[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 30, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7856-S7862]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         JUVENILE JUSTICE BILL

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have an adage: Where there is a will, 
there is a way. Often that seems to embody how legislation is passed by 
this Congress. Of course the question always is what is the will, and 
what is the way? We should look no further than the priority being put 
on two separate pieces of legislation: S. 254, the juvenile justice 
bill, and H.R. 775, the Y2K bill. If one looks at that, one sees how 
the will and the way work around here.
  The Hatch-Leahy juvenile justice bill, S. 254, passed the Senate 
after 2 weeks of open debate, after a number of votes, and after 
significant improvements on May 20. The Senate passed it by a strong 
bipartisan vote of 73-25.
  On June 17, the other body passed its version of this legislation but 
chose not to take up the Senate bill and insert its language, which is 
the standard practice. Nor has the Republican leadership in the House 
made any effort to seek a House-Senate conference or appoint conferees.
  When there are differences in legislation passed by each House, the 
normal order is for House and Senate conferees to work these 
differences out in conference, but we cannot do that unless they 
appoint conferees.
  The majority in the other body is taking a break even before our July 
4 recess. They are taking no steps to proceed to conference on the 
juvenile justice bill or toward the appointment of conferees. Indeed, 
despite statements by the Speaker of the House earlier this week, the 
House majority leader is now reported to be planning to delay the 
completion of this bill for months. This delay is costing us valuable 
time in getting this juvenile justice legislation enacted before school 
resumes this fall. This is just plain wrong.
  Every parent in this country is concerned this summer about school 
violence over the last two years and worried about the situation they 
will confront this fall. Each one of us wants to do something to stop 
this violence. There is no single cause and no single legislative 
solution that will cure the ill of youth violence in our schools or in 
our streets. But we have an opportunity before us to do our part. It is 
unfortunate that the majority is not moving full speed ahead to seize 
this opportunity to act on balanced, effective juvenile justice 
legislation.
  We should not repeat the delays that happened in the last Congress on 
the juvenile justice legislation. In the 105th Congress, the Senate 
Judiciary Committee reported juvenile justice legislation in July 1997, 
but it was then left to languish for over a year until the very end of 
that Congress. In fact, serious efforts to make improvements to this 
bill did not even occur until the last weeks of that Congress, when it 
was too late and we ran out of time.
  The experience of the last Congress causes me to be wary of this 
delay in action on the juvenile justice legislation this year. I want 
to be assured that a House-Senate conference on this legislation is 
fair, full, and productive.
  At the end of the last Congress, the majority staged what appeared to 
be a procedural ambush to move a one-sided bill forward in a way that 
precluded full and open debate and amendment. I certainly hope that the 
current delay in action on this year's juvenile crime bill is not an 
attempt to concoct another procedure ambush.
  We have worked hard in the Senate for a strong bipartisan juvenile 
justice bill. I will be vigilant in working to maintain this 
bipartisanship and to press for action on this important legislation. 
We know if we have the will, there is a way.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator from Vermont yield for a question?
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee. I 
could not agree more with his remarks. We worked hard on this bill. We 
deserve for it to be heard. We do not deserve--the American people do 
not deserve--for it to be shoved under a carpet to pop out sometime 
unknown perhaps when it cannot be debated.
  I ask the Senator this question: Does it seem unreasonable, given his 
years of experience in the Senate--and I know we worked on criminal 
justice matters when I was in the House--does it seem unreasonable for 
us to have a goal, for the American people to sort of set the goal, or 
agree with us in the goal, that the juvenile justice bill, including 
provisions such as closing the gun show loophole, which this body 
passed, be on the President's desk by the day school resumes, by Labor 
Day of next September? Does that seem to be a reasonable timetable and 
a reasonable request for people who are interested in debating the 
issues and seeing that we do something to close the gun show loophole?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I say to my friend from New York, it is 
reasonable to move forward on it. These are issues the American people 
care about. They do care about the gun show loopholes on gun sales, 
certainly after the tragedy of Columbine. They do care about a number 
of the issues that are in the juvenile justice bill. The Senate 
reflected that by passing it 73-25. This is a 3-to-1 vote in the 
Senate.
  I say to my friend from New York, when he served in the other body, 
he and I were on a number of conference committees together. We knew we 
would have major criminal justice bills come in one distinct form from 
the Senate and one distinct form from the House, but we moved quickly 
in the conferences, sometimes going all night long. In fact, I can 
remember a couple that went all night long, 2 or 3 nights in a row, to 
complete our work because we knew we were dealing with criminal justice 
matters, matters about which the American people have great concern. 
But we did it.

  So I say to my friend from New York, in answer to his question, that 
this is wrong. This is wrong that we are not moving forward to 
immediately conference the Hatch-Leahy juvenile justice bill.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator from New York for his concern and his 
leadership on these matters. He was one of the leaders--in fact, 
oftentimes on the floor he was the leader--on these issues, including 
closing gun loopholes. I was looking forward to, and am looking forward 
to, his expertise and his work when we do get to conference. He and I 
are ready to go to conference. I am prepared to have him in there to 
help me in that conference, because these are major issues.
  But at some time or another the American people expect us to vote one 
way or the other. Some Senators will vote against our position. Some 
House Members will vote against our position. Some will vote for it. I 
do not ascribe motives to them, but I say, that you either vote for or 
against something. You do not vote maybe. And the Congress is being 
forced to vote maybe.
  This is a sharp contrast to the pace of action on the Y2K bill. The 
Y2K bill provides special legal protections to businesses. After 
earlier action in the House on H.R. 775, the Y2K liability limitations 
bill passed the Senate on June 15, 1999. That was about 1 month after 
the Senate passed the Hatch-Leahy juvenile justice bill.
  On June 16, the day after Senate action on the Y2K bill, the Senate 
asked for a House-Senate conference and appointed conferees. In fact, I 
am one of them. The House responded by agreeing to the conference and 
appointed its conferees a few days later, on June 24. Then we 
immediately went to conference. The conference met that same day, the 
same day the House appointed its conferees.
  After a weekend break for extensive negotiations with the White 
House, the conference report on the Y2K liability limitations bill was 
filed yesterday, June 29. I expect the House and Senate will be taking 
up the conference report almost immediately, and the Y2K liability 
limitations bill will probably see final passage this week.
  It is interesting that this is a business-lobbied-for issue and that 
thing zips through here; it zips through here at warp speed. I can 
almost see the legislative clerk saying: We want warp 5,

[[Page S7857]]

Scottie. And, by golly, we are going to have it.
  I should also note, this Y2K liability limitations bill is industry's 
second bite at the apple to gain protections against liability to 
customers and consumers. If all goes as expected, in less than a year's 
time, big business will have successfully lobbied for the passage of 
two major pieces of legislation to protect themselves against any 
accountability for actions or losses their products may cause to 
consumers.
  Last year, I joined with Senator Hatch to introduce and pass into law 
a consensus bill known as the Year 2000 Information and Readiness 
Disclosure Act. This legislation passed both the House and the Senate 
by unanimous consent on October 8, 1998. When we took this action, 
requested last year, we acted in good faith, we acted in recognition of 
the fears of industry, but we did it in a balanced way that continued 
to protect consumers and the rights of all Americans. The House and 
Senate accepted that unanimously, and the White House signed it.
  Notwithstanding that bipartisan piece of legislation, notwithstanding 
the unanimity we sought, we see this year where business fears are 
being reconstituted for the basis of greater and greater demands for 
special legal protections for potential Y2K defendants. Special 
business interests have come back to Congress with new demands, and 
there has been swift action.

  But by contrast to this swift action to help business by limiting 
their potential liability in the Y2K bill at the expense of American 
consumers, in contrast to jumping immediately to do whatever the 
business lobby wanted, we find now that those who should be appointing 
conferees in the House are not doing that, they are dragging their feet 
on moving to appoint conferees on the juvenile justice bill.
  The juvenile justice bill is not designed as a protection to 
businesses that may have made mistakes in the computers they sell to 
people. No. The juvenile justice bill is intended to make a difference 
in the lives of our children and our families. I guess children and 
families do not have the power and the lobbying clout that some of 
these major businesses do. I guess they do not have PACs. They do not 
give major contributions. They do not go to the big fundraisers. All 
they are, are families trying to raise their children and send them to 
school safely; so the House majority is not going to move rapidly on a 
juvenile justice bill.
  As Senators, as House Members, as human beings, that should have been 
our No. 1 priority. We should have brought this to conference. We 
should have concluded it by now so that the new programs and 
protections for schoolchildren could be in place when school resumes 
this fall. At the rate we are going, we guarantee that children will be 
going back to school without the protections that three-quarters of the 
Members of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, voted for; we 
guarantee that the promise we held out here in the Senate to protect 
the children who have to go to school, to protect their families, to 
protect this country, the promise we held out to them is a hollow 
promise, because the House of Representatives, and their leadership, 
the Speaker and the majority leader, are saying: We're not going to get 
to this bill; we're not going to have conferees.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes, for a question, or I will lose my right to the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have listened carefully to what the Senator has said. 
I must say, I am in total agreement with the Senator.
  As I understand the parliamentary situation, rather than follow the 
usual procedure, where we have legislation that has passed the House 
and the Senate, and then we go to the conference, and then the 
conference comes back and we have an opportunity to evaluate what was 
in the conference, but then we have at least some resolution to the 
issue, this process and this parliamentary gymnastics, which the 
leadership on both sides, evidently, were a part of, effectively, as I 
understand what the Senator is saying, if I understand the 
parliamentary situation, basically undermines in a very significant and 
important way the work that was done here in the Senate in terms of 
trying to help families deal with the problems of violence in their 
communities, violence in their schools, and also to deal with the law 
enforcement issue in terms of the gun show loophole.
  I believe I am correct, am I not, in understanding what the Senator 
has represented here this afternoon? Am I correct?
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely right. The 
Senator from Massachusetts, of course, is one of those who was on the 
floor day after day, hour after hour, helping us craft this bill and 
getting it through. A former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he 
has been a leader on juvenile justice issues for the better part of 
four decades. We greatly appreciate all that he contributes each day 
and all that he contributed again this year to the Senate juvenile 
justice bill that we were able to pass with such a strong bipartisan 
majority.
  The Senator from Massachusetts, from his experience--longer 
experience than I have had in this body--is aware that when we have had 
these major pieces of criminal justice or juvenile justice legislation 
or any major justice legislation, we have gone to conference and we 
have worked out the differences. He also knows, as I do, if we refuse 
to do that, it, in effect, kills legislation--legislation that passed 
here in a bipartisan fashion. I share the concerns that the Senator 
from Massachusetts has.

  Mr. KENNEDY. I am just wondering if the Senator could give us some 
insight. It took us 9 days to work out an agreement with the Republican 
leadership in order to permit the Senate to consider what we know as 
the Patients' Bill of Rights when we return from the Fourth of July 
recess, to dispose of that. What we saw during that time was every type 
of parliamentary maneuver in order to deny the will of the Senate on 
that particular issue.
  Now we have, as a result of the leadership, both the majority and 
minority leadership, an opportunity to address those issues when we 
return.
  It seems to me we are seeing a similar effort by the leadership to 
deny the Senate the ability to express itself on an issue that is 
affecting children, an issue affecting violence in our schools and our 
local communities. Effectively, the rules of the Senate are being used 
in order to deny the Senate the reasonable chance to express itself.
  Is that basically the bottom line, when all is said and done; we are 
seeing a parliamentary maneuver to try and effectively undermine what 
has been the considered judgment of this body? We are being put back, 
effectively, to ground zero in terms of this issue?
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely right. Unlike 
the Y2K bill and other things, where there is a rush to complete 
congressional action on it, this is something where it appears, 
especially in the other body, that the parents and the children of this 
country do not have a voice. No matter what other legislative issues 
are going on, the conference could have been meeting if the House had 
just proceeded to take the normal steps needed and appointed conferees.
  The majority leader of the House of Representatives has said they are 
not going to appoint conferees, certainly not any time in the near 
future. We have been ready to go forward at any time, the members of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if there are not going to be 
conferees, this bill is in limbo.
  So you had the hopes of the parents of this country, the hopes that 
the schoolchildren had following the passage by the Senate of a good 
juvenile justice bill, that maybe we are coming to grips on at least 
some aspects of juvenile violence. Those hopes are dashed because when 
the matter is finally taken up by the other body, they say: Wait a 
minute, we don't have to have any votes on this.
  I am privileged to participate in legislative action on the floor of 
the Senate. We Senators ought to run the Senate, not a powerful lobby. 
I say the same to the other body. They ought to stand up and speak for 
their constituents and not become mouthpieces for a powerful lobby, but 
that is what has happened.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I see on the floor our friend and 
colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, who made a gallant fight 
on

[[Page S7858]]

the floor of the Senate in terms of reducing the availability and the 
accessibility of guns to children in this country and also to those of 
the criminal element. It was a hard-fought battle. The Senate expressed 
its will. That is the way this body should act.
  Now, with a parliamentary maneuver, the leadership that was strongly 
opposed to those provisions has been basically able, at least for the 
time being, to undermine what has been debated, discussed, and acted on 
here in the Senate.
  I thank the Senator from Vermont for bringing this matter to our 
attention. I thank, again, the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator 
from California, both of whom I am sure share our frustration with this 
parliamentary maneuver.
  I think at some time in the Senate, a body that has a very proud 
tradition of permitting people to express their judgment and to make a 
determination to deal with public business, at some time we are going 
to learn the lesson that you can't constantly undermine what is the 
regular order, which is the reason why this body was established; that 
is, for Senators to be able to express their will. I think we are 
seeing another way and means of corrupting the purpose that the 
Founding Fathers intended. I think it is enormously regrettable.

  I assure the Senator from Vermont, we will work very closely with him 
to try to remedy this situation in any way that we can. I thank the 
Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I totally concur with what the 
distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts has said. He was a 
leader who worked with us to design the Senate-passed bill.
  All of us, whether we are parents or grandparents or teachers or 
policymakers, we are puzzling over the causes of children turning 
violent in this country. We know that the root causes are likely 
multifaceted. We know there is no one cause. There is no one magic 
solution.
  I believe the Hatch-Leahy juvenile justice bill is a firm and 
significant step in the right direction. The passage of that bill 
showed that when Senators roll up their sleeves and get to work, we can 
make significant progress. And we did. Senators were on the floor, they 
were in conferences in the cloakroom and off the floor. We worked 
extremely hard to come together. We had some false steps at the 
beginning, but we finally came together when we passed a piece of 
legislation 73 to 25.
  That took a lot of work. We had conservatives and liberals and 
moderates holding hands on a number of issues to make it work because 
we cared about the children of this country. That progress does not do 
any good if the House and Senate do not come together in a conference.
  I yield for a question to my friend from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from Vermont for his leadership on 
the juvenile justice bill, all parts of it. I see the Senator from New 
Jersey has come to engage also in some conversation.
  I ask the Senator from Vermont, because when you read a book that 
says how a bill becomes a law, it seems very simple in many ways. It 
says a bill passes the Senate or the House. Then it goes to the second 
House. If it started in the House, it goes to the Senate. Then there is 
a conference where the differences are ironed out. Then the bill goes 
over to the President.
  When we passed this bill--and my friend pointed out the overwhelming 
margin with which it was passed--the country really celebrated because 
for the first time in a long time we passed some sensible laws.
  The question that I have for my friend is as follows: After the 
Senate walked hand in hand, people on both sides of the aisle, to an 
overwhelming vote, with three-quarters of the Senate voting to pass 
this juvenile justice bill, which included the Lautenberg amendment 
that closed the gun show loopholes--we remember that it was very close; 
the Vice President cast the tying vote--the people of this country were 
very relieved. At least they certainly were in California. They said: 
Thank goodness you are doing something relevant. They assumed we were 
making progress.
  Then the bill goes over to the House, and as I remember it--and I 
would like the Senator from Vermont to tell me if I am correct on 
this--no sensible gun control was passed at all. Everything was killed. 
What remained was just the part that dealt with juvenile justice, not 
the part that talked about sensible gun laws because they separated 
those out.
  If we are to have any closing of the gun show loophole that Senator 
Lautenberg fought so hard for, that the Vice President came over here 
to cast the tie-breaking vote for, which says, yes, we will do 
background checks to make sure that felons don't get guns and people 
with mental illness don't get guns and children don't get guns, we want 
that, the only hope, is it not so, lies in a conference where the 
Senate bill will be presented side by side with the House bill and the 
conversation will proceed and we will come up with a bill?
  By not appointing conferees, is my friend implying that at the moment 
it means zero progress on this whole issue of juvenile justice and 
sensible gun laws and, perhaps, if it continues long enough, when the 
kids go back to school they will have no benefit from this fine 
bill? Is that what my friend is saying--that this is another way to at 
least temporarily kill this bill?

  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from California is correct. She has described 
the bill very well, as she always does, and where we are in the 
legislative process. She has had both a distinguished career in the 
other body and here. She understands what has happened.
  It was not an easy thing passing the Hatch-Leahy juvenile justice 
bill here in the Senate. We had a very difficult time. It evolved. But 
interestingly enough--and I have been here 25 years--I have rarely seen 
an occasion where the American public became involved and more fully 
aware of what was happening.
  I must say, initially, much of the news media did not even cover it. 
The American people became aware through C-SPAN and through all the 
discussions on the Internet and through the radio. And then, more and 
more, they realized what was happening and what was at stake.
  I do not know how many people are aware of this discussion we are 
having right now. I will guarantee you that it will be on web sites and 
on the Internet, though, because the American public is concerned about 
this.
  The Senator from California, the Senator from New Jersey, and others, 
will remember that as calls started coming into Senators' offices, the 
debate started shifting. This was one of those all too rare occasions 
where the American public went beyond having the debate interpreted for 
them and started watching what was actually happening in the debate and 
contributing and participating themselves.
  The Hatch-Leahy legislation passed because the American people were 
paying attention and because they were concerned, and votes started 
changing, positions started changing. That is why this body came 
together by a 3-to-1 vote and passed the Hatch-Leahy legislation, a 
good piece of juvenile justice legislation, because the American people 
paid attention and knew something could be done.
  Now it has been blocked in the other body. Why? Perhaps because that 
is the only way this legislation can be stopped--it won't be stopped by 
a vote in the Senate. Senators have said how they will vote. The only 
way it can be stopped is if the other body refuses to bring it up, and 
the way they refuse to bring it up is by refusing to appoint conferees.
  (Mr. BUNNING assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LEAHY. Certainly.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I know that the Senator from Vermont very much shares 
this view, despite the fact that gun ownership is a popular thing in 
the State of Vermont where a lot of people hunt and a lot of people 
collect guns. But I believe it is fair to say, is it not, that in the 
State of Vermont, despite the abundant number of guns you have there, 
violent crime is a relatively small factor? Is that the case?
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from New Jersey is right.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Therefore, does Vermont have laws that require review 
of applications to buy guns and require people to get permits to buy 
guns?
  Mr. LEAHY. No, other than the Federal law, the Brady law.

[[Page S7859]]

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Federal law. So they are in adherence, obviously, 
to the Federal law?
  Mr. LEAHY. That is right.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I wonder if the Senator is aware of the fact that we 
had a long struggle, which the Senator from Vermont and I participated 
in, to get the Brady law into place and to try to retain the review of 
applicants to buy guns, to be continued under the national instant 
check system. I wonder if the Senator has seen the pieces recently 
about the fact that the FBI, even with a 3-day business period 
available to them, does not have enough time to control every one of 
the decisions that is made to enable someone to buy a gun.

  Mr. LEAHY. I have seen that, and I have seen the results in some 
places where those who should not get guns have gotten them because 
there has not been enough time to make the checks.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I know the Senator keeps abreast of things, 
especially affecting justice, especially affecting juveniles. I inquire 
of the Senator as to whether or not he knows that where more than 1,700 
guns, gun purchases, were denied to prohibited buyers, unstable felons 
and criminals have been allowed to buy guns because they were unable to 
thoroughly check the backgrounds before the guns were sold. Is the 
Senator aware of that?
  Mr. LEAHY. No. But I am aware of the fact that the Senator from New 
Jersey is one of the experts on this issue. He has studied it as much 
or more than any other person in this body. If he says those are the 
numbers, I am willing to accept them.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate that. I don't know whether the Senator 
is further aware that since the Brady bill was put into place in March 
of 1994, over 400,000 illegal gun sales have been blocked--over 400,000 
illegal gun sales have been blocked as a result of the Brady bill being 
in place.
  Mr. LEAHY. I was aware of that number. It is a very significant 
number.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator is aware, I am sure, that I had the 
privilege of authoring the domestic violence prohibition for guns to be 
available to those who had been convicted of misdemeanors, in marital 
and home disputes. Over 13,000 gun permits have been denied under the 
law that I authored at the end of 1996, which kept those people from 
being able to buy guns. I don't know if the Senator is aware of the 
extent of that number, but it is 13,000.
  The fact of the matter is that, in conjunction with that, we know 
that roughly 150,000 times a year a gun is put to a woman's head in 
front of her children, or in the privacy of a discussion between the 
two of them, and the threat is made: I will blow your head off.
  Is the Senator aware of the fact that there are forces at play here 
that refuse to permit us to have sensible gun violence control? I 
didn't say gun control; I said gun violence control.
  Mr. LEAHY. I say to the Senator from New Jersey, apparently those 
forces, at least at this point, have succeeded in the other body, and 
that is why we are not having conferees appointed and proceeding to a 
prompt conference, because they know if there were a conference and if 
the public responds as it did during the debate on the Hatch-Leahy bill 
originally, that conference may pass out legislation that they might 
not like, especially as it relates to controlling gun violence. I think 
that is one of the reasons why we have not seen that.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask the Senator this question. The Senator from 
Vermont has had abundant experience as a prosecutor in the law since he 
was able to start his profession, the distinguished career in the 
Senate.

  What will it take, in the Senator's mind, to finally say to the 
American public that we get your message? We understand that you want 
to protect your children. And while people have the right to bear arms, 
people have the right to bear children and send them to school hoping 
and believing that they are going to get home safely. When, I ask the 
Senator, does he think that message will get through these, I will call 
them ``hollow halls,'' so that people will believe that they can send 
their children or their loved ones to the workplace or to school or to 
the streets without being gunned down by someone who shouldn't have a 
gun?
  Mr. LEAHY. It will only come, I say to my friend from New Jersey, 
when we realize that our children and our families are far more 
precious to us than votes or campaign contributions. The Senator from 
Vermont was long ago clear on that point. My wife, my children--my 
family--are far more important to me than any votes, any office, any 
lobbyist, any pressure, any favors, any campaign contributions, or 
anything else. I think most families in this country feel the same 
way--that the family is the most precious thing possible to them.
  In this body we passed legislation that might protect those families. 
We see the response on the other side of the Capitol of symbolism 
instead of substance, of speeches or feel-good solutions. We cast the 
tough votes here. The Senator from New Jersey made sure that we did.
  On this issue especially, can we not stand up and say our families 
are more important, our children are more important, our grandchildren 
are more important, and all of that is more important than a powerful 
lobby?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from 
Utah, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a coauthor of the Hatch-
Leahy-Biden-Sessions-Feinstein juvenile justice bill on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I have been very 
intrigued and interested in the remarks that have been made. I just 
want everybody to know that I want to go to conference on this bill.
  The Hatch-Leahy-Biden-Sessions-Feinstein bill is a very important 
bill. We all know it. We all know it is important. We all know that we 
need to pass it this year.
  Let me just say this: Leadership will, in my opinion, appoint 
conferees in July because I believe we have to do this.
  I met just this week with leaders in both the House and the Senate--
the majority leader in the Senate and the Speaker of the House. I know 
the intention is to appoint conferees and to have this matter resolved. 
My hope is that we will pass a conference report before the August 
recess.
  No one wants this bill more than I do. It is an important bill.
  To hear some of my colleagues speak, though, you would think that 99 
percent of this bill is a gun control bill. I would say that a very 
small part of it involves guns, and the rest of it addresses in a 
serious way the very important issues we must confront regarding 
juvenile violence and juvenile justice. These are the truly critical 
parts of this bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I agree with the point that the Senator 
from Utah has made. There are an awful lot of things in the Senate-
passed bill besides guns. There are some very major changes in the 
handling of juvenile crimes, especially juvenile violent crimes, and 
matters relating to the relationship between the Federal Government and 
State governments. There are some very significant things that should 
not be overlooked and will be a part of the debate.
  I was wondering if the Senator from Utah knows when the other body 
will appoint conferees and how quickly we might appoint conferees?
  Mr. HATCH. My feeling is that they will appoint conferees in July--
both leaders of the House and the Senate, the floor leaders--perhaps 
prior to the recess. My goal is to have this conference report voted on 
before we go out on the August recess; if not, then as soon as we can 
after we get back, but I hope before the August recess.
  Mr. LEAHY. I also hope, I might add--and I will not interrupt the 
Senator again--that we are able to come to a conclusion and agreement 
on legislation that can be signed into law prior to the beginning of 
the school year.
  Mr. HATCH. It would be great if we could do that. That is my goal.
  I thank my colleague for being willing to stand up on that point with 
me.
  I voted against the Lautenberg amendment. I voted against it twice. 
Neither of those votes on Lautenberg

[[Page S7860]]

won a majority of the Senate. But it finally passed with the tie-
breaking vote of Vice President Gore.
  Still, I voted for the final bill. I have repeatedly made clear my 
desire to pass this bill. This is not an empty exercise for me. This is 
an important bill. So there is no question about that.
  Let me just say this: We have had a lot of crying, moaning, and 
groaning about background checks at gun shows.
  Let's just stop and think about it. If we had not had Brady, which 
required a 5-day waiting period, if we had not had this new demand for 
a 3-day waiting period, we could have already had a responsible system 
in place. We spent so much time on 3- to 5-day waiting periods that we 
haven't gotten the instant check system in place throughout the 
country. In other words, we haven't concentrated enough efforts on 
implementing the one thing that will really help us to identify and 
weed out the felons and others who are disqualified to purchase guns in 
the first place.

  Some would rather concentrate their efforts on this phony waiting 
period issue than address the real problem of identifying those who 
aren't allowed to own a firearm. The reason they would rather address 
the phony issue of a 3-day waiting period at gun shows is because gun 
shows only take place for 3 days. If you have a 3-day delay, it means 
basically there won't be any more gun shows.
  What does that mean? This is pretty important stuff.
  If you do not have the gun shows where legitimate, private sellers of 
guns can come and sell their weapons with appropriate background 
checks, which everybody in this body is willing to do--I have led the 
fight to do it--if you do not allow that to happen, then the private 
sellers of weapons are going to go into the streets, and those guns 
will all be sold on what will then be a much larger black market for 
guns.
  We have that already in our society. We ought to minimize it. The 
best way to do it is to have legitimate gun shows. There are some 4,000 
of them in this country--legitimate gun shows where we have legitimate 
background checks that are done within a 24-hour period. And that will 
never happen as long as we keep playing political games, and seeking 
the political advantage that some people think they get by talking 
about 1 day, 2 days, or 3 day waiting periods.
  The key is to get an effective instant check system in place so we 
absolutely instantly can tell whether the purchaser of this weapon is 
somebody who is legitimately entitled to purchase the weapon.
  Having said all of that, having made it very clear that we intend to 
have conferees on this matter and that we intend to put this matter to 
bed, hopefully before the August recess, a lot depends on cooperation 
from the other side.
  As we know, we have lost a week and a half because of delays on the 
other side because they want their legislation considered on their 
terms, regardless of how important the appropriations bills are. We 
have had interference after interference on getting the work of the 
Senate done.
  And as important as all of that is, I think it is important that the 
American people know that the juvenile justice bill is about a lot more 
than guns. That is a minuscule part of the bill. We are talking about 
prevention and enforcement and assistance to local and State 
governments.
  S. 254, the Senate-passed bill, provides an infusion of funds to 
State and local authorities to combat juvenile crime.
  S. 254 provides approximately $1.1 billion annually to fight juvenile 
crime and prevent juvenile delinquency.
  We have $500 million for a juvenile accountability incentive block 
grant.
  States can use this grant to implement graduated sentencing sanctions 
which intervene early with appropriate penalties, so that at the first 
signs of delinquent or antisocial behavior take firm steps to get these 
kids back on the right track. They can build detention facilities for 
juvenile offenders, test juvenile offenders for drugs upon arrest, and 
require juvenile offenders to complete school or vocational training, 
among other reforms.
  S. 254 provides a 25-percent earmark of the juvenile accountability 
block grant for drug treatment, school counseling, and crime 
prevention. These are important, significant grants. They far supersede 
this almost feckless debate about guns.
  The Hatch-Leahy amendment provides $50 million for the States for 
juvenile judges, public defenders, and probation officers to reduce the 
backlog of juvenile cases. That is important. The juvenile Brady 
provision, which prohibits juveniles who commit a violent crime or 
serious drug felony as a juvenile from ever being able to buy a gun 
thereafter, is something almost everybody agrees with. We had it in the 
bill to begin with. We didn't need those on the far left who hate guns 
and who want gun control to tell us what to do in these matters.
  There is $75 million annually to help States upgrade juvenile felony 
records and provide school officials access to such juvenile felony 
records in appropriate circumstances. This may be the most important 
reform in the bill, because it gets these records to the police and 
prosecutors and judges who need the information to appropriately deal 
with repeat offenders.
  There is $435 million annually to the States for programs to prevent 
kids from getting into crime. Some of these are specifically targeted 
towards gangs in school. This is far more important than all of this 
harping about guns.
  There is $40 million to assess the effectiveness of youth crime and 
drug prevention efforts; a 3-year, $45 million demonstration project to 
provide alternative education to at-risk or problem juveniles; and an 
extension of the violent crime reduction trust fund through 2005, to 
ensure adequate funding for the administration of justice programs.
  In S. 254, the Senate-passed bill takes action to empower parents, 
the entertainment industry, and the general public to limit the 
exposure of children to violence. Specifically, this bill includes 
important provisions for the enforcement of industry rating systems.
  The Hatch-Brownback amendment--and I commend my distinguished 
colleague from Kansas for his leadership--to S. 254, which passed 
overwhelmingly, provides the entertainment industry with limited 
exemption from the antitrust laws. This provides the motion picture, 
recording, and video game industries the freedom to develop and enforce 
voluntary standards and enforcement mechanisms without fear of 
antitrust liability or government regulation. The Brownback-Hatch 
amendment allows the appropriate industries to enter into joint 
discussions, consideration, and agreement to ensure retail compliance 
with preexisting rating systems for both off-line and on-line content.
  We have a provision regarding marketing violence to children. The 
Brownback-Hatch amendment to S. 254 directs the Justice Department and 
the Federal Trade Commission to jointly examine the marketing practices 
of the video game, music, and motion picture industries to determine 
the extent to which violent material is marketed to children. The FTC 
is directed to report their findings to Congress within 9 months of 
enactment. And while I am pleased that President Clinton belatedly 
endorsed this idea, I should note that the Senate passed this three 
weeks before the President said a word about it.
  We have a National Institutes of Health study. The Brownback-Hatch 
amendment to S. 254 provides $2 million in funding to the National 
Institutes of Health to study the effects of violent entertainment on 
children. We know that is the cause of an awful lot of the problems.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. I am delighted to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I have listened carefully to the Senator's speech in 
support of the juvenile justice bill. The Senator makes such a 
compelling argument of how important this bill is, how we shouldn't 
waste any time to move forward.
  I ask the Senator, if that is his feeling and the feeling shared by 
Members on his side of the aisle, why has the Republican leadership in 
the House refused to appoint conferees?
  Mr. HATCH. I have assurance from the House leaders they will appoint 
conferees.
  Mr. DURBIN. They announced they will not appoint conferees until 
after the Fourth of July.
  Mr. HATCH. That is true. I know they have their hands full. I trust 
the

[[Page S7861]]

statement of the leaders. If they do it then, that will be fine. That 
is consistent with what we have done in the past. I don't have any 
problem with that.
  Let me continue my remarks. The Hatch-Leahy amendment to S. 254, 
which passed overwhelmingly, encourages large Internet service 
providers to offer screening/filtering software to empower parents to 
limit access to material unsuitable for children. This amendment 
provides that within 12 months of enactment, large Internet service 
providers should provide the software either at no charge or at a fee 
not exceeding the cost to them. That is a very important part of this 
bill.
  We have an antiviolence public service campaign in this bill. The 
Republican education amendment to S. 254 provides $25 million annually 
to the National Crime Prevention Council and community-based 
organizations for a national public service campaign to prevent 
violence.
  We have a provision on Internet bombmaking. The Hatch-Feinstein 
amendment to S. 254 prohibits the teaching of bombmaking, including 
bombmaking instructions, on the Internet if there is reason to know the 
bomb will be used in violation of Federal law.
  We also get tough on violent juveniles and other violent offenders. 
We ensure that violent juveniles will be held accountable. Among other 
reforms, S. 254, with Republican amendments, contains the following: 
Project Cuff. The Hatch-Craig amendment provides $50 million to hire 
additional Federal prosecutors to prosecute gun crimes in Federal court 
to take advantage of stiff Federal sentences.
  We have full funding of the National Instant Check for background 
checks for firearm purposes. That is something that had to be done. We 
have not been concentrating on that as we should, because we keep 
playing games on guns instead of doing what should be done.
  We have an extension of the prohibition against juvenile possession 
of a handgun in the Youth Handgun Safety Act to semiautomatic rifles.
  The juvenile Brady provision, which I have already mentioned, 
prohibits firearm possession by juveniles who commit violent offenses.
  We have a bipartisan provision that requires safety locks or secure 
gun storage devices to be sold with a handgun.
  We have a minimum of 12 years in prison for those who discharge a 
firearm during the commission of a violent felony or drug trafficking 
crime.
  We have a minimum of 15 years in prison for those who injure a person 
during the commission of a crime of violence or a drug trafficking 
crime.
  We have a minimum of 3 years in prison for first-time offenders and a 
minimum of 5 years in prison for repeat offenders for those who 
distribute drugs to minors or sell drug in or near a school.
  We have an increase in the maximum penalty for knowingly possessing, 
transporting, or transferring stolen firearms, to 15 years in prison.
  We have an increase in the maximum penalty to 20 years for a juvenile 
who illegally brings a gun or ammunition to school with intent to carry 
or otherwise possess, discharge, or use the handgun or ammunition in 
the commission of a violent felony.
  We have an increase in penalties for illegal purchase of a firearm.
  We have an increase in penalty for committing crimes of violence 
while wearing body armor.
  We have a safe-and-secure-schools provision.
  These are very important. One would think that everything comes down 
to the Lautenberg amendment. That amendment didn't pass overwhelmingly. 
In fact, it didn't even have the support of a bare a majority in the 
Senate until the Vice President of the United States, as is his right, 
voted to break the tie.


                        Safe and Secure Schools

  S. 254, with Republican amendments, will promote safe and secure 
schools, free of undue disruption and violence, so that our teachers 
can teach and our children can learn. S. 254 includes the following:
  Training for parents, teachers, and other interested members of the 
community for the identification of--and appropriate responses to--
troubled and violent youth.
  Innovative research-based delinquency and violence prevention and 
mentoring programs.
  Assistance to state and local school districts for comprehensive 
school security assessments.
  Assistance to state and local school districts to purchase school 
security equipment and technologies such as metal detectors, electronic 
locks, and surveillance cameras.
  Collaborative efforts with community-based organizations (including 
faith-based organizations) and law-enforcement agencies to provide 
effective violence prevention and intervention programs.
  Assistance to state and local school districts to establish and 
implement school uniform policies.
  Assistnce to state and local school districts to hire school resource 
officers, including community police officers.
  Incentives for States to detain juveniles found in possession of an 
illegal firearm for 24-hours to undergo evaluation.
  Incentives for schools to make school discipline records available to 
all schools, whether private or public, when students transfer between 
schools.
  Civil liability protection for teachers who discipline a violent 
student.
  Resources to States and localities to create anonymous hotlines to 
report possible acts of violence.
  I say in closing, I have been assured we will have conferees after we 
get back from this next recess. My goal, of course, if we can and if we 
get some cooperation from the other side on the floor, is to have that 
bill up before the August recess, so we can have this bill passed and 
hopefully signed by the President before school begins this year.
  I want to see that happen. It isn't going to happen if we keep 
playing games on guns. There is no point kidding ourselves about it.
  One side must not think they have a big advantage over the other on 
guns. We have to work in good faith to resolve these problems. And I 
believe we can. I have total confidence in my colleague, Senator Leahy 
from Vermont, who has worked with me assiduously on this matter. He has 
played a significant role.
  Senator Biden and Senator Feinstein, also on the other side, have 
worked very hard to try to have this bill completed. I know my 
colleague from Vermont and I will work very hard to get this bill done 
in the best way we possibly can that will bring everybody together in 
both the House and Senate and hopefully get a bill signed by the 
President.
  In any event, we intend to go forward. It is an important bill, 
probably in some respects the most important bill in this whole session 
of Congress, when one considers the needs of our nation's children. We 
need to address--as S. 254 does--ensuring safe schools, promoting ways 
to keep vile entertainment from our kids, preventing juvenile crime, 
and really addressing for the first time needed law enforcement with 
regard to violent juvenile crimes.
  I think we have taken too much time on this. I know we have an 
important appropriations bill on the floor, so I yield the floor at 
this time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I join the ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, and my colleagues in urging the 
majority to appoint conferees and proceed to conference on the juvenile 
crime bill.
  It has now been one month and four days since the Senate passed the 
Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation 
Act of 1999, by an overwhelming margin of 73-25. It has been nearly two 
weeks since the House of Representatives passed its counterpart bill.
  And yet, since that time, there has been no progress at all toward 
going to conference on these two bills. In fact, it appears that there 
are some on the other side of the aisle who deliberately want to 
forestall or even de-rail the conference that is necessary to pass this 
vitally-needed legislation.
  When the House passed its counterpart bill, they did something that 
is very unusual: they did not take up the Senate bill, insert the text 
of their bill, and request a conference, as is routinely done. This is 
not the kind of thing that happens by accident. For a conference to 
take place, both Chambers of Congress must pass the same bill.

[[Page S7862]]

  Because the House of Representatives did not do this, one of the two 
Chambers must take up the other one's bill, pass it, and ask for a 
conference. This presents numerous opportunities for procedural 
mischief and delay by those who would rather not see any bill pass than 
one containing modest gun safety provisions, such as the Senate bill.
  Mr. President, I am very disturbed by this delay in taking the next 
step to pass this important legislation.
  Our nation was rocked 2 months ago by the tragic shootings at 
Columbine High School in Colorado, coming as it did in the wake of 
earlier school shootings in Jonesboro, Arkansas; West Paducah, 
Kentucky; Springfield, Oregon; and elsewhere. We cannot tolerate or 
evade this shocking school violence. We should not let our children 
start a new school year without passing this important legislation to 
address youth violence.
  The Senate bill is a wide, sweeping measure, which will help us to 
confront the problem of juvenile crime. It includes a number of 
provisions which I authored and which I have worked on for several 
years, including:
  A ban on importing high capacity ammunition magazines;
  A ban on juvenile possession of assault weapons and high capacity 
ammunition magazines;
  A comprehensive package of measures to fight criminal gangs;
  Limits on bombmaking information;
  The James Guelff Body Armor Act, which contains reforms to take body 
armor out of the hands of criminals and put it into the hands of 
police; and
  Crime prevention programs.
  It also contains other modest reforms to keep guns out of the hands 
of criminals and children, including: Requiring the same background 
checks at gun shows which gun dealers have to preform; and requiring 
the sale of child safety locks with handguns.
  The Senate bill also establishes a new $700 million juvenile justice 
block grant program for states and localities, representing a 
significant increase in federal aid to the states for juvenile crime 
control programs, including:
  Additional law enforcement and juvenile court personnel;
  Juvenile detention facilities; and
  Prevention programs to keep juveniles out of trouble to begin with.
  Our bill encourages increased accountability for juveniles, through 
the implementation of graduated sanctions to ensure that subsequent 
offenses are treated with increasing severity.
  It reforms juvenile record systems, through improved record keeping 
and increased access to juvenile records by police, courts, and 
schools, so that a court or school dealing with a juvenile in 
California can know if he has committed violent offenses in Arizona; 
and extends federal sentences for juveniles who commit serious violent 
felonies.
  Let us not delay further in enacting these important measures. I join 
my colleagues in urging the majority to proceed to conference and 
appoint conferees, so that we can enact this vital legislation.
  I thank the Chair, and yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it has been 71 days--71 days --since the 
tragic shooting at Columbine High School. There are 69 days left before 
school children in Massachusetts and other states go back to school. It 
is time for Congress to finish the job we began last month and pass 
juvenile justice legislation. Communities across America are waiting 
for our answer.
  We need to provide communities with the assistance they need to 
reduce youth violence.
  We need to help parents struggling to raise their children from birth 
through adolescence.
  We need to help teachers and school officials recognize the early 
warning signals and act before violence occurs.
  We need to assist law enforcement officers in keeping guns away from 
children.
  We need to close the gun show loophole.
  We need to require the sale of safety locks with all firearms.
  The Senate passed such legislation with overwhelming support last 
month. The House of Representatives passed its own version of this 
legislation earlier this month. It is time to appoint House and Senate 
conferees to write the final bill and send it to the President, so that 
effective legislation is in place as soon as possible.
  Everyday we delay, this critical problem continues to fester. 
Children are under assault from violence and neglect--from the break-up 
of families--from the temptations of alcohol, tobacco, and drug abuse--
from violence in the media. These are not new problems, but they have 
become increasingly serious problems, and Congress cannot look the 
other way and continue to ignore them.
  We must support youth, parents, educators, law enforcement 
authorities, and communities. The public overwhelmingly supports more 
effective steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and 
juveniles. We cannot accept ``no'' for an answer from the National 
Rifle Association. It is long past time for Congress to face up to this 
challenge. The tragedy at Columbine High School is an urgent call to 
action to every member of Congress. Will we finally do what it takes to 
keep children safe, or will we continue to sleepwalk through this 
worsening crisis of gun violence in our schools and our society.
  We have a national crisis, and common sense approaches are urgently 
needed. If we are serious about dealing with youth violence, the time 
to act is now. There is no reason why this Congress can not pass a 
comprehensive juvenile justice bill before the August recess. The 
citizens of this country deserve better than what Congress has given 
them so far.
  The lack of action is appalling and inexcusable. We cannot continue 
to whistle past the graveyards of Littleton and the many other 
communities scarred by juvenile gun violence in recent years. Each new 
tragedy is a fresh indictment of our failure to act responsibly.

                          ____________________