 
     reflects the level of confidence necessary if we are going to 
     recommend that communities replicate these programs with 
     reasonable assurances that they will prevent violence. Given 
     the high standards set for program selection, the burden for 
     communities mounting an expensive outcome evaluation to 
     demonstrate their effectiveness is removed; this claim can be 
     made as long as the program is implemented well. 
     Demonstrating in a process evaluation that a program is 
     implemented well is relatively inexpensive, but critical to 
     the claim that a program known to be effective is having some 
     deterrent effect.
       Each of the four evaluation standards is described in more 
     detail as follows:
     1. Strong Research Design
       Experimental designs with random assignment provide the 
     greatest level of confidence in evaluation findings, and this 
     is the type of design required to fully meet this Blueprint 
     standard. Two other design elements are also considered 
     essential for the judgment that the evaluation employed a 
     strong research design: low rates of participant attrition 
     and adequate measurement. Attrition may be indicative of 
     problems in program implementation; it can compromise the 
     integrity of the randomization process and the claim of 
     experimental-control group equivalence. Measurement issues 
     include the reliability and validity of study measures, 
     including the outcome measure, and the quality, consistency, 
     and timing of their administration to program participants.
     2. Evidence of Significant Deterrence Effects
       This is an obvious minimal criterion for claiming program 
     effectiveness. As noted, relatively few programs have 
     demonstrated effectiveness in reducing the onset, prevalence, 
     or individual offend-ing rates of violent behavior. We have 
     accepted evidence of deterrent effects for delinquency 
     (including childhood aggression and conduct disorder), drug 
     use, and/or violence as evidence of program effectiveness. We 
     also accepted program evaluations using arrests as the 
     outcome measure. Evidence for a deterrent effect on violent 
     behavior is certainly preferable, and programs demonstrating 
     this effect were given preference in selection, all other 
     criteria being equal.
       Both primary and secondary prevention effects, i.e., 
     reductions in the onset of violence, delinquency, or drug use 
     compared to control groups and pre-post reductions in these 
     offending rates, could meet this criterion. Demonstrated 
     changes in the targeted risk and protective factors, in the 
     absence of any evidence of changes in delinquency, drug use, 
     or violence, was not considered adequate to meet this 
     criterion.
     3. Sustained Effects
       Many programs have demonstrated initial success in 
     deterring delinquency, drug use, and violence during the 
     course of treatment or over the period during which the 
     intervention was being delivered and reinforcements 
     controlled. This selection criterion requires that these 
     short-term effects be sustained beyond treatment or 
     participation in the designed intervention. For example, if a 
     preschool program designed to offset the effects of poverty 
     on school performance (which in turn effects school bonding, 
     present and future opportunities, and later peer group 
     choice/selection, which in turn predicts delinquency) 
     demonstrates its effectiveness when children start school, 
     but these effects are quickly lost during the first two to 
     three years of school, there is little reason to expect this 
     program will prevent the onset of violence during the junior 
     or senior high school years when the risk of onset is at its 
     peak. Unfortunately, there is clear evidence that the 
     deterrent effects of most prevention programs deteriorate 
     quickly once youth leave the program and return to their 
     original neighborhoods, families, and peer groups (e.g., 
     gangs).
     4. Multiple Site Replication
       Replication is an important element in establishing program 
     effectiveness. It establishes the robustness of the program 
     and its prevention effects; it exportability to new sites. 
     This criterion is particularly relevant for selecting 
     Blueprint programs for a national prevention initiative where 
     it is no longer possible for a single program designer to 
     maintain personal control over the implementation of his or 
     her program. Adequate procedures for monitoring the quality 
     of implementation must be in place, and this can be 
     established only through actual experience with replications.
     Other Criteria
       In the selection of model programs, we considered several 
     additional factors. We looked for evidence that change in the 
     targeted risk or protective factor(s) mediated the change in 
     violent behavior. This evidence clearly strengthens the claim 
     that participation in the program was responsible for

[[Page H4548]]

     the change in violent behavior, and it contributes to our 
     theoretical understanding of the casual processes involved. 
     We were surprised to discover that many programs reporting 
     significant deterrent effects (main effects) had not 
     collected the necessary data to do this analysis or, if they 
     had the necessary data, had not reported on this analysis.
       We also looked for cost data for each program as this is a 
     critical element in any decision to replicate one of these 
     Blueprint programs, and we wanted to include this information 
     in each Blueprint. Evaluation reports, particularly those 
     found in the professional journals, rarely report program 
     costs. Even when asked to provide this information, many 
     programs are unable (or unwilling) to provide the data. In 
     many cases program costs are difficult to separate from 
     research and evaluation costs. Further, when these data are 
     available, they typically involve conditions or circumstances 
     unique to a particular site and are difficult to generalize. 
     There are no standardized cost criteria and it is very 
     difficult to compare costs across programs. It is even 
     more difficult to obtain reliable cost-benefit estimates. 
     A few programs did report both program costs and cost-
     benefit estimates.
       Finally, we considered each program's willingness to work 
     with the Center in developing a Blue-print for national 
     dissemination and the program's organizational capacity to 
     provide technical assistance and monitoring of program 
     implementation on the scale that would be required if the 
     program was selected as a Blueprint program and became part 
     of a national violence prevention initiative.
       Programs must be willing to work with the Center in the 
     development of the Blueprint. This involves a rigorous review 
     of program evaluations with questions about details not 
     covered in the available publications; the preparation of a 
     draft Blueprint document following a standardized outline; 
     attending a conference with program staff, staff from 
     replication sites, and Center staff to review the draft 
     document; and making revisions to the document as requested 
     by Center staff. Each Blueprint is further reviewed at a 
     second conference in which potential users--community 
     development groups, prevention program staffs, agency heads, 
     legislators, and private foundations--``field test'' the 
     document. They read each Blueprint document carefully and 
     report on any difficulties in understanding what the program 
     requires, and on what additional information they would like 
     to have if they were making a decision to replicate the 
     program. Based on this second conference, final revisions are 
     made to the Blueprint document and it is sent back to the 
     Program designer for final approval.
       In addition, the Center will be offering technical 
     assistance to sites interested in replicating a Blueprint 
     program and will be monitoring the quality of program 
     implementation at these sites (see the ``Technical Assistance 
     and Monitoring of Blueprint Replications'' section below). 
     This requires that each selected program work with the Center 
     in screening potential replication sites, certifying persons 
     qualified to deliver technical assistance for their program, 
     delivering high quality technical assistance, and cooperating 
     with the Center's monitoring and evaluation of the technical 
     assistance delivered and the quality of implementation 
     achieved at each replication site. Some programs are already 
     organized and equipped to do this, with formal written 
     guidelines for implementation, training manuals, instruments 
     for monitoring implementation quality, and a staff trained to 
     provide technical assistance; others have few or none of 
     these resources or capabilities. Participation in the 
     Blueprint project clearly involves a substantial demand on 
     the programs. To date, all ten programs selected have agreed 
     to participate as a Blueprint program.


                    blueprint programs: an overview

       We began our search for Blueprint programs by examining the 
     set of programs recommended in scholarly reviews. We have 
     since expanded our search to a much broader set of programs 
     and continue to look for programs that meet the selection 
     standards set forth previously. To date, we have reviewed 
     more than 400 delinquency, drug, and violence prevention 
     programs. As noted, ten programs have been selected thus far, 
     based upon a review and recommendation of the Advisory Board. 
     These programs are identified in Table A.
       The standard we have set for program selection is very 
     high. Not all of the ten programs selected meet all of the 
     four individual standards, but as a group they come the 
     closest to meeting these standards


                                                              TABLE A.--BLUEPRINT PROGRAMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   EVID. OF
            PROJECT             TARGET POPULATION   EFFECT       MULTISITE         COST/BENEFIT     SUSTAINED EFFECT    GENERALIZABLE    TYPE OF PROGRAM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nurse Home Visitation (Dr.      Pregnant women at        X   Current            X................  Through age 15...  X...............  Prenatal and
 David Olds).                    risk of preterm              replication in                                                             postpartum
                                 delivery and low             Denver and                                                                 nurse home
                                 birth weight                 Memphis.                                                                   visitation.
                                 infant.
Bullying Prevention Program     Primary and              X   England and        .................  2 years post-      Generality to US  School anti-
 (Dr. Dan Olueus).               secondary school             Canada; South                         treatment.         unknown;          bullying
                                 children                     Carolina.                                                initial S.C.      program to
                                 (universal                                                                            results           reduce victim/
                                 intervention).                                                                        positive.         bully problems.
Promoting Alternative Thinking  Primary school           X   X................  .................  2 years post-      X...............  School-based
 Strategies (Dr. Mark            children                                                           treatment.                           program
 Greenberg).                     (universal                                                                                              designed to
                                 intervention).                                                                                          promote
                                                                                                                                         emotional
                                                                                                                                         competence.
Big Brothers Big Sisters of     Youth 6 to 18            X   Multisite Single   .................  .................  X...............  Mentoring
 America (Ms. Dagmar McGill).    years of age                 Design, 8 sites.                                                           program.
                                 from single
                                 parent homes.
Quanturn Opportunities (Mr.     At-risk,                 X   Multisite Single   X................  Age 20...........  ................  Educational
 Ben Latimore).                  disadvantaged,               Design, 5 sites;                                                           incentives.
                                 high school                  current
                                 students.                    replication by
                                                              Dept. of Labor.
Multisystemic Therapy (Dr.      Serious, violent,        X   X................  X................  4 years post-      X...............  Family
 Scott Henggeler).               or substance                                                       treatment.                           ecological
                                 abusing juvenile                                                                                        systems
                                 offenders and                                                                                           approach.
                                 their families.
Functional Family Therapy (Dr.  At-risk,                 X   X................  X................  30 months post-    Status and hard-  Behavioral
 Jim Alexander).                 disadvantaged,                                                     treatment.         core              systems family
                                 adjudicated                                                                           delinquents.      therapy.
                                 youth.

[[Page H4549]]

 
Midwestern Prevention Project   Middle/junior            X   X................  .................  Through high       X...............  Drug use
 (Dr. Mary Ann Pentz).           school (6th/7th                                                    school.                              prevention
                                 grade).                                                                                                 (social
                                                                                                                                         resistance
                                                                                                                                         skills
                                                                                                                                         training) w/
                                                                                                                                         sequential
                                                                                                                                         components that
                                                                                                                                         involve
                                                                                                                                         parents, media,
                                                                                                                                         and community.
Life Skills Training (Dr.       Middle/junior            X   X................  .................  Through high       X...............  Drug use
 Gilbert Botvin).                school (6th/7th                                                    school.                              prevention
                                 grade).                                                                                                 (social skills
                                                                                                                                         and general
                                                                                                                                         life skills
                                                                                                                                         training).
Treatment Foster Care (Dr.      Adjudicated              X   X................  Some info. Avail.  1 year post-       ................  Temporary foster
 Patrica Chamberlain).           serious and                                                        treatment.                           care with
                                 chronic                                                                                                 treatment.
                                 delinquents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                                                          that we could 
     find. As indicated in Table A, with one exception they 
     have all demonstrated significant deterrent effects with 
     experimental designs using random assignment to 
     experimental and control groups (the Bullying Prevention 
     Program involved a quasi-experimental design). All involve 
     multiple sites and thus have information on replications 
     and implementation quality, but not all replication sites 
     have been evaluated as independent sites (e.g., the Big 
     Brothers Big Sisters mentoring program was implemented at 
     eight sites, but the evaluation was a single evaluation 
     involving all eight sites in a single aggregated 
     analysis). Again, with one exception (Big Brothers Big 
     Sisters), all the selected programs have demonstrated 
     sustained effects for at least one year post-treatment.
       It is anticipated that the first two Blueprints will be 
     published and disseminated in the fall of 1997: the Big 
     Brothers Big Sisters Program and the Midwestern Prevention 
     Project. The other Blueprints will be published during 1998--
     two in the winter, two in the spring, two in the summer, and 
     the final two in the fall.


   technical assistance and monitoring of Blueprint Replications \15\

       The Blueprint project includes plans for a technical 
     assistance and monitoring component to assist interested 
     communities, agencies and organizations in their efforts to 
     implement one or more of the Blueprint programs. Communities 
     should not attempt to replicate a Blueprint without technical 
     assistance from the program designers. If funded, technical 
     assistance for replication will be available through the 
     Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at a very 
     modest cost. Technical assistance can also be obtained 
     directly from the Blueprint programs with costs for 
     consulting fees, travel, and manuals negotiated directly with 
     each program.
       There are three common problems encountered by communities 
     when attempting to develop and implement violence prevention 
     interventions. First, there is a need to identify the 
     specific risk and protective factors to be addressed by the 
     intervention and the most appropriate points of intervention 
     to address these conditions. In some instances, communities 
     have already completed a risk assessment and know their 
     communities' major risk factors and in which context to best 
     initiate an intervention. In other cases this has not been 
     done and the community may require some assistance in 
     completing this task. We anticipate working with communities 
     and agencies to help them evaluate their needs and resources 
     in order to select an appropriate Blueprint program to 
     implement. This may involve some initial on-site work 
     assisting the community in completing some type of risk 
     assessment as a preparatory step to selecting a specific 
     Blueprint program for implementation.
       Second, assuming the community has identified the risk and 
     protective factors they want to address a critical problem is 
     in locating prevention interventions which are appropriate to 
     address these risk factors and making an informed decision 
     about which one(s) to implement. Communities often become 
     lost in the maze of programs claiming they are effective in 
     changing identified risk factors and deterring violence. More 
     often, they are faced with particular groups pushing their 
     own programs or an individual on their advisory board 
     recommending a pet project, without no factual information or 
     evidence available to provide some rational comparison of 
     available options. Communities often need assistance in 
     making an informed selection of programs to implement.
       Third, there are increasingly strong pressures from 
     funders, whether the U.S. Congress, state legislatures, 
     federal or state agencies, or private foundations and 
     businesses, for accountability. The current trend is toward 
     requiring all programs to be monitored and evaluated. This 
     places a tremendous burden on most programs which do not have 
     the financial resources or expertise to conduct a meaningful 
     evaluation. A rigorous outcome evaluation typically would 
     cost more than the annual operating budget of most prevention 
     programs; the cumulative evaluations of our Blueprint 
     programs, for example, average more than a million dollar 
     each. The selection of a Blueprint program eliminates the 
     need for an outcome evaluation, at least for an initial four 
     or five years.\16\ Because these programs have already been 
     rigorously evaluated, the critical issue for a Blueprint 
     program is the quality of the implementation; if the program 
     is implemented well, we can assume it is effective. To ensure 
     a quality implementation, technical assistance and monitoring 
     of the implementation (a process evaluation) are essential.


                              limitations

       Blueprint program are presented as complete programs as it 
     is the program that has been evaluated and demonstrated to 
     work. Ideally, we would like to be able to present specific 
     intervention components, e.g., academic tutoring, mentoring 
     of at-risk youth, conflict resolution training, work 
     experience, parent effectiveness training, etc., as proven 
     intervention strategies based upon evaluations of many 
     different programs using these components. We do not yet have 
     the research evidence to support a claim that specific 
     components are effective for specific populations under some 
     specific set of conditions. Most of the Blueprint program 
     (and prevention programs generally) involve multiple 
     components. and their evaluations do not establish the 
     independent effects of each separate component, but only the 
     combination of comparison as a single ``package.'' It is the 
     ``package'' which has been demonstrated to work for specific 
     populations under given conditions. The claim that one is 
     using an intervention that has been demonstrated to work 
     applies only if the entire Blueprint program, as designed, 
     implemented, and evaluated, it being replicated; this claim 
     is not warranted if only some specific subcomponent is being 
     implemented or if a similar intervention strategy is being 
     used, but with different staff training, or different 
     populations of at-risk youth, or some different combination 
     of components. It is for this reason that we recommend that 
     communities desiring to replicate one of the Blueprint 
     programs contact this program or the Center for the Study and 
     Prevention of Violence for technical assistance.
       Our knowledge about these programs and the specific 
     conditions under which they are effective will certainly 
     change over time. Already there are extensions and 
     modifications to these programs which are being implemented 
     and carefully evaluated. Over the next three to five years it 
     may be necessary to revise our Blueprint of a selected 
     program. Those modifications currently underway typically 
     involve new at-risk populations, changes in the delivery 
     systems, changes in staff selection criteria and training, 
     and in the quantity or intensity of the intervention 
     delivered. Many of these changes are designed to reduce costs 
     and increase the inclusiveness and generality of the program. 
     It is possible that additional evaluation may undermine the 
     claim that a particular Blueprint program is effective, 
     however it is far more likely they will improve our 
     understanding of the range of conditions and circumstances 
     under which these programs are effective. In any event, we 
     will continue to monitor the evaluation of these programs and 
     make necessary revisions to their Blueprints. Most of these 
     evaluations are funded at the federal level and they will 
     provide ongoing evidence of the effectiveness of Blueprint 
     programs, supporting (or not) the continued use of these 
     programs without the need for local outcome evaluations.
       The cost-benefit data presented in the Blueprints are those 
     estimated by the respective programs. We have not undertaken 
     an independent validation of these estimates and are not 
     certifying their accuracy. Because they involve different 
     comparison groups, different cost assumptions, and 
     considerable local variation in costs for specific

[[Page H4550]]

     services, it is difficult to compare this aspect of one 
     Blueprint program with another. Potential users should 
     evaluate these claims carefully. We believe these cost-
     benefit estimates are useful, but they are not the most 
     important consideration in selecting a violence prevention 
     program or intervention.
       It is important to note that the size of the deterrent 
     effects of these Blueprint programs is modest. There are no 
     ``silver bullets,'' no programs that prevent the onset of 
     violence for all youth participating in the intervention. 
     Good prevention programs reduce the rates of violence by 20-
     25 percent.\17\ We have included a section in each Blueprint 
     presenting the evaluation results so that potential users can 
     have some idea of how strong the program effect is likely to 
     be and can prepare their communities for a realistic set of 
     expectations. It is important that we not oversell violence 
     prevention programs; it is also the case that programs with a 
     20 percent reduction in violence can have a fairly dramatic 
     effect if sustained over a long period of time.
       Finally, we are not recommending that communities invest 
     all of their available resources in Blueprint programs. We 
     need to develop and evaluate new programs to expand our 
     knowledge of what works and to build an extensive repertoire 
     of programs that work if we are ever to mount a comprehensive 
     prevention initiative in this country. At the same time, 
     given the costs of evaluating programs, it makes sense for 
     communities to build their portfolio of programs around 
     interventions that have been demonstrated to work, and to 
     limit their investment in new programs to those they can 
     evaluate carefully. Our Blueprint series is designed to help 
     communities adopt this strategy.


                                summary

       As we approach the 21st Century, the nation is at a 
     critical crossroad: Will we continue to react to youth 
     violence after the fact, becoming increasingly punitive and 
     locking more and more of our children in adult prisons? Or 
     will we bring a more healthy balance to our justice system by 
     designing and implementing an effective violence prevention 
     initiative as a part of our overall approach to the violence 
     problem? We do have a choice.
       To mount an effective national violence prevention 
     initiative in this country, we need to find and/or create 
     effective violence prevention programs and implement them 
     with integrity so that significant reductions in violent 
     offending can be realized. We have identified a core set of 
     programs that meet very high scientific standards for being 
     effective prevention programs. These programs could 
     constitute a core set of programs in a national violence 
     prevention initiative. What remains is to ensure that 
     communities know about these programs and, should they desire 
     to replicate them, have assistance in implementing them as 
     designed. That is our objective in presenting this series of 
     Blueprints for Violence Prevention. They constitute a 
     complete package of both programs and technical assistance 
     made available to states, communities, schools, and local 
     agencies attempting to address the problems of violence, 
     crime, and substance abuse in their communities.
                                               Delbert S. Elliott,
                                                    Series Editor.


                                endnotes

     1. Cook and Laub, 1997; Fox, 1996; and Snyder and Sickmund, 
     1995 for an analysis of trends in juvenile arrests for 
     violent crimes.
     2. Lipsey, 1992, 1997; Sherman et al., 1997; and Tolan and 
     Guerra, 1994.
     3. The technical definition of a protective factor is an 
     attribute or condition that buffers one from the expected 
     effect of one or more risk factors, but many use the term 
     more generally to refer to anything that reduces the 
     likelihood of violence, whether that effect is direct or 
     indirect.
     4. Maguire and Pastore, 1996.
     5. Johnson et al., 1996.
     6. Fagan, 1996; Frazier, Bishop and Lanza-Kaduce, 1997; 
     Lipsey, 1997; MacKenzie et al., 1992; Podkopaz and Feld, 
     1996; and Shaw and McKenzie, 1992.
     7. Gottfredson, 1997; Lipsey, 1992. Sherman et al., 1997; 
     Tolan and Guerra, 1994; and Webster, 1993.
     8. Gottfredson, 1997.
     9. Gallop, 1994.
     10. Lipton, Martinson, and Wilks, 1975; Martinson, 1974; 
     Sechrest et al., 1979; and Wright and Dixon, 1977.
     11. Davis and Tolan, 1993; Dusenbury and Falco, 1995; 
     Farrington, 1994; Greenwood et al., 1996; Hawkins, Catalano 
     and Miller, 1992; Howell, 1995; Howell et al., 1995; Krisberg 
     and Onek, 1994; Lipsey and Wilson, 1997; Loeber and 
     Farrington, 1997; McGuire, 1995; National Research Council, 
     1993; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 
     1995; Powell and Hawkins, 1996; Sherman et al., 1997; and 
     Tolan and Guerra, 1994.
     12. Elliott, 1993, 1994; Jessor and Jessor, 1977; Kandel et 
     al., 1986; Osgood et al., 1988, and White et al., 1985.
     13. Gottfredson, 1997; Lipsey, 1992; Osgood et al., 1988; and 
     Sherman et al., 1997.
     14. Advisory Board members included: Denise Gottfredson, 
     University of Maryland; Mark Lipsey, Vanderbilt University; 
     Hope Hill, Howard University; Peter Greenwood, the Rand 
     Corporation; and Patrick Tolan, University of Illinois.
     15. The Center has submitted a proposal to the Office of 
     Juvenile, Justice and Delinquency Prevention to fund this 
     component of the Blueprint project.
     16. At some point it will be necessary to reassess each 
     Blueprint program to ensure that it continues to demonstrate 
     deterrent effects and to test its generalizabity to other 
     populations.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCHAFFER. 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 Colorado 
(Mr. Schaffer) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order:
  Amendment No. 40 offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Fletcher);
  Amendment No. 42 offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
McIntosh); and
  Amendment No. 43 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Schaffer).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 40 Offered By Mr. Fletcher

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is a demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Fletcher) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 422, 
noes 1, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No, 228]

                               AYES--422

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     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
     Cardin
     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
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     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
     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 (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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
     Martinez
     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

[[Page H4551]]


     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     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
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     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
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--1

     Capuano
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Barcia
     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Houghton
     Johnson, Sam
     Minge
     Northup
     Radanovich
     Salmon
     Shays
     Thomas

                              {time}  1933

  Messrs. CONYERS, STARK, KLINK and Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon 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 Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. 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.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. McIntosh

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. McIntosh) 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 will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 300, 
noes 126, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 229]

                               AYES--300

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     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
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--126

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Bono
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Clay
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Ehrlich
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Porter
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Stark
     Strickland
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Vitter
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Houghton
     Johnson, Sam
     Minge
     Salmon
     Shays
     Thomas

                              {time}  1942

  Mr, HOEFFEL and Mr. SCARBOROUGH changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Schaffer

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Schaffer) 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 pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.

[[Page H4552]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 364, 
noes 60, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 230]

                               AYES--364

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     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
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     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
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     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
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--60

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Becerra
     Berman
     Boehlert
     Castle
     Clay
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Morella
     Nadler
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Scott
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Towns
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Houghton
     Johnson, Sam
     Lucas (OK)
     Menendez
     Minge
     Salmon
     Shays
     Thomas

                              {time}  1952

  The CHAIRMAN (during the voting). The Chair is aware that one of the 
display panels is not functioning properly. The tally clerk advises the 
Chair that those Members are being recorded. However, of course, any 
Member can check that their vote is recorded by checking with their 
card in another machine.
  Messrs. HASTINGS of Florida, DEUTSCH, TOWNS, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD and 
Mr. ALLEN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. MORAN of Virginia and Ms. 
DANNER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 44 printed 
in the Record. The Chair's understanding is that the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) does not choose to offer amendment No. 44.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, it is our decision not to offer the 
substitute amendment in order to complete business in a more 
expeditious manner. I am going to offer a motion to recommit instead.
  I ask unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be permitted to 
allow 10 minutes on each side in lieu of the substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's request will have to be made in the 
House.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
Congresswoman Emerson's amendment that simply states our entertainment 
industry does not act responsibly towards our children. I support this 
amendment because it is true. By the time a child has reached their 
majority, they have seen 200,000 acts of violence on television and 
16,000 of these acts are murders. It appears the industry believes that 
sex and violence sells, and they abandoned all restraint. Even, in 
light of current events, the entertainment industry refuses to accept 
they might have some responsibility towards the communities they serve 
in America.
  As a society we recognize that children are susceptible to their 
environment and that they learn from what they are exposed to. This is 
true in Hollywood and on Chicago's West Side. Children learn what they 
see as they grow up. Now we have video games where the sole purpose is 
to murder and kill other people. We have movies that depict only 
violence. We have music that vividly describes crime and murder. Our 
children are being exposed to this from an early age. I believe the 
entertainment industry has been derelict in its duty to provide more 
enriching entertainment. I believe we, as Members of Congress, must 
raise this issue with the entertainment industry and challenge them to 
do better! Today I rise to challenge the entertainment industry to 
produce a better product, a better movie, a better record. A product 
that enables us, as parents, to navigate the difficult task of raising 
our children more effectively. I am not laying the blame for our 
nation's problems at the feet of the entertainment industry, but I 
challenge them to do better.
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, Congress debated throughout the night a bill 
that further punishes those who commit crimes against our young. 
Congress also passed amendments that would stiffen criminal penalties 
against juveniles that commit violent crimes. The House also passed 
amendments that would grant assistance to states to combat youth 
violence and close the revolving doors at our penitentiaries. Today, 
the House will debate gun control legislation.
  I stand here today to call for more mental health professionals in 
our schools. It has been said that an ounce of prevention is worth a 
pound of cure. Those kids in Littleton, Springfield, Jonesboro, and 
Pearl were not members of street gangs and, to my knowledge, they did 
not have violent criminal records. They were emotionally disturbed kids 
suffering from depression and alienation.
  Rather than passing more gun laws, we must focus on getting more 
mental health professionals into our schools. Background checks at gun 
shows won't prevent a kid from thinking he has nothing to lose from 
shooting himself or his classmates. But mental healthcare professionals 
in the schools can.
  Imagine if more schools had a mental health care professional for 
every metal detector. Mr.

[[Page H4553]]

Chairman, we need to focus on our children before they commit crimes. 
We need mental health professionals to catch them before they fall into 
the hands of the criminal justice system.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I am gravely concerned about today's 
youth and the challenges they face growing up in contemporary society. 
If we do not restore values, morals, and principles to our schools and 
communities for our children, our great nation will continue to sink 
further into the cultural state of emergency we are mired in today. We 
should vote to empower parents so that they may in turn protect their 
children, our future leaders.
  I recognize that many children face terrific difficulties as they 
grow up--deteriorating schools, broken homes, and crumbling 
neighborhoods. A culture of gratuitous violence, sexual 
irresponsibility, and illegal drug abuse. erodes the fundamental values 
that keep our families and our country strong.
  In the wake of several tragedies involving school violence, it is 
appropriate that we focus on addressing youth violence and the problems 
which face our kids.
  First let me say that we should not undermine our Bill of Rights, the 
cornerstone of our freedom which spells out the underlying principles 
of our nation. More laws that target and restrict the freedoms of law-
abiding citizens are not the answer to addressing cultural problems 
that face our nation.
  We must strengthen and enforce our current laws, we must effectively 
prosecute, and we must punish criminals who violate the law. But we 
must also restore sensible community values to our schools and 
communities. A common set of shared values is the fabric that has held 
American society together for over two centuries. Unfortunately, this 
fabric is fraying at the edges before our very eyes. I believe public 
figures should show strong leadership by setting good examples. I 
believe that through restoring prayer and religious values to the 
classroom, teaching character based education, and shielding our 
children from pornography and violent and sexually explicit material, 
our children and families can flourish in safer more secure 
communities.
  Additionally, I am encouraged that many existing youth organizations 
and recreation clubs are right now promoting leadership, teamwork, and 
confidence in our younger generations. Groups like the Boys and Girls 
Clubs, Pop Warner Football, the National Council of Youth Sports, the 
Georgia Parks and Recreation Association, and the Sporting Goods 
Manufacturers Association are working hard to make a positive 
difference in our children's lives.
  There are many steps that we can take to reach out to our children to 
guide them in the right direction. I believe that the actions Congress 
will take today to hold criminals accountable for their own behavior, 
to improve the enforcement of our current laws, to bolster support for 
programs that combat juvenile crime, and to prohibit the sale of 
explicitly violent or sexual material to children will go a long way in 
addressing some of the difficult issues which confront children in 
today's world.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in vehement and stringent 
opposition to H.R. 1501, the Republican Juvenile Justice Act. This bill 
will not solve the perplexing problem of juveniles and crime; it is an 
absurd waste of taxpayers' dollars and the precious time of this august 
body. It is a shame that while the Senate was able to forge a 
bipartisan juvenile justice bill, the House has been unable to do so. 
This is a bipartisan problem that needs, deserves and requires a 
bipartisan solution.
  My initial objection to H.R. 1501 is that it was not considered in 
the House Judiciary Committee. No hearings were held, no testimony was 
received and there is no Congressional Record on this bill. As an 
elected Members in the great State of Michigan and the U.S. House of 
Representatives for almost a quarter century, I respect the due process 
that the State Constitution of Michigan and the Constitution of the 
United States establishes for the legislative process. We have all 
taken an oath to protect and defend our Constitution, and I abhor the 
lack of due process that this important issue deserves.
  I also oppose this bill because this bill is a waste of taxpayers 
dollars. The Wall Street Journal (March 21, 1996) points out that high 
risk youths who are kept out of trouble through intervention programs 
could save society as much as $2 million per youth over a lifetime. 
This bill puts more money into police and prisons, mandatory minimum 
sentences, and other tactics that simply do not work without adequate 
prevention programs. As a matter of fact, only six percent of juvenile 
arrests in 1992 were for violent crimes. With one exception, the level 
of juvenile crime has declined over the past 20 years. There are only 
197 juveniles currently serving Federal sentences. Juvenile crime is 
almost exclusively a State and local issue. This bill is just posturing 
for political points, not an effective means for public safety. The 
acknowledged experts in this field--the police chiefs of our nation--
believe that prevention programs are the most effective crime reduction 
strategy versus hiring additional police officers. This bill spares not 
one thin dime for before- or after-school prevention programs--programs 
that have been proven to work.
  Let me illustrate a program that does work. Renaissance High School, 
a public school in Detroit, Michigan, will send all of its graduates--
183 students--to college. According to an article in the June 17, 1999 
edition of the Detroit News, Renaissance High School's principal, Irma 
Hamilton, says that ``Renaissance's success is dependent upon three 
different levels: students, parents and staff. It takes those three 
areas working together to provide a network of support for our 
students.'' It is only by working together that Renaissance High School 
achieved a 100 percent college acceptance rate. I challenge any of my 
colleagues to the superb work that is epitomized by Renaissance High 
School. Not only that, Renaissance High School's teamwork is an example 
that is sorely lacking in the debate on the juvenile justice bill.
  My colleagues, we do have a chance to make this right. It is in the 
amendment, offered as a motion to recommit, by my fellow Detroit 
colleague, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. This amendment is a balanced, 
fair and comprehensive package that addresses both prevention and 
punishment. This bill provides grants to ensure increased 
accountability for juvenile offenders; provides funding for prevention 
programs; places 20,000 crisis prevention counselors in our nation's 
schools; ensures that there are more police officers on the beat; 
prevents juvenile delinquents from being jailed with adults; and 
requires states to address the issue of minority confinement. While 
minority children are one-third of the youth population, they are two-
thirds of the children in long-term detention facilities. Studies 
indicate that minorities not only receive tougher sentences, but are 
more likely to be put in jail than non-minority youth for the same 
offenses. This is patently unfair and, I would add, criminal.
  As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I am one of the 
guardians of the purse of America. I abhor the wanton waste of the 
people's money, and my fellow appropriators and I have to make tough 
decisions with the few funds we have available. We need to put our 
scarce resources into programs and projects that work. The taxpayers of 
America demand that we do so. The Democratic alternative to H.R. 1501 
gives us that chance. It is a balanced approach to fighting juvenile 
crime that includes enforcement, intervention and prevention. Anything 
less is an injustice to our youth, their parents, and all taxpaying 
citizens.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, as we consider prevention measures during 
this debate, we must acknowledge that our schools face a serious 
problem in their ability to provide prevention services.
  Let me make it clear from the onset that I support bringing young 
people who commit crimes to justice; they must recognize the 
consequences of their actions. Yet, at the same time, we cannot be 
content with only punishment, we must endeavor to take all the 
necessary steps to prevent youth at-risk from entering the juvenile 
justice system. If we fail to do so, the current situation of gun-
toting youths will only get worse. Our correctional facilities, which 
are already operating at full capacity, will not be able to handle 
housing scores of more juveniles. And once they are released, they will 
be no better off than when they entered. Therefore, prevention is a 
preferable path to follow.
  That is why I am supporting the school anti-violence provision 
contained in the Democratic substitute, which would significantly 
bolster prevention efforts by mandating that some of our appropriations 
are directed towards mental health services for our young people.
  Counseling is one of several resources that could prove valuable if 
only we used it, rather than neglect it. What I mean by this statement 
is that for counselors to be effective, we have to ensure that they are 
working in a proper environment.
  A counselor's duties may vary by jurisdiction, but in general one 
would have some of the following responsibilities: conflict resolution, 
career guidance, administrative duties, and school activities 
coordinator.
  It is rather reckless on our part to expect that counselors can be 
really effective in counseling and guiding students when they are 
saddled with an absurdly high student-to-counselor ratio and are also 
tagged with doing administrative chores.
  Here are some statistics that indicate how thinly stretched our 
school counselors are. The recommended student-to-counselor ratio, as 
indicated by the American Counseling Association and other professional 
groups, is 250 to 1. The average national caseload is a little over 500 
students per counselor, with some of the more extreme cases being in 
California, with a ratio of nearly 1,000 to 1, and Minnesota, at 925 to 
1.
  Counselors also should not have to juggle scheduling and other 
administrative work in

[[Page H4554]]

tandem with their counseling duties because this detracts from their 
primary duties. They are a necessary part of our prevention strategy, 
and there is no way that they can accomplish their goals when they are 
doing everything but counseling.
  It seems that the only time there are calls for more counselors is 
after tragedies, such as the one at Columbine High School. Yet there is 
no reason that we respond with counselors only after a tragic event 
occurs. They should be there in the first place, and this bill provides 
the funds to do so.
  Counselors can benefit us by helping us to identify those children 
who are potentially at risk, and by doing so, would aid us in devising 
a solution to intervene and potentially get to the root of the youth's 
problems. Yet there is no way that this can work if one has to monitor 
1,000 students. Students will fall through the cracks since the 
resources which were designed to help them were not available when they 
were needed. The investment that we make now will pay off in the future 
with reductions in chronic problem behaviors and potentially improved 
results in the areas of attendance, test scores, and conflict 
management.
  It is vital that we act now. The school population is projected to 
increase over the next few years, and if we are to have any chance of 
reducing the student to counselor ratio so that qualified mental health 
professionals can be of use to our students, we should pass this 
substitute. Prevention is the key, and improving mental health services 
is a big step towards strengthening our prevention efforts.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to tell the American people 
that the Conyers-Scott amendment in the nature of a substitute is the 
true bipartisan approach to address the problems of violence and crime 
that face our children. The school shootings in Oregon, Colorado and 
most recently in Georgia and the daily violence that our children are 
subject to while playing and living in our communities is evidence that 
society has placed our country under fire and the victims are our kids.
  I agree that commonsense approaches need to be considered in helping 
to strengthen our juvenile justice system and I am disappointed in the 
manner form which H.R. 1501 reached the floor of the House.
  However, the Conyers-Scott proposal is what we should be supporting 
because it's what the American people want. It incorporates the 
bipartisan agreements reached in the Senate addressing media violence, 
reauthorizes the ``Cops on the Beat'' program and authorizes the 
``School Anti-Violence Empowerment Act.'' Most importantly, it includes 
the bipartisan agreements on the juvenile justice bill and the 
reauthorization of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention programs.
  In our attempt to enhance our justice programs, however, I need to 
point out that there are discrepancies as to how U.S. Territories are 
considered in the administration of this juvenile justice program and 
express hope that we can resolve these discrepancies if this 
legislation goes to conference.
  Though Guam and the other territories are defined as ``States'' in 
H.R. 1501 and the Conyers-Scott amendment, there is a discrepancy in 
the equal distribution of these funds. For no apparent reason Guam 
shares its state share with American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands. The U.S. Virgin Islands, the District of 
Columbia, and Puerto Rico all receive full state shares.
  There is no rational justification for three U.S. territories in the 
Pacific to split while other territories be treated as states. I 
believe such a decision was arbitrary and unfair. There was never any 
consultation with my office or any other Territorial office to my 
knowledge.
  Mr. Chair, the children in the Territories are also subject to the 
influences of the mass media and school violence and we must be fair in 
our treatment that programs meant to help saving childrens lives are 
distributed equally to them as well. I am hopeful that considerations 
can be made in the conference of juvenile justice legislation to 
clarify and correct the full funding allocation to all the territories.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Conyers/Scott/Waters Democratic substitute to H.R. 1501 and in 
opposition of the Republican sponsored juvenile justice bill which has 
let down children and American families by putting the interest of 
opponents of jug safety legislation above the safety and well-being of 
all children.
  I want to draw your attention, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, to the 
importance of time. In the time that I have been allotted to make this 
statement another child would have been shot or killed and another 
child would have been incarcerated in an adult facility which will do 
them more harm than good. As we sit here in this plush secure 
environment, it is easy to lose sight of how many children's lies could 
be saved through the enactment of sound gun control measures.
  Mr. Chairman, we should enact the Democratic substitute which 
includes: the bipartisan House Judiciary Committee juvenile justice 
bill; the bipartisan House Education and Workforce Committee bill to 
reauthorize the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
Programs; two Senate-passed media violence provisions; the extension of 
the ``Cops on the Beat'' program with an emphasis on cooperative 
school-police partnerships to place safety officers in school; and a 
School Anti-violence Empowerment (SAVE) initiative that provides 
funding for crisis prevention counselors and crisis prevention programs 
in schools.

  Any effective juvenile legislation must include measures that are in 
the best interest of our children. Extremely important in this regard, 
is the protection of our children from abuse in adult facilities. We 
must assure that the health and welfare of our children are not being 
jeopardized in an adult prison. Although serious crimes are being 
committed by young adults, emphasis must be placed on prevention and 
corrective measures and not solely on adult conviction of very young 
offenders. Where we must put juveniles in adult prisons, they should be 
placed out of sight and sound of adult inmates. Prevention is the only 
key element in the proactive approach to teen violence. All other 
legislation approaches should complement prevention methods, just as 
the juvenile delinquency prevention block grant has aided in the 
reduction of juvenile crime.
  Mr. Chairman, I was very disappointed that the amendment of my 
colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, which would have 
authorized an initiative to attempt to prevent tragic incidents of 
school violence by improving mental health and education services to 
troubled children and youth who are at risk of committing violent acts 
was not made in order by the Rules Committee. The Obey amendment would 
have authorized the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study to 
identify barriers that prevent school-aged children and youth in need 
of mental health or substance abuse treatment services from receiving 
appropriate counseling and treatment services financed through 
Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and other 
public health and mental programs.
  It is a shame that this body is willing to send a 13- or 14-year-old 
to an adult prison but isn't willing to authorize a program which could 
have prevented the kid from committing the crime in the first place.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute to H.R. 
1501 and reject the destructive Republican juvenile bill which would no 
nothing other than prosecute children as adults, house juveniles with 
adult felons where they are more likely to be abused by adult 
prisoners, and impose numerous mandatory sentencing measures--which 
have been shown to exacerbate long-term crime problems.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, in Chicago during 1996, 789 
homicides were committed, 597 with firearms, in 1997, 759 homicides, 
570 with firearms. Firearms were overwhelmingly the weapon of choice 
for murderers. Almost half of the known offenders in 1997 were under 21 
years of age and about a third were between 21 and 30. The percentage 
of murders in which firearms were used was 75 percent in 1997, 
approximately the same percent as in the previous four years. More than 
85 percent of firearm murders were handgun murders in both 1996 and 
1997. In almost two out of every three 1997 murders in which the 
relationship could be determined, the offender and the victim knew each 
other.
  In many cases, just imagine, no gun, no murder, no gun, no murder.
  Let's make guns harder for murderers to get. Support the McCarthy 
amendment.
  There being no further amendments, under the rule the Committee 
rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman 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, pursuant to House Resolution 209, he reported the bill back 
to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on the so-called 
Emerson amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment on

[[Page H4555]]

which a separate vote has been demanded.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS WITH REGARD TO VIOLENCE AND 
                   THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Incidents of tragic school violence have risen over the 
     past few years.
       (2) Our children are being desensitized by the increase of 
     gun violence shown on television, movies, and video games.
       (3) According to the American Medical Association, by the 
     time an average child reaches age 18, he or she has witnessed 
     more than 200,000 acts of violence on television, including 
     16,000 murders.
       (4) Children who listen to explicit music lyrics, play 
     video ``killing'' games, or go to violent action movies get 
     further brainwashed into thinking that violence is socially 
     acceptable and without consequence.
       (5) No industry does more to glorify gun violence than some 
     elements of the motion picture industry.
       (6) Children are particularly susceptible to the influence 
     of violent subject matter.
       (7) The entertainment industry uses wanton violence in its 
     advertising campaigns directed at young people.
       (8) Alternatives should be developed and considered to 
     discourage the exposure of children to violent subject 
     matter.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the entertainment industry--
       (1) has been irresponsible in the development of its 
     products and the marketing of those products to America's 
     youth;
       (2) must recognize the power and influence it has over the 
     behavior of our Nation's youth; and
       (3) must do everything in its power to stop these 
     portrayals of pointless acts of brutality by immediately 
     eliminating gratuitous violence in movies, television, music, 
     and video games.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 355, 
nays 68, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 231]

                               YEAS--355

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     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
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     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
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--68

     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Delahunt
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hulshof
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Rogan
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Stupak
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Chenoweth
     Cox
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Minge
     Salmon
     Shays
     Spence
     Thomas

                              {time}  2013

  Mr. SERRANO changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GOODLATTE and Ms. STABENOW changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I am.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Conyers moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1501 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:
    TITLE I--GRANTS TO ENSURE INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY FOR JUVENILE 
                               OFFENDERS

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 102. 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--

[[Page H4556]]

       ``(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;
       ``(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 each 
     delinquent offense;
       ``(2) sanctions escalate in intensity with each subsequent, 
     more serious delinquent 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.

[[Page H4557]]

       ``(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 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 used 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.''.
      TITLE II--JUVENILE CRIME CONTROL AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

     SEC. 200. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Juvenile 
     Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this title 
     is as follows:

      TITLE II--JUVENILE CRIME CONTROL AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Sec. 200. Short title; table of contents.

 Subtitle A--Amendments to Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
                              Act of 1974

Sec. 201. Findings.
Sec. 202. Purpose.
Sec. 203. Definitions.
Sec. 204. Name of office.
Sec. 205. Concentration of Federal effort.
Sec. 206. Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
              Prevention.

[[Page H4558]]

Sec. 207. Annual report.
Sec. 208. Allocation.
Sec. 209. State plans.
Sec. 210. Juvenile delinquency prevention block grant program.
Sec. 211. Research; evaluation; technical assistance; training.
Sec. 212. Demonstration projects.
Sec. 213. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 214. Administrative authority.
Sec. 215. Use of funds.
Sec. 216. Limitation on use of funds.
Sec. 217. Rule of construction.
Sec. 218. Leasing surplus Federal property.
Sec. 219. Issuance of Rules.
Sec. 220. Content of materials.
Sec. 221. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 222. References.

      Subtitle B--Amendments to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act

Sec. 231. Runaway and homeless youth.

 Subtitle C--Repeal of Title V Relating to Incentive Grants for Local 
                    Delinquency Prevention Programs

Sec. 241. Repealer.

    Subtitle D--Amendments to the Missing Children's Assistance Act

Sec. 251. National center for missing and exploited children.

                  Subtitle E--Studies and Evaluations

Sec. 261. Study of school violence.
Sec. 262. Study of mental health needs of juveniles in secure and 
              nonsecure placements in the juvenile justice system.
Sec. 263. Evaluation by General Accounting Office.
Sec. 264. General Accounting Office Report.
Sec. 265. Behavioral and social science research on youth violence.

                     Subtitle F--General Provisions

Sec. 271. Effective date; application of amendments.
 Subtitle A--Amendments to Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
                              Act of 1974

     SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

       Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601) is amended to read as 
     follows:


                               ``findings

       ``Sec. 101. (a) The Congress finds the following:
       ``(1) There has been a dramatic increase in juvenile 
     delinquency, particularly violent crime committed by 
     juveniles. Weapons offenses and homicides are 2 of the 
     fastest growing crimes committed by juveniles. More than \1/
     2\ of juvenile victims are killed with a firearm. 
     Approximately \1/5\ of the individuals arrested for 
     committing violent crime are less than 18 years of age. The 
     increase in both the number of youth below the age of 15 and 
     females arrested for violent crime is cause for concern.
       ``(2) This problem should be addressed through a 2-track 
     common sense approach that addresses the needs of individual 
     juveniles and society at large by promoting--
       ``(A) quality prevention programs that--
       ``(i) work with juveniles, their families, local public 
     agencies, and community-based organizations, and take into 
     consideration such factors as whether or not juveniles have 
     been the victims of family violence (including child abuse 
     and neglect); and
       ``(ii) are designed to reduce risks and develop 
     competencies in at-risk juveniles that will prevent, and 
     reduce the rate of, violent delinquent behavior; and
       ``(B) programs that assist in holding juveniles accountable 
     for their actions, including a system of graduated sanctions 
     to respond to each delinquent act, requiring juveniles to 
     make restitution, or perform community service, for the 
     damage caused by their delinquent acts, and methods for 
     increasing victim satisfaction with respect to the penalties 
     imposed on juveniles for their acts.
       ``(b) Congress must act now to reform this program by 
     focusing on juvenile delinquency prevention programs, as well 
     as programs that hold juveniles accountable for their acts. 
     Without true reform, the criminal justice system will not be 
     able to overcome the challenges it will face in the coming 
     years when the number of juveniles is expected to increase by 
     30 percent.''.

     SEC. 202. PURPOSE.

       Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5602) is amended to read as 
     follows:


                               ``purposes

       ``Sec. 102. The purposes of this title and title II are--
       ``(1) to support State and local programs that prevent 
     juvenile involvement in delinquent behavior;
       ``(2) to assist State and local governments in promoting 
     public safety by encouraging accountability for acts of 
     juvenile delinquency; and
       ``(3) to assist State and local governments in addressing 
     juvenile crime through the provision of technical assistance, 
     research, training, evaluation, and the dissemination of 
     information on effective programs for combating juvenile 
     delinquency.''.

     SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 103 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5603) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``to help prevent juvenile 
     delinquency'' and inserting ``designed to reduce known risk 
     factors for juvenile delinquent behavior, provides activities 
     that build on protective factors for, and develop 
     competencies in, juveniles to prevent, and reduce the rate 
     of, delinquent juvenile behavior'',
       (2) in paragraph (4) by inserting ``title I of'' before 
     ``the Omnibus'' each place it appears,
       (3) in paragraph (7) by striking ``the Trust Territory of 
     the Pacific Islands,'',
       (4) in paragraph (9) by striking ``justice'' and inserting 
     ``crime control'',
       (5) in paragraph (12)(B) by striking ``, of any 
     nonoffender,'',
       (6) in paragraph (13)(B) by striking ``, any non-
     offender,'',
       (7) in paragraph (14) by inserting ``drug trafficking,'' 
     after ``assault,'',
       (8) in paragraph (16)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A) by adding ``and'' at the end, and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (C),
       (9) by striking paragraph (17),
       (10) in paragraph (22)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (i), (ii), and (iii) as 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively, and
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end,
       (11) in paragraph (23) by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon,
       (12) by redesignating paragraphs (18), (19), (20), (21), 
     (22), and (23) as paragraphs (17) through (22), respectively, 
     and
       (13) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(23) the term `boot camp' means a residential facility 
     (excluding a private residence) at which there are provided--
       ``(A) a highly regimented schedule of discipline, physical 
     training, work, drill, and ceremony characteristic of 
     military basic training.
       ``(B) regular, remedial, special, and vocational education; 
     and
       ``(C) counseling and treatment for substance abuse and 
     other health and mental health problems;
       ``(24) the term `graduated sanctions' means an 
     accountability-based, graduated series of sanctions 
     (including incentives and services) applicable to juveniles 
     within the juvenile justice system to hold such juveniles 
     accountable for their actions and to protect communities from 
     the effects of juvenile delinquency by providing appropriate 
     sanctions for every act for which a juvenile is adjudicated 
     delinquent, by inducing their law-abiding behavior, and by 
     preventing their subsequent involvement with the juvenile 
     justice system;
       ``(25) the term `violent crime' means--
       ``(A) murder or nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, 
     or robbery, or
       ``(B) aggravated assault committed with the use of a 
     firearm;
       ``(26) the term `co-located facilities' means facilities 
     that are located in the same building, or are part of a 
     related complex of buildings located on the same grounds; and
       ``(27) the term `related complex of buildings' means 2 or 
     more buildings that share--
       ``(A) physical features, such as walls and fences, or 
     services beyond mechanical services (heating, air 
     conditioning, water and sewer); or
       ``(B) the specialized services that are allowable under 
     section 31.303(e)(3)(i)(C)(3) of title 28 of the Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as in effect on December 10, 1996.''.

     SEC. 204. NAME OF OFFICE.

       Title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5611 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by amending the heading of part A to read as follows:

      ``Part A--Office of Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency 
                             Prevention'',

       (2) in section 201(a) by striking ``Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention'' and inserting ``Crime Control and Delinquency 
     Prevention'', and
       (3) in subsections section 299A(c)(2) by striking ``Justice 
     and Delinquency Prevention'' and inserting ``Crime Control 
     and Delinquency Prevention''.

     SEC. 205. CONCENTRATION OF FEDERAL EFFORT.

       Section 204 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5614) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking the last sentence,
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and of the prospective'' 
     and all that follows through ``administered'',
       (B) by striking paragraph (5), and
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 
     (5) and (6), respectively,
       (3) in subsection (c) by striking ``and reports'' and all 
     that follows through ``this part'', and inserting ``as may be 
     appropriate to prevent the duplication of efforts, and to 
     coordinate activities, related to the prevention of juvenile 
     delinquency'',
       (4) by striking subsection (i), and
       (5) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (f).

     SEC. 206. COORDINATING COUNCIL ON JUVENILE JUSTICE AND 
                   DELINQUENCY PREVENTION.

       Section 206 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5616) is repealed.

     SEC. 207. ANNUAL REPORT.

       Section 207 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5617) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' after ``priorities,'', and
       (B) by striking ``, and recommendations of the Council'',
       (2) by striking paragraphs (4) and (5), and inserting the 
     following:

[[Page H4559]]

       ``(4) An evaluation of the programs funded under this title 
     and their effectiveness in reducing the incidence of juvenile 
     delinquency, particularly violent crime, committed by 
     juveniles.'', and
       (3) by redesignating such section as section 206.

     SEC. 208. ALLOCATION.

       Section 222 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5632) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``amount, up to $400,000,'' and inserting 
     ``amount up to $400,000'',
       (II) by inserting a comma after ``1992'' the 1st place it 
     appears,
       (III) by striking ``the Trust Territory of the Pacific 
     Islands,'', and
       (IV) by striking ``amount, up to $100,000,'' and inserting 
     ``amount up to $100,000'',

       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by striking ``(other than part D)'',
       (II) by striking ``or such greater amount, up to $600,000'' 
     and all that follows through ``section 299(a) (1) and (3)'',
       (III) by striking ``the Trust Territory of the Pacific 
     Islands,'',
       (IV) by striking ``amount, up to $100,000,'' and inserting 
     ``amount up to $100,000'', and
       (V) by inserting a comma after ``1992'',

       (B) in paragraph (3) by striking ``allot'' and inserting 
     ``allocate'', and
       (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``the Trust Territory of 
     the Pacific Islands,''.

     SEC. 209. STATE PLANS.

       Section 223 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5633) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the 2nd sentence by striking ``challenge'' and all 
     that follows through ``part E'', and inserting ``, projects, 
     and activities'',
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``, which--'' and inserting ``that--'',
       (ii) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``not less'' and all that follows through 
     ``33'', and inserting ``the attorney general of the State or 
     such other State official who has primary responsibility for 
     overseeing the enforcement of State criminal laws, and'',
       (II) by inserting ``, in consultation with the attorney 
     general of the State or such other State official who has 
     primary responsibility for overseeing the enforcement of 
     State criminal laws'' after ``State'',
       (III) in clause (i) by striking ``or the administration of 
     juvenile justice'' and inserting ``, the administration of 
     juvenile justice, or the reduction of juvenile delinquency'',
       (IV) in clause (ii) by striking ``include--'' and all that 
     follows through the semicolon at the end of subclause (VIII), 
     and inserting the following:

     ``represent a multidisciplinary approach to addressing 
     juvenile delinquency and may include--

       ``(I) individuals who represent units of general local 
     government, law enforcement and juvenile justice agencies, 
     public agencies concerned with the prevention and treatment 
     of juvenile delinquency and with the adjudication of 
     juveniles, representatives of juveniles, or nonprofit private 
     organizations, particularly such organizations that serve 
     juveniles; and
       ``(II) such other individuals as the chief executive 
     officer considers to be appropriate; and'', and
       (V) by striking clauses (iv) and (v),

       (iii) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``justice'' and 
     inserting ``crime control'',
       (iv) in subparagraph (D)--

       (I) in clause (i) by inserting ``and'' at the end,
       (II) in clause (ii) by striking ``paragraphs'' and all that 
     follows through ``part E'', and inserting ``paragraphs (11), 
     (12), and (13)'', and
       (III) by striking clause (iii), and

       (v) in subparagraph (E) by striking ``title--'' and all 
     that follows through ``(ii)'' and inserting ``title,'',
       (C) in paragraph (5)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking 
     ``, other than'' and inserting ``reduced by the percentage 
     (if any) specified by the State under the authority of 
     paragraph (25) and excluding'' after ``section 222'', and
       ``(ii) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``paragraphs 
     (12)(A), (13), and (14)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (11), 
     (12), and (13)'',
       (D) by striking paragraph (6),
       (E) in paragraph (7) by inserting ``, including in rural 
     areas'' before the semicolon at the end,
       (F) in paragraph (8)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``for (i)'' and all that follows through 
     ``relevant jurisdiction'', and inserting ``for an analysis of 
     juvenile delinquency problems in, and the juvenile 
     delinquency control and delinquency prevention needs 
     (including educational needs) of, the State'',
       (II) by striking ``justice'' the second place it appears 
     and inserting ``crime control'', and
       (III) by striking ``of the jurisdiction; (ii)'' and all 
     that follows through the semicolon at the end, and inserting 
     ``of the State; and'',

       (ii) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) contain--
       ``(i) a plan for providing needed gender-specific services 
     for the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency;
       ``(ii) a plan for providing needed services for the 
     prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency in rural 
     areas; and
       ``(iii) a plan for providing needed mental health services 
     to juveniles in the juvenile justice system, including 
     information on how such plan is being implemented and how 
     such services will be targeted to those juveniles in the such 
     system who are in greatest need of such services services;'', 
     and
       (iii) by striking subparagraphs (C) and (D),
       (G) by amending paragraph (9) to read as follows:
       ``(9) provide for the coordination and maximum utilization 
     of existing juvenile delinquency programs, programs operated 
     by public and private agencies and organizations, and other 
     related programs (such as education, special education, 
     recreation, health, and welfare programs) in the State;'',
       (H) in paragraph (10)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``, specifically'' and inserting 
     ``including'',
       (II) by striking clause (i), and
       (III) redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses (i) 
     and (ii), respectively,

       (ii) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``juvenile justice'' 
     and inserting ``juvenile crime control'',
       (iv) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
       ``(D) programs that provide treatment to juvenile offenders 
     who are victims of child abuse or neglect, and to their 
     families, in order to reduce the likelihood that such 
     juvenile offenders will commit subsequent violations of 
     law;'',
       (iv) in subparagraph (E)--

       (I) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii), and
       (II) by striking ``juveniles, provided'' and all that 
     follows through ``provides; and'', and inserting the 
     following:

     ``juveniles--
       ``(i) to encourage juveniles to remain in elementary and 
     secondary schools or in alternative learning situations;
       ``(ii) to provide services to assist juveniles in making 
     the transition to the world of work and self-sufficiency; 
     and'',
       (v) by amending subparagraph (F) to read as follows:
       ``(F) expanding the use of probation officers--
       ``(i) particularly for the purpose of permitting nonviolent 
     juvenile offenders (including status offenders) to remain at 
     home with their families as an alternative to incarceration 
     or institutionalization; and
       ``(ii) to ensure that juveniles follow the terms of their 
     probation;'',
       (vi) by amending subparagraph (G) to read as follows:
       ``(G) one-on-one mentoring programs that are designed to 
     link at-risk juveniles and juvenile offenders, particularly 
     juveniles residing in high-crime areas and juveniles 
     experiencing educational failure, with responsible adults 
     (such as law enforcement officers, adults working with local 
     businesses, and adults working with community-based 
     organizations and agencies) who are properly screened and 
     trained;'',
       (vii) in subparagraph (H) by striking ``handicapped youth'' 
     and inserting ``juveniles with disabilities'',
       (viii) by amending subparagraph (K) to read as follows:
       ``(K) boot camps for juvenile offenders;'',
       (ix) by amending subparagraph (L) to read as follows:
       ``(L) community-based programs and services to work with 
     juveniles, their parents, and other family members during and 
     after incarceration in order to strengthen families so that 
     such juveniles may be retained in their homes;'',
       (x) by amending subparagraph (N) to read as follows:
       ``(N) establishing policies and systems to incorporate 
     relevant child protective services records into juvenile 
     justice records for purposes of establishing treatment plans 
     for juvenile offenders;'',
       (xi) in subparagraph (O)--

       (I) in striking ``cultural'' and inserting ``other'', and
       (II) by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
     semicolon, and

       (xii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(P) programs designed to prevent and to reduce hate 
     crimes committed by juveniles; and
       ``(Q) after-school programs that provide at-risk juveniles 
     and juveniles in the juvenile justice system with a range of 
     age-appropriate activities, including tutoring, mentoring, 
     and other educational and enrichment activities.'',
       (I) by amending paragraph (12) to read as follows:
       ``(12) shall, in accordance with rules issued by the 
     Administrator, provide that--
       ``(A) juveniles who are charged with or who have committed 
     an offense that would not be criminal if committed by an 
     adult, excluding--
       ``(i) juveniles who are charged with or who have committed 
     a violation of section 922(x)(2) of title 18, United States 
     Code, or of a similar State law;
       ``(ii) juveniles who are charged with or who have committed 
     a violation of a valid court order; and
       ``(iii) juveniles who are held in accordance with the 
     Interstate Compact on Juveniles as enacted by the State;

     shall not be placed in secure detention facilities or secure 
     correctional facilities; and
       ``(B) juveniles--
       ``(i) who are not charged with any offense; and

[[Page H4560]]

       ``(ii) who are--

       ``(I) aliens; or
       ``(II) alleged to be dependent, neglected, or abused;

     shall not be placed in secure detention facilities or secure 
     correctional facilities;'',
       (J) by amending paragraph (13) to read as follows:
       ``(13) provide that--
       ``(A) juveniles alleged to be or found to be delinquent, 
     and juveniles within the purview of paragraph (11), will not 
     be detained or confined in any institution in which they have 
     regular contact, or unsupervised incidental contact, with 
     adults incarcerated because such adults have been convicted 
     of a crime or are awaiting trial on criminal charges; and
       ``(B) there is in effect in the State a policy that 
     requires individuals who work with both such juveniles and 
     such adults in co-located facilities have been 
     trained and certified to work with juveniles;'',
       (K) by amending paragraph (14) to read as follows:
       ``(14) provide that no juvenile will be detained or 
     confined in any jail or lockup for adults except--
       ``(A) juveniles who are accused of nonstatus offenses and 
     who are detained in such jail or lockup for a period not to 
     exceed 6 hours--
       ``(i) for processing or release;
       ``(ii) while awaiting transfer to a juvenile facility; or
       ``(iii) in which period such juveniles make a court 
     appearance;
       ``(B) juveniles who are accused of nonstatus offenses, who 
     are awaiting an initial court appearance that will occur 
     within 48 hours after being taken into custody (excluding 
     Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays), and who are detained 
     in a jail or lockup--
       ``(i) in which--

       ``(I) such juveniles do not have regular contact, or 
     unsupervised incidental contact, with adults incarcerated 
     because such adults have been convicted of a crime or are 
     awaiting trial on criminal charges; and
       ``(II) there is in effect in the State a policy that 
     requires individuals who work with both such juveniles and 
     such adults in co-located facilities have been trained and 
     certified to work with juveniles; and

       ``(ii) that--

       ``(I) is located outside a metropolitan statistical area 
     (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget) and has 
     no existing acceptable alternative placement available;
       ``(II) is located where conditions of distance to be 
     traveled or the lack of highway, road, or transportation do 
     not allow for court appearances within 48 hours (excluding 
     Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) so that a brief (not 
     to exceed an additional 48 hours) delay is excusable; or
       ``(III) is located where conditions of safety exist (such 
     as severe adverse, life-threatening weather conditions that 
     do not allow for reasonably safe travel), in which case the 
     time for an appearance may be delayed until 24 hours after 
     the time that such conditions allow for reasonable safe 
     travel;

       ``(C) juveniles who are accused of nonstatus offenses and 
     who are detained in a jail or lockup that satisfies the 
     requirements of subparagraph (B)(i) if--
       ``(i) such jail or lockup--

       ``(I) is located outside a metropolitan statistical area 
     (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget); and
       ``(II) has no existing acceptable alternative placement 
     available;

       ``(ii) a parent or other legal guardian (or guardian ad 
     litem) of the juvenile involved, in consultation with the 
     counsel representing the juvenile, consents to detaining such 
     juvenile in accordance with this subparagraph and has the 
     right to revoke such consent at any time;
       ``(iii) the juvenile has counsel, and the counsel 
     representing such juvenile--

       ``(I) consults with the parents of the juvenile to 
     determine the appropriate placement of the juvenile; and
       ``(II) has an opportunity to present the juvenile's 
     position regarding the detention involved to the court before 
     the court approves such detention;;

       ``(iv) the court has an opportunity to hear from the 
     juvenile before court approval of such placement; and
       ``(v) detaining such juvenile in accordance with this 
     subparagraph is--

       ``(I) approved in advance by a court with competent 
     jurisdiction that has determined that such placement is in 
     the best interest of such juvenile;
       ``(II) required to be reviewed periodically and in the 
     presence of the juvenile, at intervals of not more than 5 
     days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays), by 
     such court for the duration of detention; and
       ``(III) for a period preceding the sentencing (if any) of 
     such juvenile, but not to exceed a 20-day period;'',

       (L) in paragraph (15)--
       (i) by striking ``paragraph (12)(A), paragraph (13), and 
     paragraph (14)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (11), (12), and 
     (13)'', and
       (ii) by striking ``paragraph (12)(A) and paragraph (13)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraphs (11) and (12)'',
       (M) in paragraph (16) by striking ``mentally, emotionally, 
     or physically handicapping conditions'' and inserting 
     ``disability'',
       (N) by amending paragraph (19) to read as follows:
       ``(19) provide assurances that--
       ``(A) any assistance provided under this Act will not cause 
     the displacement (including a partial displacement, such as a 
     reduction in the hours of nonovertime work, wages, or 
     employment benefits) of any currently employed employee;
       ``(B) activities assisted under this Act will not impair an 
     existing collective bargaining relationship, contract for 
     services, or collective bargaining agreement; and
       ``(C) no such activity that would be inconsistent with the 
     terms of a collective bargaining agreement shall be 
     undertaken without the written concurrence of the labor 
     organization involved;'',
       (O) in paragraph (22) by inserting before the semicolon, 
     the following:

     ``; and that the State will not expend funds to carry out a 
     program referred to in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of 
     paragraph (5) if the recipient of funds who carried out such 
     program during the preceding 2-year period fails to 
     demonstrate, before the expiration of such 2-year period, 
     that such program achieved substantial success in achieving 
     the goals specified in the application submitted such 
     recipient to the State agency'',
       (P) by amending paragraph (23) to read as follows:
       ``(23) address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and 
     system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without 
     establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the 
     disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority 
     groups, who come into contact with the juvenile justice 
     system;'',
       (Q) by amending paragraph (24) to read as follows:
       ``(24) provide that if a juvenile is taken into custody for 
     violating a valid court order issued for committing a status 
     offense--
       ``(A) an appropriate public agency shall be promptly 
     notified that such juvenile is held in custody for violating 
     such order;
       ``(B) not later than 24 hours during which such juvenile is 
     so held, an authorized representative of such agency shall 
     interview, in person, such juvenile; and
       ``(C) not later than 48 hours during which such juvenile is 
     so held--
       ``(i) such representative shall submit an assessment to the 
     court that issued such order, regarding the immediate needs 
     of such juvenile; and
       ``(ii) such court shall conduct a hearing to determine--

       ``(I) whether there is reasonable cause to believe that 
     such juvenile violated such order; and
       ``(II) the appropriate placement of such juvenile pending 
     disposition of the violation alleged;'',

       (R) in paragraph (25) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon,
       (S) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (25) as 
     paragraphs (6) through (24), respectively, and
       (T) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(25) specify a percentage (if any), not to exceed 5 
     percent, of funds received by the State under section 222 
     (other than funds made available to the state advisory group 
     under section 222(d)) that the State will reserve for 
     expenditure by the State to provide incentive grants to units 
     of general local government that reduce the caseload of 
     probation officers within such units, and
       ``(26) provide that the State, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, will implement a system to ensure that if a 
     juvenile is before a court in the juvenile justice system, 
     public child welfare records (including child protective 
     services records) relating to such juvenile that are on file 
     in the geographical area under the jurisdiction of such court 
     will be made known to such court.'', and
       (2) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) If a State fails to comply with any of the applicable 
     requirements of paragraphs (11), (12), (13), and (23) of 
     subsection (a) in any fiscal year beginning after September 
     30, 1999, then the amount allocated to such State for the 
     subsequent fiscal year shall be reduced by not to exceed 12.5 
     percent for each such paragraph with respect to which the 
     failure occurs, unless the Administrator determines that the 
     State--
       ``(1) has achieved substantial compliance with such 
     applicable requirements with respect to which the State was 
     not in compliance; and
       ``(2) has made, through appropriate executive or 
     legislative action, an unequivocal commitment to achieving 
     full compliance with such applicable requirements within a 
     reasonable time.'', and
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking ``allotment'' and inserting ``allocation'', 
     and
       (B) by striking ``subsection (a) (12)(A), (13), (14) and 
     (23)'' each place it appears and inserting ``paragraphs (11), 
     (12), (13), and (23) of subsection (a)''.

     SEC. 210. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION BLOCK GRANT 
                   PROGRAM.

       Title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5611 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by striking parts C, D, E, F, G, and H,
       (2) by striking the 1st part I,
       (3) by redesignating the 2nd part I as part F, and
       (4) by inserting after part B the following:

     ``PART C--JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 241. AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.

       ``The Administrator may make grants to eligible States, 
     from funds allocated under section 242, for the purpose of 
     providing financial assistance to eligible entities to

[[Page H4561]]

     carry out projects designed to prevent juvenile delinquency, 
     including--
       ``(1) projects that provide treatment (including treatment 
     for mental health problems) to juvenile offenders, and 
     juveniles who are at risk of becoming juvenile offenders, who 
     are victims of child abuse or neglect or who have experienced 
     violence in their homes, at school, or in the community, and 
     to their families, in order to reduce the likelihood that 
     such juveniles will commit violations of law;
       ``(2) educational projects or supportive services for 
     delinquent or other juveniles--
       ``(A) to encourage juveniles to remain in elementary and 
     secondary schools or in alternative learning situations in 
     educational settings;
       ``(B) to provide services to assist juveniles in making the 
     transition to the world of work and self-sufficiency;
       ``(C) to assist in identifying learning difficulties 
     (including learning disabilities);
       ``(D) to prevent unwarranted and arbitrary suspensions and 
     expulsions;
       ``(E) to encourage new approaches and techniques with 
     respect to the prevention of school violence and vandalism;
       ``(F) which assist law enforcement personnel and juvenile 
     justice personnel to more effectively recognize and provide 
     for learning-disabled and other juveniles with disabilities;
       ``(G) which develop locally coordinated policies and 
     programs among education, juvenile justice, and social 
     service agencies; or
       ``(H) to provide services to juvenile with serious mental 
     and emotional disturbances (SED) in need of mental health 
     services;
       ``(3) projects which expand the use of probation officers--
       ``(A) particularly for the purpose of permitting nonviolent 
     juvenile offenders (including status offenders) to remain at 
     home with their families as an alternative to incarceration 
     or institutionalization; and
       ``(B) to ensure that juveniles follow the terms of their 
     probation;
       ``(4) one-on-one mentoring projects that are designed to 
     link at-risk juveniles and juvenile offenders who did not 
     commit serious crime, particularly juveniles residing in 
     high-crime areas and juveniles experiencing educational 
     failure, with responsible adults (such as law enforcement 
     officers, adults working with local businesses, and adults 
     working for community-based organizations and agencies) who 
     are properly screened and trained;
       ``(5) community-based projects and services (including 
     literacy and social service programs) which work with 
     juvenile offenders and juveniles who are at risk of becoming 
     juvenile offenders, including those from families with 
     limited English-speaking proficiency, their parents, their 
     siblings, and other family members during and after 
     incarceration of the juvenile offenders, in order to 
     strengthen families, to allow juvenile offenders to be 
     retained in their homes, and to prevent the involvement of 
     other juvenile family members in delinquent activities;
       ``(6) projects designed to provide for the treatment 
     (including mental health services) of juveniles for 
     dependence on or abuse of alcohol, drugs, or other harmful 
     substances;
       ``(7) projects which leverage funds to provide scholarships 
     for postsecondary education and training for low-income 
     juveniles who reside in neighborhoods with high rates of 
     poverty, violence, and drug-related crimes;
       ``(8) projects which provide for an initial intake 
     screening of each juvenile taken into custody--
       ``(A) to determine the likelihood that such juvenile will 
     commit a subsequent offense; and
       ``(B) to provide appropriate interventions (including 
     mental health services) to prevent such juvenile from 
     committing subsequent offenses;
       ``(9) projects (including school- or community-based 
     projects) that are designed to prevent, and reduce the rate 
     of, the participation of juveniles in gangs that commit 
     crimes (particularly violent crimes), that unlawfully use 
     firearms and other weapons, or that unlawfully traffic in 
     drugs and that involve, to the extent practicable, families 
     and other community members (including law enforcement 
     personnel and members of the business community) in the 
     activities conducted under such projects;
       ``(10) comprehensive juvenile justice and delinquency 
     prevention projects that meet the needs of juveniles through 
     the collaboration of the many local service systems juveniles 
     encounter, including schools, courts, law enforcement 
     agencies, child protection agencies, mental health agencies, 
     welfare services, health care agencies, private nonprofit 
     agencies, and public recreation agencies offering services to 
     juveniles;
       ``(11) to develop, implement, and support, in conjunction 
     with public and private agencies, organizations, and 
     businesses, projects for the employment of juveniles and 
     referral to job training programs (including referral to 
     Federal job training programs);
       ``(12) delinquency prevention activities which involve 
     youth clubs, sports, recreation and parks, peer counseling 
     and teaching, the arts, leadership development, community 
     service, volunteer service, before- and after-school 
     programs, violence prevention activities, mediation skills 
     training, camping, environmental education, ethnic or 
     cultural enrichment, tutoring, and academic enrichment;
       ``(13) to establish policies and systems to incorporate 
     relevant child protective services records into juvenile 
     justice records for purposes of establishing treatment plans 
     for juvenile offenders;
       ``(14) programs that encourage social competencies, 
     problem-solving skills, and communication skills, youth 
     leadership, and civic involvement;
       ``(15) programs that focus on the needs of young girls at-
     risk of delinquency or status offenses;
       ``(16) projects which provide for--
       ``(A) an assessment by a qualified mental health 
     professional of incarcerated juveniles who are suspected to 
     be in need of mental health services;
       ``(B) the development of an individualized treatment plan 
     for those incarcerated juveniles determined to be in need of 
     such services;
       ``(C) the inclusion of a discharge plan for incarcerated 
     juveniles receiving mental health services that addresses 
     aftercare services; and
       ``(D) all juveniles receiving psychotropic medications to 
     be under the care of a licensed mental health professional;
       ``(17) after-school programs that provide at-risk juveniles 
     and juveniles in the juvenile justice system with a range of 
     age-appropriate activities, including tutoring, mentoring, 
     and other educational and enrichment activities;
       ``(18) programs related to the establishment and 
     maintenance of a school violence hotline, based on a public-
     private partnership, that students and parents can use to 
     report suspicious, violent, or threatening behavior to local 
     school and law enforcement authorities;
       ``(19) programs (excluding programs to purchase guns from 
     juveniles) designed to reduce the unlawful acquisition and 
     illegal use of guns by juveniles, including partnerships 
     between law enforcement agencies, health professionals, 
     school officials, firearms manufacturers, consumer groups, 
     faith-based groups and community organizations; and
       ``(20) other activities that are likely to prevent juvenile 
     delinquency.

     ``SEC. 242. ALLOCATION.

       ``Funds appropriated to carry out this part shall be 
     allocated among eligible States proportionately based on the 
     population that is less than 18 years of age in the eligible 
     States.

     ``SEC. 243. ELIGIBILITY OF STATES.

       ``(a) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     section 241, a State shall submit to the Administrator an 
     application that contains the following:
       ``(1) An assurance that the State will use--
       ``(A) not more than 5 percent of such grant, in the 
     aggregate, for--
       ``(i) the costs incurred by the State to carry out this 
     part; and
       ``(ii) to evaluate, and provide technical assistance 
     relating to, projects and activities carried out with funds 
     provided under this part; and
       ``(B) the remainder of such grant to make grants under 
     section 244.
       ``(2) An assurance that, and a detailed description of how, 
     such grant will support, and not supplant State and local 
     efforts to prevent juvenile delinquency.
       ``(3) An assurance that such application was prepared after 
     consultation with and participation by community-based 
     organizations, and organizations in the local juvenile 
     justice system, that carry out programs, projects, or 
     activities to prevent juvenile delinquency.
       ``(4) An assurance that each eligible entity described in 
     section 244 that receives an initial grant under section 244 
     to carry out a project or activity shall also receive an 
     assurance from the State that such entity will receive from 
     the State, for the subsequent fiscal year to carry out such 
     project or activity, a grant under such section in an amount 
     that is proportional, based on such initial grant and on the 
     amount of the grant received under section 241 by the State 
     for such subsequent fiscal year, but that does not exceed the 
     amount specified for such subsequent fiscal year in such 
     application as approved by the State.
       ``(5) Such other information and assurances as the 
     Administrator may reasonably require by rule.
       ``(b) Approval of Applications.--
       ``(1) Approval required.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     Administrator shall approve an application, and amendments to 
     such application submitted in subsequent fiscal years, that 
     satisfy the requirements of subsection (a).
       ``(2) Limitation.--The Administrator may not approve such 
     application (including amendments to such application) for a 
     fiscal year unless--
       ``(A)(i) the State submitted a plan under section 223 for 
     such fiscal year; and
       ``(ii) such plan is approved by the Administrator for such 
     fiscal year; or
       ``(B) the Administrator waives the application of 
     subparagraph (A) to such State for such fiscal year, after 
     finding good cause for such a waiver.

     ``SEC. 244. GRANTS FOR LOCAL PROJECTS.

       ``(a) Grants by States.--Using a grant received under 
     section 241, a State may make grants to eligible entities 
     whose applications are received by the State to carry out 
     projects and activities described in section 241.
       ``(b) Special Consideration.--For purposes of making grants 
     under subsection (a), the

[[Page H4562]]

     State shall give special consideration to eligible entities 
     that--
       ``(1) propose to carry out such projects in geographical 
     areas in which there is--
       ``(A) a disproportionately high level of serious crime 
     committed by juveniles; or
       ``(B) a recent rapid increase in the number of nonstatus 
     offenses committed by juveniles;
       ``(2)(A) agreed to carry out such projects or activities 
     that are multidisciplinary and involve more than 2 private 
     nonprofit agencies, organizations, and institutions that have 
     experience dealing with juveniles; or
       ``(B) represent communities that have a comprehensive plan 
     designed to identify at-risk juveniles and to prevent or 
     reduce the rate of juvenile delinquency, and that involve 
     other entities operated by individuals who have a 
     demonstrated history of involvement in activities designed to 
     prevent juvenile delinquency; and
       ``(3) the amount of resources (in cash or in kind) such 
     entities will provide to carry out such projects and 
     activities.

     ``SEC. 245. ELIGIBILITY OF ENTITIES.

       ``(a) Eligibility.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     to be eligible to receive a grant under section 244, a unit 
     of general purpose local government, acting jointly with not 
     fewer than 2 private nonprofit agencies, organizations, and 
     institutions that have experience dealing with juveniles, 
     shall submit to the State an application that contains the 
     following:
       ``(1) An assurance that such applicant will use such grant, 
     and each such grant received for the subsequent fiscal year, 
     to carry out throughout a 2-year period a project or activity 
     described in reasonable detail, and of a kind described in 
     one or more of paragraphs (1) through (14) of section 241 as 
     specified in, such application.
       ``(2) A statement of the particular goals such project or 
     activity is designed to achieve, and the methods such entity 
     will use to achieve, and assess the achievement of, each of 
     such goals.
       ``(3) A statement identifying the research (if any) such 
     entity relied on in preparing such application.
       ``(b) Limitation.--If an eligible entity that receives a 
     grant under section 244 to carry out a project or activity 
     for a 2-year period, and receives technical assistance from 
     the State or the Administrator after requesting such 
     technical assistance (if any), fails to demonstrate, before 
     the expiration of such 2-year period, that such project or 
     such activity has achieved substantial success in achieving 
     the goals specified in the application submitted by such 
     entity to receive such grants, then such entity shall not be 
     eligible to receive any subsequent grant under such section 
     to continue to carry out such project or activity.''.

     SEC. 211. RESEARCH; EVALUATION; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE; 
                   TRAINING.

       Title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5611 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after part C, as added by section 110, the following:

     ``PART D--RESEARCH; EVALUATION; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE; TRAINING

     ``SEC. 251. RESEARCH AND EVALUATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSES; 
                   INFORMATION DISSEMINATION

       ``(a) Research and Evaluation.--(1) The Administrator may--
       ``(A) plan and identify, after consultation with the 
     Director of the National Institute of Justice, the purposes 
     and goals of all agreements carried out with funds provided 
     under this subsection; and
       ``(B) make agreements with the National Institute of 
     Justice or, subject to the approval of the Assistant Attorney 
     General for the Office of Justice Programs, with another 
     Federal agency authorized by law to conduct research or 
     evaluation in juvenile justice matters, for the purpose of 
     providing research and evaluation relating to--
       ``(i) the prevention, reduction, and control of juvenile 
     delinquency and serious crime committed by juveniles;
       ``(ii) the link between juvenile delinquency and the 
     incarceration of members of the families of juveniles;
       ``(iii) successful efforts to prevent first-time minor 
     offenders from committing subsequent involvement in serious 
     crime;
       ``(iv) successful efforts to prevent recidivism;
       ``(v) the juvenile justice system;
       ``(vi) juvenile violence;
       ``(vii) appropriate mental health services for juveniles 
     and youth at risk of participating in delinquent activities;
       ``(viii) reducing the proportion of juveniles detained or 
     confined in secure detention facilities, secure correctional 
     facilities, jails, and lockups who are members of minority 
     groups; and
       ``(ix) other purposes consistent with the purposes of this 
     title and title I.
       ``(2) The Administrator shall ensure that an equitable 
     amount of funds available to carry out paragraph (1)(B) is 
     used for research and evaluation relating to the prevention 
     of juvenile delinquency.
       ``(b) Statistical Analyses..--The Administrator may--
       ``(1) plan and identify, after consultation with the 
     Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the purposes 
     and goals of all agreements carried out with funds provided 
     under this subsection; and
       ``(2) make agreements with the Bureau of Justice 
     Statistics, or subject to the approval of the Assistant 
     Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, with 
     another Federal agency authorized by law to undertake 
     statistical work in juvenile justice matters, for the purpose 
     of providing for the collection, analysis, and dissemination 
     of statistical data and information relating to juvenile 
     delinquency and serious crimes committed by juveniles, to the 
     juvenile justice system, to juvenile violence, and to other 
     purposes consist with the purposes of this title and title I.
       ``(c) Competitive Selection Process.--The Administrator 
     shall use a competitive process, established by rule by the 
     Administrator, to carry out subsections (a) and (b).
       ``(d) Implementation of Agreements.--A Federal agency that 
     makes an agreement under subsections (a)(1)(B) and (b)(2) 
     with the Administrator may carry out such agreement directly 
     or by making grants to or contracts with public and private 
     agencies, institutions, and organizations.
       ``(e) Information Dissemination.--The Administrator may--
       ``(1) review reports and data relating to the juvenile 
     justice system in the United States and in foreign nations 
     (as appropriate), collect data and information from studies 
     and research into all aspects of juvenile delinquency 
     (including the causes, prevention, and treatment of juvenile 
     delinquency) and serious crimes committed by juveniles;
       ``(2) establish and operate, directly or by contract, a 
     clearinghouse and information center for the preparation, 
     publication, and dissemination of information relating to 
     juvenile delinquency, including State and local prevention 
     and treatment programs, plans, resources, and training and 
     technical assistance programs; and
       ``(3) make grants and contracts with public and private 
     agencies, institutions, and organizations, for the purpose of 
     disseminating information to representatives and personnel of 
     public and private agencies, including practitioners in 
     juvenile justice, law enforcement, the courts, corrections, 
     schools, and related services, in the establishment, 
     implementation, and operation of projects and activities for 
     which financial assistance is provided under this title.

     ``SEC. 252. TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) Training.--The Administrator may--
       ``(1) develop and carry out projects for the purpose of 
     training representatives and personnel of public and private 
     agencies, including practitioners in juvenile justice, law 
     enforcement, courts, corrections, schools, and related 
     services, to carry out the purposes specified in section 102; 
     and
       ``(2) make grants to and contracts with public and private 
     agencies, institutions, and organizations for the purpose of 
     training representatives and personnel of public and private 
     agencies, including practitioners in juvenile justice, law 
     enforcement, courts, corrections, schools, and related 
     services, to carry out the purposes specified in section 102.
       ``(b) Technical Assistance.--The Administrator may--
       ``(1) develop and implement projects for the purpose of 
     providing technical assistance to representatives and 
     personnel of public and private agencies and organizations, 
     including practitioners in juvenile justice, law enforcement, 
     courts, corrections, schools, and related services, in the 
     establishment, implementation, and operation of programs, 
     projects, and activities for which financial assistance is 
     provided under this title; and
       ``(2) make grants to and contracts with public and private 
     agencies, institutions, and organizations, for the purpose of 
     providing technical assistance to representatives and 
     personnel of public and private agencies, including 
     practitioners in juvenile justice, law enforcement, courts, 
     corrections, schools, and related services, in the 
     establishment, implementation, and operation of programs, 
     projects, and activities for which financial assistance is 
     provided under this title.
       ``(c) Training and Technical Assistance to Mental Health 
     Professionals and Law Enforcement Personnel.--The 
     Administrator shall provide training and technical assistance 
     to mental health professionals and law enforcement personnel 
     (including public defenders, police officers, probation 
     officers, judges, parole officials, and correctional 
     officers) to address or to promote the development, testing, 
     or demonstration of promising or innovative models, programs, 
     or delivery systems that address the needs of juveniles who 
     are alleged or adjudicated delinquent and who, as a result of 
     such status, are placed in secure detention or confinement or 
     in nonsecure residential placements.''.

     SEC. 212. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

       Title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5611 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after part D, as added by section 111, the following:

    ``PART E--DEVELOPING, TESTING, AND DEMONSTRATING PROMISING NEW 
                        INITIATIVES AND PROGRAMS

     ``SEC. 261. GRANTS AND PROJECTS.

       ``(a) Authority To Make Grants.--The Administrator may make 
     grants to and contracts with States, units of general local 
     government, Indian tribal governments, public and private 
     agencies, organizations, and individuals, or combinations 
     thereof, to carry out projects for the development, testing, 
     and demonstration of promising initiatives and programs for 
     the prevention, control, or reduction of juvenile 
     delinquency. The Administrator shall ensure that, to the 
     extent reasonable and practicable, such

[[Page H4563]]

     grants are made to achieve an equitable geographical 
     distribution of such projects throughout the United States.
       ``(b) Use of Grants.--A grant made under subsection (a) may 
     be used to pay all or part of the cost of the project for 
     which such grant is made.

     ``SEC. 262. GRANTS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       ``The Administrator may make grants to and contracts with 
     public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals 
     to provide technical assistance to States, units of general 
     local government, Indian tribal governments, local private 
     entities or agencies, or any combination thereof, to carry 
     out the projects for which grants are made under section 261.

     ``SEC. 263. ELIGIBILITY.

       ``To be eligible to receive a grant made under this part, a 
     public or private agency, Indian tribal government, 
     organization, institution, individual, or combination thereof 
     shall submit an application to the Administrator at such 
     time, in such form, and containing such information as the 
     Administrator may reasonable require by rule.

     ``SEC. 264. REPORTS.

       ``Recipients of grants made under this part shall submit to 
     the Administrator such reports as may be reasonably requested 
     by the Administrator to describe progress achieved in 
     carrying the projects for which such grants are made.''.

     SEC. 213. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 299 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5671) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (e), and
       (2) by striking subsections (a), (b), and (c), and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations for Title II 
     (Excluding Parts C and E).--(1) There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this title such sums as may be 
     appropriate for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.
       ``(2) Of such sums as are appropriated for a fiscal year to 
     carry out this title (other than parts C and E)--
       ``(A) not more than 5 percent shall be available to carry 
     out part A;
       ``(B) not less than 80 percent shall be available to carry 
     out part B; and
       ``(C) not more than 15 percent shall be available to carry 
     out part D.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations for Part C.--There 
     are authorized to be appropriated to carry out part C such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, 
     and 2003.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations for Part E.--There 
     are authorized to be appropriated to carry out part E, and 
     authorized to remain available until expended, such sums as 
     may be necessary for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 
     2003.''.

     SEC. 214. ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY.

       Section 299A of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5672) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d) by striking ``as are consistent with 
     the purpose of this Act'' and inserting ``only to the extent 
     necessary to ensure that there is compliance with the 
     specific requirements of this title or to respond to requests 
     for clarification and guidance relating to such compliance'', 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) If a State requires by law compliance with the 
     requirements described in paragraphs (11), (12), and (13) of 
     section 223(a), then for the period such law is in effect in 
     such State such State shall be rebuttably presumed to satisfy 
     such requirements.''.

     SEC. 215. USE OF FUNDS.

       Section 299C of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5674) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``may be used for'',
       (B) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``may be used for'' after 
     ``(1)'', and
       (C) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) may not be used for the cost of construction of any 
     facility, except not more than 15 percent of the funds 
     received under this title by a State for a fiscal year may be 
     used for the purpose of renovating or replacing juvenile 
     facilities.'',
       (2) by striking subsection (b), and
       (3) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b).

     SEC. 216. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.

       Part F of title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5671 et seq.), as so 
     redesignated by section 210, is amended adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 299F. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.

       ``None of the funds made available to carry out this title 
     may be used to advocate for, or support, the unsecured 
     release of juveniles who are charged with a violent crime.''.

     SEC. 217. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Part F of title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5671 et seq.), as so 
     redesignated by section 210 and amended by section 216, is 
     amended adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 299G. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       ``Nothing in this title or title I shall be construed--
       ``(1) to prevent financial assistance from being awarded 
     through grants under this title to any otherwise eligible 
     organization; or
       ``(2) to modify or affect any Federal or State law relating 
     to collective bargaining rights of employees.''.

     SEC. 218. LEASING SURPLUS FEDERAL PROPERTY.

       Part F of title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5671 et seq.), as so 
     redesignated by section 210 and amended by sections 216 and 
     217, is amended adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 299H. LEASING SURPLUS FEDERAL PROPERTY.

       ``The Administrator may receive surplus Federal property 
     (including facilities) and may lease such property to States 
     and units of general local government for use in or as 
     facilities for juvenile offenders, or for use in or as 
     facilities for delinquency prevention and treatment 
     activities.''.

     SEC. 219. ISSUANCE OF RULES.

       Part F of title II or the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5671 et seq.), as so 
     redesignated by section 210 and amended by sections 216, 217, 
     and 218, is amended adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 299I. ISSUANCE OF RULES.

       ``The Administrator shall issue rules to carry out this 
     title, including rules that establish procedures and methods 
     for making grants and contracts, and distributing funds 
     available, to carry out this title.''.

     SEC. 220. CONTENT OF MATERIALS.

       Part F of title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5671 et seq.), as so 
     redesignated by section 210 and amended by sections 216, 217, 
     218, and 219, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 299J. CONTENT OF MATERIALS.

       ``Materials produced, procured, or distributed using funds 
     appropriated to carry out this Act, for the purpose of 
     preventing hate crimes 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.''.

     SEC. 221. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Technical Amendments.--The Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) 
     is amended--
       (1) in section 202(b) by striking ``prescribed for GS-18 of 
     the General Schedule by section 5332'' and inserting 
     ``payable under section 5376'',
       (2) in section 221(b)(2) by striking the last sentence,
       (3) in section 299D by striking subsection (d), and
       (4) by striking titles IV and V, as originally enacted by 
     Public Law 93-415 (88 Stat. 1132-1143).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 5315 of title 5 of 
     the United States Code is amended by striking ``Office of 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention'' and inserting 
     ``Office of Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency 
     Prevention''.
       (2) Section 4351(b) of title 18 of the United States Code 
     is amended by striking ``Office of Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention'' and inserting ``Office of Juvenile 
     Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention''.
       (3) Subsections (a)(1) and (c) of section 3220 of title 39 
     of the United States Code is amended by striking ``Office of 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``Office of Juvenile Crime Control and 
     Delinquency Prevention''.
       (4) Section 463(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     663(f)) is amended by striking ``Office of Juvenile Justice 
     and Delinquency Prevention'' and inserting ``Office of 
     Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention''.
       (5) Sections 801(a), 804, 805, and 813 of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3712(a), 3782, 3785, 3786, 3789i) are amended by striking 
     ``Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``Office of Juvenile 
     Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention''.
       (6) The Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13001 
     et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in section 214(b(1) by striking ``262, 293, and 296 of 
     subpart II of title II'' and inserting ``299B and 299E'',
       (B) in section 214A(c)(1) by striking ``262, 293, and 296 
     of subpart II of title II'' and inserting ``299B and 299E'',
       (C) in sections 217 and 222 by striking ``Office of 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``Office of Juvenile Crime Control and 
     Delinquency Prevention'', and
       (D) in section 223(c) by striking ``section 262, 293, and 
     296'' and inserting ``sections 262, 299B, and 299E''.
       (7) The Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5771 
     et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in section 403(2) by striking ``Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention'' and inserting ``Crime Control and Delinquency 
     Prevention'', and
       (B) in subsections (a)(5)(E) and (b)(1)(B) of section 404 
     by striking ``section 313'' and inserting ``section 331''.
       (8) The Crime Control Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13001 et seq.) 
     is amended--
       (A) in section 217(c)(1) by striking ``sections 262, 293, 
     and 296 of subpart II of title II'' and inserting ``sections 
     299B and 299E'', and
       (B) in section 223(c) by striking ``section 262, 293, and 
     296 of title II'' and inserting ``sections 299B and 299E''.

     SEC. 222. REFERENCES.

       In any Federal law (excluding this title and the Acts 
     amended by this title), Executive order, rule, regulation, 
     order, delegation of authority, grant, contract, suit, or 
     document--

[[Page H4564]]

       (1) a reference to the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention shall be deemed to include a reference 
     to the Office of Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency 
     Prevention, and
       (2) a reference to the National Institute for Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention shall be deemed to include 
     a reference to Office of Juvenile Crime Control and 
     Delinquency Prevention.
      Subtitle B--Amendments to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act

     SEC. 231. RUNAWAY AND HOMELESS YOUTH.

       (a) Findings.--Section 302 of the Runaway and Homeless 
     Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``accurate reporting of 
     the problem nationally and to develop'' and inserting ``an 
     accurate national reporting system to report the problem, and 
     to assist in the development of''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following:
       ``(8) services for runaway and homeless youth are needed in 
     urban, suburban, and rural areas;''.
       (b) Authority To Make Grants for Centers and Services.--
     Section 311 of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5711) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Grants for Centers and Services.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to 
     public and nonprofit private entities (and combinations of 
     such entities) to establish and operate (including 
     renovation) local centers to provide services for runaway and 
     homeless youth and for the families of such youth.
       ``(2) Services provided.--Services provided under paragraph 
     (1)--
       ``(A) shall be provided as an alternative to involving 
     runaway and homeless youth in the law enforcement, child 
     welfare, mental health, and juvenile justice systems;
       ``(B) shall include--
       ``(i) safe and appropriate shelter; and
       ``(ii) individual, family, and group counseling, as 
     appropriate; and
       ``(C) may include--
       ``(i) street-based services;
       ``(ii) home-based services for families with youth at risk 
     of separation from the family; and
       ``(iii) drug abuse education and prevention services.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``the Trust Territory 
     of the Pacific Islands,''; and
       (3) by striking subsections (c) and (d).
       (c) Eligibility.--Section 312 of the Runaway and Homeless 
     Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5712) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (8), by striking ``paragraph (6)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (7)'';
       (B) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) shall submit to the Secretary an annual report that 
     includes, with respect to the year for which the report is 
     submitted--
       ``(A) information regarding the activities carried out 
     under this part;
       ``(B) the achievements of the project under this part 
     carried out by the applicant; and
       ``(C) statistical summaries describing--
       ``(i) the number and the characteristics of the runaway and 
     homeless youth, and youth at risk of family separation, who 
     participate in the project; and
       ``(ii) the services provided to such youth by the 
     project.''; and
       (2) by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(c) Applicants Providing Street-Based Services.--To be 
     eligible to use assistance under section 311(a)(2)(C)(i) to 
     provide street-based services, the applicant shall include in 
     the plan required by subsection (b) assurances that in 
     providing such services the applicant will--
       ``(1) provide qualified supervision of staff, including on-
     street supervision by appropriately trained staff;
       ``(2) provide backup personnel for on-street staff;
       ``(3) provide initial and periodic training of staff who 
     provide such services; and
       ``(4) conduct outreach activities for runaway and homeless 
     youth, and street youth.
       ``(d) Applicants Providing Home-Based Services.--To be 
     eligible to use assistance under section 311(a) to provide 
     home-based services described in section 311(a)(2)(C)(ii), an 
     applicant shall include in the plan required by subsection 
     (b) assurances that in providing such services the applicant 
     will--
       ``(1) provide counseling and information to youth and the 
     families (including unrelated individuals in the family 
     households) of such youth, including services relating to 
     basic life skills, interpersonal skill building, educational 
     advancement, job attainment skills, mental and physical 
     health care, parenting skills, financial planning, and 
     referral to sources of other needed services;
       ``(2) provide directly, or through an arrangement made by 
     the applicant, 24-hour service to respond to family crises 
     (including immediate access to temporary shelter for runaway 
     and homeless youth, and youth at risk of separation from the 
     family);
       ``(3) establish, in partnership with the families of 
     runaway and homeless youth, and youth at risk of separation 
     from the family, objectives and measures of success to be 
     achieved as a result of receiving home-based services;
       ``(4) provide initial and periodic training of staff who 
     provide home-based services; and
       ``(5) ensure that--
       ``(A) caseloads will remain sufficiently low to allow for 
     intensive (5 to 20 hours per week) involvement with each 
     family receiving such services; and
       ``(B) staff providing such services will receive qualified 
     supervision.
       ``(e) Applicants Providing Drug Abuse Education and 
     Prevention Services.--To be eligible to use assistance under 
     section 311(a)(2)(C)(iii) to provide drug abuse education and 
     prevention services, an applicant shall include in the plan 
     required by subsection (b)--
       ``(1) a description of--
       ``(A) the types of such services that the applicant 
     proposes to provide;
       ``(B) the objectives of such services; and
       ``(C) the types of information and training to be provided 
     to individuals providing such services to runaway and 
     homeless youth; and
       ``(2) an assurance that in providing such services the 
     applicant shall conduct outreach activities for runaway and 
     homeless youth.''.
       (d) Approval of Applications.--Section 313 of the Runaway 
     and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5713) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 313. APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--An application by a public or private 
     entity for a grant under section 311(a) may be approved by 
     the Secretary after taking into consideration, with respect 
     to the State in which such entity proposes to provide 
     services under this part--
       ``(1) the geographical distribution in such State of the 
     proposed services under this part for which all grant 
     applicants request approval; and
       ``(2) which areas of such State have the greatest need for 
     such services.
       ``(b) Priority.--In selecting applications for grants under 
     section 311(a), the Secretary shall give priority to--
       ``(1) eligible applicants who have demonstrated experience 
     in providing services to runaway and homeless youth; and
       ``(2) eligible applicants that request grants of less than 
     $200,000.''.
       (e) Authority for Transitional Living Grant Program.--
     Section 321 of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5714-1) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``purpose and'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``(a)''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (b).
       (f) Eligibility.--Section 322(a)(9) of the Runaway and 
     Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5714-2(a)(9)) is amended by 
     inserting ``, and the services provided to such youth by such 
     project,'' after ``such project''.
       (g) Coordination.--Section 341 of the Runaway and Homeless 
     Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5714-21) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 341. COORDINATION.

       ``With respect to matters relating to the health, 
     education, employment, and housing of runaway and homeless 
     youth, the Secretary--
       ``(1) in conjunction with the Attorney General, shall 
     coordinate the activities of agencies of the Department of 
     Health and Human Services with activities under any other 
     Federal juvenile crime control, prevention, and juvenile 
     offender accountability program and with the activities of 
     other Federal entities; and
       ``(2) shall coordinate the activities of agencies of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services with the activities 
     of other Federal entities and with the activities of entities 
     that are eligible to receive grants under this title.''.
       (h) Authority To Make Grants for Research, Evaluation, 
     Demonstration, and Service Projects.--Section 343 of the 
     Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5714-23) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``evaluation,'' 
     after ``research,'';
       (2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``evaluation,'' after 
     ``research,''; and
       (3) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (2); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (10) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (9), respectively.
       (i) Study.--Part D of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 5731 et seq.) is amended by adding after section 
     344 the following:

     ``SEC. 345. STUDY

       ``The Secretary shall conduct a study of a representative 
     sample of runaways to determine the percent who leave home 
     because of sexual abuse. The report on the study shall 
     include--
       ``(1) in the case of sexual abuse , the relationship of the 
     assaulter to the runaway; and
       ``(2) recommendations on how Federal laws may be changed to 
     reduce sexual assaults on children.

     The study shall be completed to enable the Secretary to make 
     a report to the committees of Congress with jurisdiction over 
     this Act, and to make such report available to the public, 
     within one year of the date of the enactment of this 
     section.''
       (j) Assistance to Potential Grantees.--Section 371 of the 
     Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5714a) is amended 
     by striking the last sentence.
       (k) Reports.--Section 381 of the Runaway and Homeless Youth 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5715) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 381. REPORTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than April 1, 2000, and 
     biennially thereafter, the Secretary

[[Page H4565]]

     shall submit, to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate, a report on the status, activities, 
     and accomplishments of entities that receive grants under 
     parts A, B, C, D, and E, with particular attention to--
       ``(1) in the case of centers funded under part A, the 
     ability or effectiveness of such centers in--
       ``(A) alleviating the problems of runaway and homeless 
     youth;
       ``(B) if applicable or appropriate, reuniting such youth 
     with their families and encouraging the resolution of 
     intrafamily problems through counseling and other services;
       ``(C) strengthening family relationships and encouraging 
     stable living conditions for such youth; and
       ``(D) assisting such youth to decide upon a future course 
     of action; and
       ``(2) in the case of projects funded under part B--
       ``(A) the number and characteristics of homeless youth 
     served by such projects;
       ``(B) the types of activities carried out by such projects;
       ``(C) the effectiveness of such projects in alleviating the 
     problems of homeless youth;
       ``(D) the effectiveness of such projects in preparing 
     homeless youth for self-sufficiency;
       ``(E) the effectiveness of such projects in assisting 
     homeless youth to decide upon future education, employment, 
     and independent living;
       ``(F) the ability of such projects to encourage the 
     resolution of intrafamily problems through counseling and 
     development of self-sufficient living skills; and
       ``(G) activities and programs planned by such projects for 
     the following fiscal year.
       ``(b) Contents of Reports.--The Secretary shall include in 
     each report submitted under subsection (a), summaries of--
       ``(1) the evaluations performed by the Secretary under 
     section 386; and
       ``(2) descriptions of the qualifications of, and training 
     provided to, individuals involved in carrying out such 
     evaluations.''.
       (l) Evaluation.--Section 384 of the Runaway and Homeless 
     Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5732) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 386. EVALUATION AND INFORMATION.

       ``(a) In General.--If a grantee receives grants for 3 
     consecutive fiscal years under part A, B, C, D, or E (in the 
     alternative), then the Secretary shall evaluate such grantee 
     on-site, not less frequently than once in the period of such 
     3 consecutive fiscal years, for purposes of--
       ``(1) determining whether such grants are being used for 
     the purposes for which such grants are made by the Secretary;
       ``(2) collecting additional information for the report 
     required by section 384; and
       ``(3) providing such information and assistance to such 
     grantee as will enable such grantee to improve the operation 
     of the centers, projects, and activities for which such 
     grants are made.
       ``(b) Cooperation.--Recipients of grants under this title 
     shall cooperate with the Secretary's efforts to carry out 
     evaluations, and to collect information, under this title.''.
       (m) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 385 of the 
     Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5751) is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 388. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Authorization.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this title (other than part E) such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, 
     and 2003.
       ``(2) Allocation.--
       ``(A) Parts a and b.--From the amount appropriated under 
     paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve 
     not less than 90 percent to carry out parts A and B.
       ``(B) Part b.--Of the amount reserved under subparagraph 
     (A), not less than 20 percent, and not more than 30 percent, 
     shall be reserved to carry out part B.
       ``(3) Parts c and d.--In each fiscal year, after reserving 
     the amounts required by paragraph (2), the Secretary shall 
     use the remaining amount (if any) to carry out parts C and D.
       ``(b) Separate Identification Required.--No funds 
     appropriated to carry out this title may be combined with 
     funds appropriated under any other Act if the purpose of 
     combining such funds is to make a single discretionary grant, 
     or a single discretionary payment, unless such funds are 
     separately identified in all grants and contracts and are 
     used for the purposes specified in this title.''.
       (n) Sexual Abuse Prevention Program.--
       (1) Authority for program.--The Runaway and Homeless Youth 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) by striking the heading for part F;
       (B) by redesignating part E as part F; and
       (C) by inserting after part D the following:

               ``PART E--SEXUAL ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 351. AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to 
     nonprofit private agencies for the purpose of providing 
     street-based services to runaway and homeless, and street 
     youth, who have been subjected to, or are at risk of being 
     subjected to, sexual abuse, prostitution, or sexual 
     exploitation.
       ``(b) Priority.--In selecting applicants to receive grants 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to 
     nonprofit private agencies that have experience in providing 
     services to runaway and homeless, and street youth.''.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 388(a) of the 
     Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5751), as amended 
     by subsection (m) of this section, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(4) Part e.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out part E such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
     years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.''.
       (o) Consolidated Review of Applications.--The Runaway and 
     Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after section 383 the following:

     ``SEC. 385. CONSOLIDATED REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS.

       ``With respect to funds available to carry out parts A, B, 
     C, D, and E, nothing in this title shall be construed to 
     prohibit the Secretary from--
       ``(1) announcing, in a single announcement, the 
     availability of funds for grants under 2 or more of such 
     parts; and
       ``(2) reviewing applications for grants under 2 or more of 
     such parts in a single, consolidated application review 
     process.''.
       (p) Definitions.--The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     386, as amended by subsection (l) of this section, the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 387. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Drug abuse education and prevention services.--The 
     term `drug abuse education and prevention services'--
       ``(A) means services to runaway and homeless youth to 
     prevent or reduce the illicit use of drugs by such youth; and
       ``(B) may include--
       ``(i) individual, family, group, and peer counseling;
       ``(ii) drop-in services;
       ``(iii) assistance to runaway and homeless youth in rural 
     areas (including the development of community support 
     groups);
       ``(iv) information and training relating to the illicit use 
     of drugs by runaway and homeless youth, to individuals 
     involved in providing services to such youth; and
       ``(v) activities to improve the availability of local drug 
     abuse prevention services to runaway and homeless youth.
       ``(2) Home-based services.--The term `home-based 
     services'--
       ``(A) means services provided to youth and their families 
     for the purpose of--
       ``(i) preventing such youth from running away, or otherwise 
     becoming separated, from their families; and
       ``(ii) assisting runaway youth to return to their families; 
     and
       ``(B) includes services that are provided in the residences 
     of families (to the extent practicable), including--
       ``(i) intensive individual and family counseling; and
       ``(ii) training relating to life skills and parenting.
       ``(3) Homeless youth.--The term `homeless youth' means an 
     individual--
       ``(A) who is--
       ``(i) not more than 21 years of age; and
       ``(ii) for the purposes of part B, not less than 16 years 
     of age;
       ``(B) for whom it is not possible to live in a safe 
     environment with a relative; and
       ``(C) who has no other safe alternative living arrangement.
       ``(4) Street-based services.--The term `street-based 
     services'--
       ``(A) means services provided to runaway and homeless 
     youth, and street youth, in areas where they congregate, 
     designed to assist such youth in making healthy personal 
     choices regarding where they live and how they behave; and
       ``(B) may include--
       ``(i) identification of and outreach to runaway and 
     homeless youth, and street youth;
       ``(ii) crisis intervention and counseling;
       ``(iii) information and referral for housing;
       ``(iv) information and referral for transitional living and 
     health care services;
       ``(v) advocacy, education, and prevention services related 
     to--

       ``(I) alcohol and drug abuse;
       ``(II) sexual exploitation;
       ``(III) sexually transmitted diseases, including human 
     immunodeficiency virus (HIV); and
       ``(IV) physical and sexual assault.

       ``(5) Street youth.--The term `street youth' means an 
     individual who--
       ``(A) is--
       ``(i) a runaway youth; or
       ``(ii) indefinitely or intermittently a homeless youth; and
       ``(B) spends a significant amount of time on the street or 
     in other areas that increase the risk to such youth for 
     sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, prostitution, or drug 
     abuse.
       ``(6) Transitional living youth project.--The term 
     `transitional living youth project' means a project that 
     provides shelter and services designed to promote a 
     transition to self-sufficient living and to prevent long-term 
     dependency on social services.
       ``(7) Youth at risk of separation from the family.--The 
     term `youth at risk of separation from the family' means an 
     individual--
       ``(A) who is less than 18 years of age; and
       ``(B)(i) who has a history of running away from the family 
     of such individual;
       ``(ii) whose parent, guardian, or custodian is not willing 
     to provide for the basic needs of such individual; or
       ``(iii) who is at risk of entering the child welfare system 
     or juvenile justice system as

[[Page H4566]]

     a result of the lack of services available to the family to 
     meet such needs.''.
       (q) Redesignation of Sections.--Sections 371, 372, 381, 
     382, and 383 of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5714b-5851 et seq.), as amended by this title, are 
     redesignated as sections 380, 381, 382, 383, and 384, 
     respectively.
       (r) Technical Amendments.--The Runaway and Homeless Youth 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 331, in the first sentence, by striking 
     ``With'' and all that follows through ``the Secretary'', and 
     inserting ``The Secretary''; and
       (2) in section 344(a)(1), by striking ``With'' and all that 
     follows through ``the Secretary'', and inserting ``The 
     Secretary''.
 Subtitle C--Repeal of Title V Relating to Incentive Grants for Local 
                    Delinquency Prevention Programs

     SEC. 241. REPEALER.

       Title V of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5681 et seq.), as added by Public Law 
     102-586, is repealed.
    Subtitle D--Amendments to the Missing Children's Assistance Act

     SEC. 251. NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN.

       (a) Findings.--Section 402 of the Missing Children's 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5771) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) for 14 years, the National Center for Missing and 
     Exploited Children has--
       ``(A) served as the national resource center and 
     clearinghouse congressionally mandated under the provisions 
     of the Missing Children's Assistance Act of 1984; and
       ``(B) worked in partnership with the Department of Justice, 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of the 
     Treasury, the Department of State, and many other agencies in 
     the effort to find missing children and prevent child 
     victimization;
       ``(10) Congress has given the Center, which is a private 
     non-profit corporation, access to the National Crime 
     Information Center of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
     and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System;
       ``(11) since 1987, the Center has operated the National 
     Child Pornography Tipline, in conjunction with the United 
     States Customs Service and the United States Postal 
     Inspection Service and, beginning this year, the Center 
     established a new CyberTipline on child exploitation, thus 
     becoming `the 911 for the Internet';
       ``(12) in light of statistics that time is of the essence 
     in cases of child abduction, the Director of the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation in February of 1997 created a new 
     NCIC child abduction (`CA') flag to provide the Center 
     immediate notification in the most serious cases, resulting 
     in 642 `CA' notifications to the Center and helping the 
     Center to have its highest recovery rate in history;
       ``(13) the Center has established a national and 
     increasingly worldwide network, linking the Center online 
     with each of the missing children clearinghouses operated by 
     the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, as 
     well as with Scotland Yard in the United Kingdom, the Royal 
     Canadian Mounted Police, INTERPOL headquarters in Lyon, 
     France, and others, which has enabled the Center to transmit 
     images and information regarding missing children to law 
     enforcement across the United States and around the world 
     instantly;
       ``(14) from its inception in 1984 through March 31, 1998, 
     the Center has--
       ``(A) handled 1,203,974 calls through its 24-hour toll-free 
     hotline (1-800-THE-LOST) and currently averages 700 calls per 
     day;
       ``(B) trained 146,284 law enforcement, criminal and 
     juvenile justice, and healthcare professionals in child 
     sexual exploitation and missing child case detection, 
     identification, investigation, and prevention;
       ``(C) disseminated 15,491,344 free publications to citizens 
     and professionals; and
       ``(D) worked with law enforcement on the cases of 59,481 
     missing children, resulting in the recovery of 40,180 
     children;
       ``(15) the demand for the services of the Center is growing 
     dramatically, as evidenced by the fact that in 1997, the 
     Center handled 129,100 calls, an all-time record, and by the 
     fact that its new Internet website (www.missingkids.com) 
     receives 1,500,000 `hits' every day, and is linked with 
     hundreds of other websites to provide real-time images of 
     breaking cases of missing children;
       ``(16) in 1997, the Center provided policy training to 256 
     police chiefs and sheriffs from 50 States and Guam at its new 
     Jimmy Ryce Law Enforcement Training Center;
       ``(17) the programs of the Center have had a remarkable 
     impact, such as in the fight against infant abductions in 
     partnership with the healthcare industry, during which the 
     Center has performed 668 onsite hospital walk-throughs and 
     inspections, and trained 45,065 hospital administrators, 
     nurses, and security personnel, and thereby helped to reduce 
     infant abductions in the United States by 82 percent;
       ``(18) the Center is now playing a significant role in 
     international child abduction cases, serving as a 
     representative of the Department of State at cases under The 
     Hague Convention, and successfully resolving the cases of 343 
     international child abductions, and providing greater support 
     to parents in the United States;
       ``(19) the Center is a model of public/private partnership, 
     raising private sector funds to match congressional 
     appropriations and receiving extensive private in-kind 
     support, including advanced technology provided by the 
     computer industry such as imaging technology used to age the 
     photographs of long-term missing children and to reconstruct 
     facial images of unidentified deceased children;
       ``(20) the Center was 1 of only 10 of 300 major national 
     charities given an A+ grade in 1997 by the American Institute 
     of Philanthropy; and
       ``(21) the Center has been redesignated as the Nation's 
     missing children clearinghouse and resource center once every 
     3 years through a competitive selection process conducted by 
     the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of 
     the Department of Justice, and has received grants from that 
     Office to conduct the crucial purposes of the Center.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 403 of the Missing Children's 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5772) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) the term `Center' means the National Center for 
     Missing and Exploited Children.''.
       (c) Duties and Functions of the Administrator.--Section 404 
     of the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5773) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Annual Grant to National Center for Missing and 
     Exploited Children.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall annually make a 
     grant to the Center, which shall be used to--
       ``(A)(i) operate a national 24-hour toll-free telephone 
     line by which individuals may report information regarding 
     the location of any missing child, or other child 13 years of 
     age or younger whose whereabouts are unknown to such child's 
     legal custodian, and request information pertaining to 
     procedures necessary to reunite such child with such child's 
     legal custodian; and
       ``(ii) coordinate the operation of such telephone line with 
     the operation of the national communications system referred 
     to in part C of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5714-11);
       ``(B) operate the official national resource center and 
     information clearinghouse for missing and exploited children;
       ``(C) provide to State and local governments, public and 
     private nonprofit agencies, and individuals, information 
     regarding--
       ``(i) free or low-cost legal, restaurant, lodging, and 
     transportation services that are available for the benefit of 
     missing and exploited children and their families; and
       ``(ii) the existence and nature of programs being carried 
     out by Federal agencies to assist missing and exploited 
     children and their families;
       ``(D) coordinate public and private programs that locate, 
     recover, or reunite missing children with their families;
       ``(E) disseminate, on a national basis, information 
     relating to innovative and model programs, services, and 
     legislation that benefit missing and exploited children;
       ``(F) provide technical assistance and training to law 
     enforcement agencies, State and local governments, elements 
     of the criminal justice system, public and private nonprofit 
     agencies, and individuals in the prevention, investigation, 
     prosecution, and treatment of cases involving missing and 
     exploited children; and
       ``(G) provide assistance to families and law enforcement 
     agencies in locating and recovering missing and exploited 
     children, both nationally and internationally.
       ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this 
     subsection, $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, 
     2002, and 2003.
       ``(c) National Incidence Studies.--The Administrator, 
     either by making grants to or entering into contracts with 
     public agencies or nonprofit private agencies, shall--
       ``(1) periodically conduct national incidence studies to 
     determine for a given year the actual number of children 
     reported missing each year, the number of children who are 
     victims of abduction by strangers, the number of children who 
     are the victims of parental kidnapings, and the number of 
     children who are recovered each year; and
       ``(2) provide to State and local governments, public and 
     private nonprofit agencies, and individuals information to 
     facilitate the lawful use of school records and birth 
     certificates to identify and locate missing children.''.
       (d) National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.--
     Section 405(a) of the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5775(a)) is amended by inserting ``the Center and 
     with'' before ``public agencies''.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 408 of the 
     Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5777) is amended 
     by striking ``1997 through 2001'' and inserting ``2000 
     through 2003''.
                  Subtitle E--Studies and Evaluations

     SEC. 261. STUDY OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE.

       (a) Contract for Study.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of

[[Page H4567]]

     this Act, the Secretary of Education shall enter into a 
     contract with the National Academy of Sciences for the 
     purposes of conducting a study regarding the antecedents of 
     school violence in urban, suburban, and rural schools, 
     including the incidents of school violence that occurred in 
     Pearl, Mississippi; Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas; 
     Springfield, Oregon; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; Fayetteville, 
     Tennessee; Littleton, Colorado; and Conyers, Georgia. Under 
     the terms of such contract, the National Academy of Sciences 
     shall appoint a panel that will--
       (1) review the relevant research about adolescent violence 
     in general and school violence in particular, including the 
     existing longitudinal and cross-sectional studies on youth 
     that are relevant to examining violent behavior,
       (2) relate what can be learned from past and current 
     research and surveys to specific incidents of school 
     shootings,
       (3) interview relevant individuals, if possible, such as 
     the perpetrators of such incidents, their families, their 
     friends, their teachers, mental health providers, and others, 
     and
       (4) give particular attention to such issues as--
       (A) the perpetrators' early development, the relationship 
     with their families, community and school experiences, and 
     utilization of mental health services,
       (B) the relationship between perpetrators and their 
     victims,
       (C) how the perpetrators gained access to firearms,
       (D) the impact of cultural influences and exposure to the 
     media, video games, and the Internet, and
       (E) such other issues as the panel deems important or 
     relevant to the purpose of the study.

     The National Academy of Sciences shall utilize professionals 
     with expertise in such issues, including psychiatrists, 
     social workers, behavioral and social scientists, 
     practitioners, epidemiologists, statisticians, and 
     methodologists.
       (b) Report.--The National Academy of Sciences shall submit 
     a report containing the results of the study required by 
     subsection (a), to the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the 
     Chair and ranking minority Member of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives, 
     and the Chair and ranking minority Member of the Committee on 
     Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, not 
     later than January 1, 2001, or 18 months after entering into 
     the contract required by such subsection, whichever is 
     earlier.
       (c) Appropriation.--Of the funds made available under 
     Public Law 105-277 for the Department of Education, $2.1 
     million shall be made available to carry out this section.

     SEC. 262. STUDY OF THE MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS OF JUVENILES IN 
                   SECURE OR NONSECURE PLACEMENTS IN THE JUVENILE 
                   JUSTICE SYSTEM.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator of the Office of Juvenile 
     Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention, in collaboration 
     with the National Institute of Mental Health, shall conduct a 
     study that includes, but is not limited to, all of the 
     following:
       (1) Identification of the scope and nature of the mental 
     health problems or disorders of--
       (A) juveniles who are alleged to be or adjudicated 
     delinquent and who, as a result of such status, have been 
     placed in secure detention or confinement or in nonsecure 
     residential placements, and
       (B) juveniles on probation after having been adjudicated 
     delinquent and having received a disposition as delinquent.
       (2) A comprehensive survey of the types of mental health 
     services that are currently being provided to such juveniles 
     by States and units of local government.
       (3) Identification of governmental entities that have 
     developed or implemented model or promising screening, 
     assessment, or treatment programs or innovative mental health 
     delivery or coordination systems, that address and meet the 
     mental health needs of such juveniles.
       (4) A review of the literature that analyzes the mental 
     health problems and needs of juveniles in the juvenile 
     justice system and that documents innovative and promising 
     models and programs that address such needs.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the 
     Congress, and broadly disseminate to individuals and entities 
     engaged in fields that provide services for the benefit of 
     juveniles or that make policy relating to juveniles, a report 
     containing the results of the study conducted under 
     subsection (a) and documentation identifying promising or 
     innovative models or programs referred to in such subsection.

     SEC. 263. EVALUATION BY GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

       (a) Evaluation.--Not later than October 1, 2002, the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a 
     comprehensive analysis and evaluation regarding the 
     performance of the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency and 
     Prevention, its functions, its programs, and its grants under 
     specified criteria, and shall submit the report required by 
     subsection (b). In conducting the analysis and evaluation, 
     the Comptroller General shall take into consideration the 
     following factors to document the efficiency and public 
     benefit of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), excluding the Runaway 
     and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.) and the 
     Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5771 et seq.):
       (1) The extent to which the agency has complied with the 
     provisions contained in the Government Performance and 
     Results Act of 1993 (Pub. Law 103-62; 107 Stat. 285).
       (2) The outcome and results of the programs carried out by 
     the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and 
     those administered -through grants by Office of Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
       (3) Whether the agency has acted outside the scope of its 
     original authority, and whether the original objectives of 
     the agency have been achieved.
       (4) Whether less restrictive or alternative methods exists 
     to carry out the functions of the agency. Whether present 
     functions or operations are impeded or enhanced by existing, 
     statutes, rules, and procedures.
       (5) The extent to which the jurisdiction of, and the 
     programs administered by, the agency duplicate or conflict 
     with the jurisdiction and programs of other agencies.
       (6) The potential benefits of consolidating programs 
     administered by the agency with similar or duplicative 
     programs of other agencies, and the potential for 
     consolidating such programs.
       (7) The number and types of beneficiaries or persons served 
     by programs carried out under the Act.
       (8) The extent to which any trends, developments, or 
     emerging conditions that are likely to affect the future 
     nature and the extent of the problems or needs the programs 
     carried out by the Act are intended to address.
       (9) The manner with which the agency seeks public input and 
     input from State and local governments on the performance of 
     the functions of the agency.
       (10) Whether the agency has worked to enact changes in the 
     law intended to benefit the public as a whole rather than the 
     specific businesses, institutions, or individuals the agency 
     regulates or funds.
       (11) The extent to which the agency grants have encouraged 
     participation by the public as a whole in making its rules 
     and decisions rather than encouraging participation solely by 
     those it regulates.
       (12) The extent to which the agency complies with section 
     552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the 
     ``Freedom of Information Act'').
       (13) The impact of any regulatory, privacy, and paperwork 
     concerns resulting from the programs carried out by the 
     agency.
       (14) The extent to which the agency has coordinated with 
     state and local governments in performing the functions of 
     the agency.
       (15) The extent to which changes are necessary in the 
     authorizing statutes of the agency in order that the 
     functions of the agency can be performed in a more efficient 
     and effective manner.
       (16) Whether greater oversight is needed of programs 
     developed with grants made by the Office of Juvenile Justice 
     and Delinquency Prevention.
       (b) Report.--The report required by subsection (a) shall--
       (1) include recommendations for legislative changes, as 
     appropriate, based on the evaluation conducted under 
     subsection (a), to be made to the Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), 
     excluding the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 
     et seq.) and the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5771 et seq.), and
       (2) shall be submitted, together with supporting materials, 
     to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
     President pro tempore of the Senate, and made available to 
     the public .

     SEC. 264. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORT.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the General Accounting Office shall transmit to 
     Congress a report containing the following:
       (1) For each State, a description of the types of after-
     school programs that are available for students in 
     kindergarten through grade 12, including programs sponsored 
     by the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, the Boy Scouts of 
     America, the Girl Scouts of America, YMCAs, and athletic and 
     other programs operated by public schools and other State and 
     local agencies.
       (2) For 15 communities selected to represent a variety of 
     regional, population, and demographic profiles, a detailed 
     analysis of all of the after-school programs that are 
     available for students in kindergarten through grade 12, 
     including programs sponsored by the Boys and Girls Clubs of 
     America, the Boy Scouts of America, the Girl Scouts of 
     America, YMCAs, mentoring programs, athletic programs, and 
     programs operated by public schools, churches, day care 
     centers, parks, recreation centers, family day care, 
     community organizations, law enforcement agencies, service 
     providers, and for-profit and nonprofit organizations.
       (3) For each State, a description of significant areas of 
     unmet need in the quality and availability of after-school 
     programs.
       (4) For each State, a description of barriers which prevent 
     or deter the participation of children in after-school 
     programs.
       (5) For each State, a description of barriers to improving 
     the quality and availability of after-school programs.

[[Page H4568]]

       (6) A list of activities, other than after-school programs, 
     in which students in kindergarten through grade 12 
     participate when not in school, including jobs, volunteer 
     opportunities, and other non-school affiliated programs.
       (7) An analysis of the value of the activities listed 
     pursuant to paragraph (6) to the well-being and educational 
     development of students in kindergarten through grade 12.

     SEC. 265. BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ON YOUTH 
                   VIOLENCE.

       (a) NIH Research.--The National Institutes of Health, 
     acting through the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences 
     Research, shall carry out a coordinated, multi-year course of 
     behavioral and social science research on the causes and 
     prevention of youth violence.
       (b) Nature of Research.--Funds made available to the 
     National Institutes of Health pursuant to this section shall 
     be utilized to conduct, support, coordinate, and disseminate 
     basic and applied behavioral and social science research with 
     respect to youth violence, including research on 1 or more of 
     the following subjects:
       (1) The etiology of youth violence.
       (2) Risk factors for youth violence.
       (3) Childhood precursors to antisocial violent behavior.
       (4) The role of peer pressure in inciting youth violence.
       (5) The processes by which children develop patterns of 
     thought and behavior, including beliefs about the value of 
     human life.
       (6) Science-based strategies for preventing youth violence, 
     including school and community-based programs.
       (7) Other subjects that the Director of the Office of 
     Behavioral and Social Sciences Research deems appropriate.
       (c) Role of the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences 
     Research.--Pursuant to this section and section 404A of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 283c), the Director of 
     the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research shall--
       (1) coordinate research on youth violence conducted or 
     supported by the agencies of the National Institutes of 
     Health;
       (2) identify youth violence research projects that should 
     be conducted or supported by the research institutes, and 
     develop such projects in cooperation with such institutes and 
     in consultation with State and Federal law enforcement 
     agencies;
       (3) take steps to further cooperation and collaboration 
     between the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention, the Substance Abuse and 
     Mental Health Services Administration, the agencies of the 
     Department of Justice, and other governmental and 
     nongovernmental agencies with respect to youth violence 
     research conducted or supported by such agencies;
       (4) establish a clearinghouse for information about youth 
     violence research conducted by governmental and 
     nongovernmental entities; and
       (5) periodically report to Congress on the state of youth 
     violence research and make recommendations to Congress 
     regarding such research.
       (d) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated, 
     $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2004 to 
     carry out this section. If amount are not separately 
     appropriated to carry out this section, the Director of the 
     National Institutes of Health shall carry out this section 
     using funds appropriated generally to the National Institutes 
     of Health, except that funds expended for under this section 
     shall supplement and not supplant existing funding for 
     behavioral research activities at the National Institutes of 
     Health.
                     Subtitle F--General Provisions

     SEC. 271. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     this title and the amendments made by this title shall take 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this 
     title shall apply only with respect to fiscal years beginning 
     after September 30, 1999.
       Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to amend the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide 
     grants to ensure increased accountability for juvenile 
     offenders; to amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 to provide quality prevention programs 
     and accountability programs relating to juvenile delinquency; 
     and for other purposes.''.
               TITLE III--REAUTHORIZATION OF COPS PROGRAM

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Public Safety and 
     Community Policing Grants Reauthorization Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 302. REAUTHORIZATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND COMMUNITY 
                   POLICING (COPS ON THE BEAT) GRANTS.

       Section 1001(a)(11) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793) is amended--
       (1) in clause (vi) by striking ``268,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2000'' and inserting ``500,000,000 each of fiscal years 
     2000 through 2005.''.

     SEC. 303. RENEWAL OF GRANTS.

       Section 1703 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-2) is amended by 
     amended subsection (b) to read as follows--
       ``(b) Grants for Hiring.--
       ``(1) In general.--Grants made for hiring or rehiring 
     additional career law enforcement officers or to promote 
     redeployment of officers by hiring civilians may be renewed 
     for an additional 3 year period beginning the fiscal year 
     after the last fiscal year during which a recipient receives 
     its initial grant. The Attorney General may use, at her 
     discretion, a portion of the funding for cooperative 
     partnerships between schools and State and local police 
     departments to provide for the use of police officers in 
     schools.
       ``(2) Initial period expired.--In a case in which a 
     recipient's initial grant has expired prior to the date of 
     the enactment of the Public Safety and Community Policing 
     Grants Reauthorization Act of 1999, grants made for hiring or 
     rehiring additional career law enforcement officers may be 
     renewed for an additional 3 year period beginning the fiscal 
     year after the date of the enactment of such Act.
       ``(3) Authorization for appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out the provisions of this subsection. In a case in 
     which a recipient receives a grant for an additional 3 year 
     period, the amount for any additional years shall be 
     increased by 3 percent to reflect a cost of living 
     adjustment.''.

     SEC. 304. MATCHING FUNDS.

       Section 1701(i) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(i)) is amended by 
     striking ``up to 5 years'' and inserting ``each 3 year grant 
     period''.

     SEC. 305. HIRING COSTS.

       Section 1704 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-3) is amended by 
     repealing subsection (c).
             TITLE IV--SCHOOL ANTI-VIOLENCE EMPOWERMENT ACT

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``School Anti-Violence 
     Empowerment Act''.
                   Subtitle A--School Safety Programs

     SEC. 411. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       The Secretary of Education is authorized to provide grants 
     to local educational agencies to establish or enhance crisis 
     intervention programs, including the hiring of school 
     counselors and to enhance school safety programs for 
     students, staff, and school facilities.

     SEC. 412. GRANT AWARDS.

       (a) Local Awards.--The Secretary shall award grants to 
     local educational agencies on a competitive basis.
       (b) Grant Programs.--From the amounts appropriated under 
     section 416, the Secretary shall reserve--
       (1) 50 percent of such amount to award grants to local 
     educational agencies to hire school counselors; and
       (2) 50 percent of such amount to award grants to local 
     educational agencies to enhance school safety programs for 
     students, staff, and school facilities.
       (c) Priority.--Such awards shall be based on one or more of 
     the following factors:
       (1) Quality of existing or proposed violence prevention 
     program.
       (2) Greatest need for crisis intervention counseling 
     services.
       (3) Documented financial need based on number of students 
     served under part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       (d) Equitable Distribution.--In awarding grants under this 
     subtitle, the Secretary shall ensure, to the extent 
     practicable, an equitable geographic distribution among the 
     regions of the United States and among urban, suburban, and 
     rural areas.
       (e) Administrative Costs.--The Secretary may reserve not 
     more than 1 percent from amounts appropriated under section 
     416 for administrative costs.
       (f) Eligibility.--A local educational agency that meets the 
     requirements of this subtitle shall be eligible to receive a 
     grant to hire school counselors and a grant to enhance school 
     safety programs for students, staff, and school facilities.

     SEC. 413. APPLICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Each local educational agency desiring a 
     grant under this subtitle shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information as the Secretary may require.
       (b) Contents.--Such application shall include a plan that 
     contains the following:
       (1) In the case of a local educational agency applying for 
     a grant to enhance school safety programs--
       (A) a description of any existing violence prevention, 
     safety, and crisis intervention programs;
       (B) proposed changes to any such programs and a description 
     of any new programs; and
       (C) documentation regarding financial need.
       (2) In the case of a local educational agency applying for 
     a grant to hire school counselors--
       (A) a description of the need for a crisis intervention 
     counseling program; and
       (B) documentation regarding financial need.

     SEC. 414. REPORTING.

       Each local educational agency that receives a grant under 
     this subtitle shall provide an annual report to the 
     Secretary. In the case of a local educational agency that 
     receives a grant to enhance school safety programs, such 
     report shall describe how such agency used funds provided 
     under this subtitle and include a description of new school 
     safety measures and changes implemented to existing violence 
     prevention, safety, and crisis intervention programs. In the

[[Page H4569]]

     case of a local educational agency that receives a grant to 
     hire school counselors, such report shall describe how such 
     agency used funds provided under this subtitle and include 
     the number of school counselors hired with such funds.

     SEC. 415. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this subtitle:
       (1) The terms ``elementary school'', ``local educational 
     agency'', and ``secondary school'' have the same meanings 
     given the terms in section 14101 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
       (2) The term ``school counselor'' means an individual who 
     has documented competence in counseling children and 
     adolescents in a school setting and who--
       (A) possesses State licensure or certification granted by 
     an independent professional regulatory authority;
       (B) in the absence of such State licensure or 
     certification, possesses national certification in school 
     counseling or a specialty of counseling granted by an 
     independent professional organization; or
       (C) holds a minimum of a master's degree in school 
     counseling from a program accredited by the Council for 
     Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs 
     or the equivalent.
       (3) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Education.
       (4) the term ``school safety'' means the safety of 
     students, faculty, and school facilities from acts of 
     violence.

     SEC. 416. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     SUBtitle $700,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 
     2004.
                   Subtitle B--21st Century Learning

     SEC. 421. AFTER-SCHOOL AND LIFE SKILLS PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK 
                   YOUTH.

       Section 10907 of part I of title X of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8247) is amended 
     by striking ``appropriated'' and all that follows before the 
     period and inserting the following: ``appropriated to carry 
     out this part--
       ``(1) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1999; 
     and
       ``(2) $250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 
     2004''.
              Subtitle C--Model Program And Clearinghouse

     SEC. 431. MODEL PROGRAM.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Education, in consultation with 
     the Attorney General, shall develop a model violence 
     prevention program to be made available to local educational 
     agencies.

     SEC. 432. CLEARINGHOUSE.

       The Secretary of Education shall establish and maintain a 
     national clearinghouse to provide technical assistance 
     regarding the establishment and operation of alternative 
     violence prevention programs. The national clearinghouse 
     shall make information regarding alternative violence 
     prevention programs available to local educational agencies.
                TITLE V--CHILDREN'S DEFENSE ACT OF 1999

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Children's Defense Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 502. 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. 503. TEMPORARY ANTITRUST IMMUNITY TO PERMIT THE 
                   ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY TO SET GUIDELINES TO 
                   HELP PROTECT CHILDREN FROM HARMFUL MATERIAL.

       (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.

  Mr. CONYERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this motion to 
recommit on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott); 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green); and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), be extended to a 
total of 7\1/2\ minutes on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and I have discussed this, and in 
light of the fact that he agreed not to offer his amendment that he had 
that would have taken up 60 minutes, and this is a very complex motion 
to recommit; and the gentleman has also agreed to cut the time he was 
initially going to ask for from 5 minutes more per side to 2\1/2\ 
minutes, I think we should let the gentleman have that additional time 
in comity under those circumstances. The gentleman has already saved us 
time this evening.

[[Page H4570]]

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I will first begin by thanking the Chair of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for 
allowing us to move directly to a motion to recommit, instead of a 
substitute motion that I had which would have taken considerably 
longer.
  But my motion to recommit is every bit as important as the substitute 
would have been. It returns us to a commonsense approach to juvenile 
justice.
  Here is what it does. In addition to including the bipartisan 
Committee on the Judiciary and Committee on Education and the Workforce 
bill that have already been approved in those committees, my motion 
reauthorizes the COPS on the Beat program, authorizes funds for school 
resource officers, school safety programs, and after-school programs.
  It also provides for a study of the effects of media violence, and 
grants an antitrust immunity to permit the entertainment industry to 
set voluntary guidelines on violence. Unless my substitute is accepted, 
the House will have taken no action which allows members of the 
entertainment industry to work to develop these guidelines.
  Finally, unlike the McCollum amendment passed last night, my motion 
contains no gun-related provisions whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conyers motion to 
recommit. It includes the bipartisan H.R. 1501, as was introduced, 
which responded to judges, advocates, and researchers who told us what 
we needed from the judiciary point of view, and it includes the 
Goodling amendment, which we adopted a little earlier today by an 
overwhelming majority that provides prevention funds, and protects 
children, and the other programs the gentleman from Michigan mentioned.
  For the past 2 days we have considered amendments on issues without 
any hearings, and we have been relegated to codifying sound bites, many 
of which will actually increase the crime rate.
  This motion to recommit is a focused attempt to actually reduce 
crime. These provisions have gone through the regular legislative 
process and are supported by those who know what they are talking 
about. Anyone who had an adverse opinion had the opportunity to present 
that opinion.
  Let us get serious about reducing crime and adopt the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, as to juvenile justice, at one time we did have a 
bipartisan plan between Democrats and Republicans. Those bills did not 
contain any gun provisions. If we put back the bipartisan plan, we will 
go back to putting Cops on the Beat, we will authorize funds for school 
resource officers, school safety programs, and we will authorize after-
school programs.
  Unfortunately, tonight and in the last few days we got away from the 
proposals, and we are back to trying 13-year-olds as adults. We are 
back to housing kids with adult criminals and imposing new mandatory 
minimums and death penalties.
  It is great to get tough on juveniles. As a cop, I know they do not 
work. We have to get to the root of the problem. Let us get back to the 
programs that bring some sanity back to the homes, the communities, and 
our schools.
  We do not need all kinds of gun provisions to do that. I ask the 
Members, I implore them, to support the motion to recommit.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 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. Speaker, I also rise in support of the motion 
to recommit.
  Having looked at the motion to recommit, my goal in trying to deal 
with the violence that is in our schools and in our country from our 
juveniles is not obviously necessarily more gun control. We will debate 
that this evening and tomorrow.
  But what this amendment would do, if we vote for the recommital, it 
will provide more cops on the street, it will provide school resource 
officers and guidance counselors and after-school care and block grants 
for prevention.
  My wife is a high school teacher in a very urban district in Houston. 
What we have seen today is teachers and counselors do not have the time 
to get to know those students. What we need is some additional 
assistance for our local schools and our States to be able to help. We 
need counselors who counsel and not just schedulers for classes. That 
is what this will do.
  That is why I think we need to deal with the prevention programs, and 
let us leave gun control to the next debate. That is why I think this 
provision is so important.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for a yes vote on the motion to recommit so we can 
deal with prevention and get the tools that our teachers and our 
parents and our school administrators need.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me, and 
I would echo the comments made by my friends who have just spoken.
  Our school officials struggled mightily and still are struggling to 
finish this school year. They are going to be working to restore the 
confidence of the community when the children and the teachers and the 
administrators go back in the fall.
  But they need some help. We all understand they need help. Everyone 
here goes to schools and they talk to students, and they understand the 
dire need.
  The bill, as suggested, the substitute we are talking about, adds 
guidance counselors. In my State, we have one guidance counselor per 
500 students. It is not fair, it is not right. Children cannot get the 
attention they need with those kinds of ratios. Kids fall between the 
cracks. When they fall between the cracks, they engage in problems we 
have seen in so many communities across the country.
  We also need more police officers or school resource officers in the 
schools. It is a good program. It is working across America. The 
program is running out of funds. It is running out of money. This will 
help restore the money and add additional money for school resource 
officers.
  Third and very importantly, it will provide a safe haven for after-
school programs for our children. As an old probation officer who 
worked with juvenile delinquents for many years, Members all know these 
figures, the teen pregnancies, the alcohol abuse, the drug abuse, they 
occur between the hours of 3 and 6, when no one is home.
  If our kids can be in a safe place, in a school environment with 
adults, with grandparents, where they get this synergy and mixture of 
people coming together, mentoring, teaching each other, loving each 
other, caring for each other, we have an environment that we can be 
proud of and that can do something for our communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to applaud my colleague, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for suggesting this substitute. I ask my 
colleagues to vote for it. It is reasonable, it is fair. There are not 
any gun provisions in this substitute. It is the least we can do to 
help our communities get back on track this fall.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) 
opposed to the motion to recommit?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) is 
recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this motion 
to recommit.
  Quite simply, the Conyers substitute is a poison pill to everything 
we have done out here the last couple of days.
  Mr. Speaker, the Conyers motion guts almost every single one of these

[[Page H4571]]

amendments that this House approved yesterday and today, by wide 
bipartisan majorities, in most cases.
  If the Conyers motion gets approved, we will have undone all of our 
bipartisan work here on the floor over the last 24 hours to protect our 
children and our schools and our communities.
  I appreciate that the motion contains and leaves alone the base bill, 
H.R. 1501, as introduced, but it is quickly downhill after that. 
Yesterday this Chamber sent a message: Our children are the most 
precious treasure we have, and we intend to protect them. If 
individuals harm our children, we will punish them and punish them 
severely. The Conyers motion repudiates that.
  Consider all the ways in which this motion undoes the work of this 
Chamber over the last day or so.
  First, the motion would eliminate all of the bipartisan amendments 
approved on the underlying text of H.R. 1501.
  It eliminates the Hutchinson amendment, that permits States and 
localities to use their accountability incentive grant funds to support 
restorative juvenile justice programs, an extremely successful approach 
that emphasizes moral accountability of an offender to his victim and 
the affected community.
  It eliminates the Dreier amendment, that allows States and localities 
to use their accountability incentive grant funds to support anti-gang 
programs developed by law enforcement agencies to combat juvenile 
crime.
  It eliminates the Wise amendment, that allows States and localities 
to use their accountability incentive grants to develop school safety 
hot lines, allowing the early warning signs of school violence to be 
reported to the authorities.
  The Conyers motion also guts the numerous additions to H.R. 1501, 
dramatically strengthened in the bill, and increased the protections 
for our children. It does so by eliminating the Latham amendment that 
requires drug traffickers to compensate their victims for the harm of 
their poisonous trade.
  The Conyers motion eliminates the Salmon amendment, Aimee's Law, an 
extremely important effort to ensure that convicted murderers, rapists, 
child molesters are held accountable.
  The Conyers motion eliminates the Cunningham amendment, Matthew's 
law, which increases penalties for criminals who commit a Federal crime 
of violence against children under the age of 13.
  It eliminates the Green amendment, which requires life imprisonment 
for repeat sex offenders who prey on our children.
  It eliminates the DeLay amendment, which limits the ability of 
activist Federal judges to take over State and local prison systems by 
preventing judges from being able to force the early release of 
convicted criminals.
  It eliminates the Tancredo amendment, which passed by a wide 
bipartisan margin, and simply declared that a fitting memorial on 
public school campuses may contain religious speech without violating 
the U.S. Constitution, and was specifically addressing the Columbine 
High School matter.
  There are numerous additional amendments Republicans and Democrats 
alike offered that this House passed in the last 24 hours that would be 
eliminated.
  The motion does not just vitiate good additions to the bill, it also 
guts all kinds of things that are here. It eliminates the minimum 
mandatory sentence for making false statements to a licensed dealer in 
order to illegally obtain a firearm if it was to enable a juvenile to 
use it in the commission of a serious violent felony.
  The motion eliminates the tough sentences directed against gang 
violence and drug trafficking to minors.
  His motion eliminates the mandatory minimum penalty directed against 
adults who use minors to distribute drugs.
  It eliminates the mandatory minimum penalty directed against adults 
convicted of distributing drugs to minors.
  It eliminates the mandatory minimum penalties for the knowing 
discharge of a firearm in a school zone resulting in physical harm, and 
it strips the provision providing for the death penalty if someone uses 
a gun to kill in a school zone.
  It eliminates the mandatory penalty for discharging a firearm during 
a Federal crime of violence or a Federal drug trafficking crime, and 
eliminates the mandatory minimum penalty if the firearm is used to 
injure another person.
  The Conyers amendment strips out the directive to the Justice 
Department that requires the Department to make the prosecution of 
Federal firearms violations a priority.
  The Conyers amendment says to the administration, your feeble 
enforcement of current law is fine with us. The Conyers amendment says, 
all talk and no action is okay.
  It eliminates the mandatory penalty directed against any person 
convicted of distributing, possessing, with the intent to distribute, 
or manufacturing drugs in or within 100 feet of a school zone.
  The Conyers motion eliminates the death penalty for those who travel 
in interstate commerce and kill a witness in a criminal proceeding to 
keep them from testifying.
  Finally, the Conyers motion would reauthorize the COPS program. This 
program, as attractive as it may sound at first blurb, is a flawed and 
problematic program.
  Who is not for more community-based policing? But that should be a 
State and local funding matter. The COPS program is coming under 
increasing criticism for being expensive, inefficient, and ineffective. 
It has failed to come anywhere near producing its promise of putting 
100,000 new police on the beat.
  A recent audit by the Justice Department's Inspector General found 
that within 1 year, with 1 year to go on the President's program in his 
6-year pledge to put an additional 100,000 police on the streets, only 
50,139 officers have been hired and put on the beat. That is barely 
one-half of the total that was promised, with only a year to go.
  I might add, the fact is that the local communities, in community 
after community around the country, are finding that they cannot afford 
to continue to pay the cops after the expiration of the subsidy in this 
bill that only lasts for 2 or 3 years.
  This is no time to reauthorize a program that, while lending itself 
to nice sound bites, has been ineffective and poorly managed, and 
reauthorize it without even any debate on the floor of the House, not 
to mention the committee lack of debate, which Mr. Conyers has 
criticized us for up to this point; no debate at all, just put it in 
the motion to recommit and we pass it tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last 24 hours, the House has responded to the 
complex mix of threats to our children by adding smart, balanced, and 
tough provisions to the underlying bill, H.R. 1501.

                              {time}  2030

  That underlying bill, which goes to improve our juvenile justice 
system, to rebuild the broken systems, because we do not have enough 
resources, not enough judges, not enough probation officers, not enough 
diversion programs, we are seeing that kids do not receive the 
consequences they should because they are not being punished for their 
misdemeanor crimes.
  At this point in time, the reality of this is that we have a problem 
that is severe, that needs to be addressed, and the Conyers motion 
plainly rejects the additional provisions added to this bill. Our 
children, frankly, deserve nothing but the fullest efforts to protect 
them at home, on the playground, on the streets of this country, and 
the Conyers motion to recommit would just strip all of this stuff out 
that we did the last 2 days. So I strongly urge a no vote on it.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay), the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate this House. For the 
last 2 days, we have stood up in a bipartisan way and looked at the 
problems out of Columbine High School and recognized what those 
problems were and addressed them in many different ways. I am really 
proud of this House for doing so.
  What this motion to recommit does is undoes all of that and reasserts 
the notion that it takes a village to raise a child; add more cops, add 
more programs, add more counselors.
  It does not take a village to raise a child. It takes a mother and a 
father to raise a child. It takes a mother and a

[[Page H4572]]

father that live in a village that is conducive to raising a child.
  The lesson from Columbine High School is that we have created a 
culture that raises children that kill children. We do not need more 
counselors.
  In fact, in Columbine High School, they sent the village to the high 
school. They sent counselors. They sent psychiatrists. They sent people 
from the village. What did the kids do? They went to church. The kids 
went to church. They rejected the village.
  What this bill does now is recognize that, and recognizes that there 
has to be structure and limits and consequences. There has to be 
enforcement of the existing laws. People have to be allowed freedom to 
exercise their religion. Barriers have to be removed to allow us to 
raise a culture that hopefully some day will eliminate kids killing 
kids.
  So if my colleagues vote for the motion to recommit, they undo some 
wonderful work that has been done these last 2 days in a bipartisan 
way. Vote no on the motion to recommit.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Stupak) will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, after the third time, I appreciate 
recognizing the fact that I had a parliamentary inquiry.
  I would ask that the House be given an additional 5 minutes on each 
side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, then let me try 30 seconds, an additional 30 
seconds.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A Member must stand to object.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a 
vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of 
passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 233, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 232]

                               AYES--191

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

                               NOES--233

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Houghton
     Minge
     Salmon
     Shays
     Thomas

                              {time}  2051

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (Mr. ARMEY asked and was given permission to speak out of order for 1 
minute.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, after final passage of H.R. 1501, the 
Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act, we will begin 1 hour of 
general debate on H.R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check 
Act.
  We will then proceed with 40 minutes of debate on the Dingell 
amendment immediately followed by a vote. Members should note that 
there will be approximately 2 hours between the vote on final passage 
of H.R. 1501 and the vote on the Dingell amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, after the vote on the Dingell amendment, we will debate 
the McCarthy amendment for about 30 minutes and then vote immediately 
thereafter. That will be our last vote for the evening.
  Mr. Speaker, we will continue, by the good graces of the committee, 
to debate two or three other amendments, but any recorded votes ordered 
will be rolled until tomorrow.

[[Page H4573]]

  The House will meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow and immediately resume 
consideration of amendments to H.R. 2122. One minutes will be at the 
end of the day.
  Mr. Speaker, we will probably begin debate tomorrow with the Davis of 
Virginia amendment with 30 minutes of debate. We will then have a 
series of three to four votes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 287, 
nays 139, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 233]

                               YEAS--287

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     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
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--139

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stupak
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Brown (CA)
     Carson
     Cubin
     Houghton
     Minge
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Shays
     Thomas

                              {time}  2102

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 233, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________