Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 95 (Wednesday, June 30, 1999)

[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.

____________________