[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10395-10445]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 VIOLENT AND REPEAT JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY AND REHABILITATION ACT OF 
                                  1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe the procedure is that Senator Harkin would be 
entitled to the floor, but this unanimous consent agreement will take 
care of that problem and we will be able to move forward.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to vote on or in 
relation to the Ashcroft-Frist amendment, No. 355, after 20 minutes of 
debate to be equally divided in the usual form; following that vote, if 
agreed to, the Senate immediately agree to an amendment to be offered 
by Senator Harkin. I further ask that following the disposition of the 
above two mentioned amendments, if the Ashcroft-Frist amendment is 
agreed to, the following be the only amendments remaining in order and 
under a time agreement equally divided, and all other provisions of the 
previous consent of May 14 still be in place.
  The amendments are as follows: The Bond amendment regarding the film 
industry, 30 minutes; the Biden amendment, 45 minutes, with 30 minutes 
under the control of Senator Biden and 15 minutes under the control of 
Senator Hatch.
  I further ask that following the disposition of the above-listed 
amendments, the bill be advanced to third reading and passage occur, 
all without any intervening action or debate.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not because I think we need to move quickly here, I want to thank all 
those who are responsible for getting us to this point. This has taken 
some cooperation on the part of both sides. I especially want to thank 
Senators Harkin, Ashcroft, Frist, Biden, Wellstone and others who have 
been very helpful.
  I have no objection.
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, I am sorry that I did not 
hear the entire request, but the situation, as I understand it, prior 
to right now, was that after the supplemental, we were coming back to 
the Frist-Ashcroft amendment and I was to be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. What does this do to that?
  Mr. LOTT. This would obviate that and we would move forward with the 
procedure that is outlined. We would proceed to vote on or in relation 
to the Ashcroft amendment with time equally divided for 20 minutes, and 
then the Senate would immediately agree to the amendment offered by 
Senator Harkin.
  Mr. HARKIN. As I understand it, what you are saying is right now we 
would have 20 minutes?
  Mr. LOTT. Right. Equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. HARKIN. Then you would vote up or down on the Frist-Ashcroft 
amendment, and then there would be--then what?
  Mr. LOTT. Then we would go directly to the agreement to accept the 
Harkin amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. OK. I am OK with that.
  I must be very honest with you. I have been waiting some time to be 
able to at least make my case on the floor. I have been more than 
willing to set everything aside and to let the process go ahead since 
yesterday. But I must tell you that since yesterday I have been waiting 
to get at least 15 to 20 minutes where I could just lay out my case on 
the Frist-Ashcroft amendment on IDEA, the background of it. I just 
believe I have to. I want to be able to fully make my case against the 
amendment. I do not want to take a lot of time, I do not want to 
filibuster it, but I would like to have 15 or 20 minutes just to lay 
out my case. That is all.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, perhaps I could amend the unanimous consent 
request to this effect, that we have 30 minutes on the Ashcroft and the 
Harkin amendments, with each side getting 15 minutes. The Senator would 
have 15 minutes, Senators Ashcroft and Frist would have 15 minutes, and 
they would split it up between themselves. I modify my request to that 
effect.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving my right to object, I support 
that request. Just for clarification purposes, Senator Biden wants to 
be sure that the other part of the arrangement we had, which was an up-
or-down vote on his amendment, would occur. I just would clarify that 
for the record. I understand that to be the case.
  Mr. LOTT. That will be the way the vote will occur.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no objection, the unanimous consent 
agreement is agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank all involved. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If I could just ask the majority leader, we had one 
Member's request; Senator Kerry asked if he could have a period of 
time--I suggest 10 minutes--prior to final passage, for him to be 
recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Would it be possible he could do that after final passage? 
The reason why, and I understand--I would like any Senator to be able 
to do that--we do have a number of Senators who would like to be able 
to leave by 6. You are talking about airplanes. You are talking about a 
son's athletic event. It is the usual thing. To admit we have these 
sorts of requests is not always easy.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Perhaps we can consult with Senator Kerry.

[[Page 10396]]


  Mr. LOTT. Perhaps we will not use all the time and we could stick it 
in there, but if he would be willing to at least consider it after 
final passage it would help a number of his colleagues. We will work on 
that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Iowa.


                           Amendment No. 355

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are now back on the Frist-Ashcroft 
amendment. I am not going to proceed until we have order. I cannot even 
hear myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Will the 
conversations in the aisles be taken somewhere else.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know the recent school tragedies--again, 
even another this very morning--are a call to action to us as families 
and churches and schools, as communities, as leaders in government, to 
take positive, constructive steps to make our schools places of 
learning and not of fear. But let's not use these tragedies of 
Littleton and other schools to take emotional, unfounded--although 
well-intentioned-actions which actually will make our schools and 
communities more unsafe and less secure.
  I want to make this point very, very clear. The Frist-Ashcroft 
amendment is a dangerous, dangerous, dangerous amendment. The Frist-
Ashcroft amendment guts IDEA. It actually will make our communities and 
our schools more unsafe.
  The purpose of this bill is to help make our schools and communities 
safer. That is the purpose of the bill in front of us. I must ask, is 
putting a child with a disability on the street and cutting off all 
services to that child something that will make our communities more 
safe? Frankly, it will have the opposite effect.
  This amendment, would, for example, lead to a child with an emotional 
disturbance being put on the street and end the counseling and 
behavioral modification services they had been receiving--end, them, 
cold turkey. No more counseling or behavioral modification services. 
And this kid is now on the street. Tell me, is that community safer? 
Obviously not, but that is just what this amendment would lead to. 
Troubled children out on the street with no supervision, no tracking, 
no education, no mental health services.
  This amendment targets a group of students who are more likely to be 
victims of school violence than perpetrators. Again I want to point 
out: Not any of the nine--now nine school shootings--in the last 39 
months was done by a child in special education. Not one. Yet we have 
this amendment that targets kids with disabilities. This amendment is 
scapegoating--and I use that word, ``scapegoating''--scapegoating kids 
with disability. And it is destroying an important safety feature of 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
  The supporters of the amendment say they need it because the law 
erected barriers that kept them from taking students who had guns in 
their possession out of schools. We showed yesterday--and the authors 
of this amendment agreed with me on this point--that a child with a 
disability who brings a gun to a school can be removed from that school 
immediately, just like any other child. We settled that yesterday. For 
a kid with a disability who brings a gun or firearm to school, right 
now, the principal can call up the sheriff or the police. They can come 
haul him away, book him, put him in jail, whatever the law is.
  So I hope no Senator votes on this amendment thinking that under the 
law as it exists today, a kid with a disability who comes to school 
with a gun can't be kicked out immediately. That is simply not true. 
Nothing in Federal law limits them from immediately removing him and 
keeping him out as long as that child is a threat to himself or others. 
Let me repeat that, the school can remove that child immediately and 
keep them in an alternative setting indefinitely as long as that child 
is a threat to himself or others. It couldn't be more clear than that.
  We worked long and hard, 3 years of hearings, hammering out the IDEA 
bill in 1997. And we passed it here in the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1, 
98 to 1. We have had no hearings on this amendment, none whatsoever. 
But we had plenty of hearings to set up a framework in IDEA to make 
sure our schools and communities were safe. First, we wanted to make 
sure the schools were safe. Second, we wanted to make sure the 
communities were safe. Third, we wanted to make sure students with 
disabilities were held accountable for their actions and that schools 
have the flexibility to take appropriate and timely actions. Last, we 
wanted to make sure that decisions were based on facts relevant to the 
child, not just on emotions.
  Right now under the law, school authorities can unilaterally remove a 
child with a disability, first of all, for the first 10 days, and 
provide no services whatsoever. Second, if it is found that their 
actions were not a manifestation of their disability, then of course he 
is treated in the same manner as nondisabled children, and can be kept 
out in an alternative setting forever.
  If it is found by that the child's action was a manifestation of 
their disability, that child then is put into an alternative setting 
for up to 45 days. That alternative setting is determined by the local 
school districts.
  Now we heard yesterday that after 45 days the kid will be put back in 
school. That is just not so--only if he or she is no longer a danger. 
If that kid continues to pose a danger to himself or others, the school 
can repeat that 45 days again and again and again--for as long as it 
deems necessary.
  Finally, as I said, there is no way the law prohibits anyone from 
calling the police to come take any student out who has a gun. I also 
want to point out, IDEA specifically provides that school officials may 
obtain a court order anytime to remove a child with a disability from 
school or to change a child's current educational placement if they 
believe that maintaining the child in the current educational placement 
is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others. So 
it is clear, current law addresses the issue. Frankly, we have a 
commonsense structure now. And, again, it was carefully designed to 
make schools and communities safer.
  The Senator from Missouri yesterday put up a chart showing the 
manifestation determination process, how you have to go through all 
these processes. Why do we do that? He made it seem like it was some 
bureaucratic maze, or jungle. The reason that we have this 
manifestation determination is so we can address the behavior of the 
child with the disability, to determine why that child acted the way 
the child did, and then to have the proper interventions so that child 
does not behave that way in the future. That's just common sense and it 
should not be eliminated as this amendment would do.
  Who does that process help, and who does that protect? Does it not 
protect the school? Does it not protect the local community? Of course, 
it does. If we can intervene and provide the proper kind of 
psychological help, maybe even medical help, educational help so that 
the child with a disability modifies his or her behavior, it seems to 
me that is what we want.
  Or are we saying under the Frist-Ashcroft amendment: We do not care; 
if a kid with a disability brings a gun to school, we do not care about 
that behavior; kick him out, put him out on the street, cut off all his 
services?
  Is that going to make our community safer? Is that going to make our 
schools safer? Is that going to protect students? If there is a 
question about that in anyone's mind, I point to the fact that the 
shooting in Oregon where students were tragically killed was committed 
by a kid who had been suspended without services from school. He went 
home, got a gun, and came back to school. I ask, what if a child in 
that circumstance was put in an alternative setting with supervision, 
with appropriate psychological help, behavior modification, supporting 
services? Would that kid have gone home to get

[[Page 10397]]

the gun and come back to school? I think the odds would have been great 
that that kid would not. But instead he was put on the street 
unsupervised--just as this amendment allows for. That is the ``level 
playing field'' the supporters of this amendment advocate.
  Mr. President, that is why over 500 police leaders from this country 
are opposed to the Frist-Ashcroft amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from Fight 
Crime, Invest in Kids. The board of directors includes the president of 
the Fraternal Order of Police. It encompasses 500 police leaders--many 
of them the police chiefs in major cities from around the country. It 
says in part:

       . . . we urge you to oppose the Frist-Ashcroft amendment, 
     and support the [amendment] to be offered by Senator Harkin.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      Fight Crime,


                                               Invest in Kids,

                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 1999.
       Dear Senator: should we really give kids who bring firearms 
     to school more unsupervised time? Senators Frist and 
     Ashcroft's amendments to S. 254 would have precisely that 
     impact.
       As an organization of more than 500 victims of violence, 
     sheriffs, district attorneys, police chiefs, leaders of 
     police organizations and violence prevention scholars, we 
     urge you to oppose the Frist-Ashcroft amendment, and support 
     the substitute to be offered by Senator Harkin.
       Regardless of whether students have disabilities or not, 
     schools already can suspend or expel students who bring 
     weapons to school. Nothing in the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) prohibits schools from 
     removing immediately a child who brings a gun to school. At 
     the same time, the law recognizes sending the child home or 
     out on the street without educational services is not the 
     answer. That's why IDEA simply requires states to continue 
     education services. The Frist-Ashcroft amendment would 
     eliminate this requirement for any child who brings a gun to 
     school.
       We should have tough sanctions for kids who bring a weapon 
     to school. The safety of other students in the school must be 
     paramount. The Frist-Ashcroft Amendment may sound tough to 
     those who think all kids love school. But giving a gun-toting 
     kid an extended vacation from school and from all 
     responsibility is soft on offenders and dangerous for 
     everyone else. Please don't give those kids who most need 
     adult supervision the unsupervised time to rob, become 
     addicted to drugs, and get their hands on other guns to 
     threaten students when the school bell rings.
       Anti-truancy programs are often an important part of 
     successful efforts to reduce juvenile violence. The Frist-
     Ashcroft amendment encourages mandatory truancy.
       To minimize the threat these youngsters pose, we should 
     require continued adult supervision as well as participation 
     in mental health and behavioral modification programs, and 
     continued school attendance in an appropriate setting, to 
     learn the skills needed to make an honest living. The Harkin 
     Amendment is consistent with this approach. Otherwise 
     expulsion often becomes a graduation to a life of crime that 
     threatens the public immediately and for many years to come.
       Please let me know if we can be of help in advising on what 
     really works to keep kids from becoming criminals.
           Sincerely,
                                                Sanford A. Newman,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, these are the policemen talking. Do you 
know why they are saying this? Because they know if Frist-Ashcroft is 
adopted, they are going to dump these kids on the streets--kids with 
problems, emotional problems, kids with mental problems and behavioral 
problems, kids who are mentally retarded and may have other problems. 
They are going to dump them out on the street. That is safe? That is 
going to make our schools and our communities safe? Please, someone 
tell me how that is so. That is why the police are opposed to this 
amendment.
  I will read a portion of another statement:

       As police chiefs in America's largest cities, we know that 
     investments today to help kids get the right start are among 
     America's most powerful weapons against crime. Quality child 
     care, parenting, coaching, and afterschool programs can help 
     kids learn the values and skills they need to become good 
     neighbors instead of criminals. We, therefore, call on all 
     our public officials to adopt the policies described in Fight 
     Crime, Invest in Kids. Help schools identify troubled and 
     disruptive children and provide children and their parents 
     with the counseling and training that can help get the kids 
     back on track.

  These are not social scientists; these are policemen from around the 
country.
  Let me also read from the testimony of the Police Executive Research 
Forum--a leading national organization of police chiefs and senior law 
enforcement officials. Gil Kerlikowski, who at the time was president 
of this group and the police chief in Buffalo, New York testified at a 
recent congressional hearing on this topic. He said:

       Students who are expelled or suspended from school and left 
     at home or on the street become my problem, and the problem 
     of police across this country. They have greater opportunity 
     to commit crimes, abuse drugs, or engage in disorderly 
     behavior that affects the quality of life in any given 
     neighborhood. They are also vulnerable to gangs and predators 
     who can victimize and exploit them in ways that will impede 
     any later efforts to put them on the right track. Today's 
     police forces are ill-prepared to deal with these 
     individuals--the rest of the criminal justice system even 
     less so.

  I also have a letter from the Correctional Educational Association 
again stating that the Frist-Ashcroft amendment is more dangerous to 
our schools and our communities.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                           Correctional Education Association,

                                         Lanham, MD, May 17, 1999.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist. On behalf of the teachers who labor in 
     the nation's prisons, jails and juvenile facilities, let me 
     implore you to withdraw your amendment and support the Harkin 
     amendment to S. 254. There are enough provisions in the 
     current IDEA to deal with problems related to violent 
     behaviors, such as carrying or threatening to carry weapons 
     into the school environment. In fact, your bill offers no 
     remedy, whatsoever, for changing the behavior which it seeks 
     to punish. It removes the procedural safeguards designed to 
     assist the offending child to find the necessary help he or 
     she needs. Finally, it punishes the child for his or her 
     disability, not for the offending behavior. It is akin to 
     taking medicine from a sick person because he or she has an 
     obnoxious personality.
       One of the strengths of IDEA is the procedure for dealing 
     with behavior problems. Carrying a weapon to school is a 
     terrible behavior problem needing immediate action by the 
     whole school community. Dismissal from school services denies 
     a solution to the problem. Why not require the IDEA procedure 
     for any student with a behavior problem, whether or not the 
     student is in special education or not? We need strong 
     procedure to deal with potential and real violence. Doing 
     nothing solves nothing.
       Those of us in criminal justice realize that providing 
     special education students with appropriate instructional 
     services is one of the keys to change their negative 
     behaviors. Punishing a student without positive and 
     appropriate assistance changes nothing. In fact, it just 
     makes things worse. In attempting to help avoid future tragic 
     situations like Littleton, we must be careful to find ways to 
     locate, calm and help potentially violent kids change. Please 
     rescind your amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                               Stephen J. Steurer,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a letter from the Council for 
Exceptional Children saying:

       While we . . . strongly support the removal of a student 
     who endangers the safety or well-being of themselves or other 
     students, we strongly oppose the cessation of services for 
     any student.

  The Frist-Ashcroft amendment ceases those services. What they say is 
that the school districts may provide the services--may. We already 
heard one Senator yesterday say how much this costs. It may cost too 
much, and schools will say: It costs too much money; we are not going 
to do it; let somebody else provide the services. And the kid falls 
through the cracks. That is what happens.
  If you do not think the police know what they are talking about or 
the Council for Exceptional Children or the Correctional Education 
Association, how about the Parent Teacher Association? Do you honestly 
believe that the National PTA wants more dangerous schools? Here is a 
letter from the National PTA strongly--strongly--opposing the Frist-
Ashcroft amendment:


[[Page 10398]]

       The National PTA supports Sens. Ashcroft's and Frist's goal 
     of keeping children safe in school. Their amendment, however, 
     would allow for the expulsion of special education students 
     who possess a handgun in school, without ensuring alternative 
     education services are provided. National PTA supports 
     removing students who bring guns to school, but believes 
     students should receive education services in an alternative 
     setting.
       National PTA supports Senator Harkin's amendment, which 
     clarifies that schools have the authority to remove any child 
     who brings a gun to school [and continues to provide them 
     services].

  I ask unanimous consent the National PTA letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 National PTA,

                                        Chicago, IL, May 17, 1999.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: National PTA opposes amending the Individuals 
     with Disability Education Act (IDEA) as proposed by Sens. 
     Ashcroft and Frist. The amendment will be offered to S. 254, 
     the juvenile justice bill currently being debated in the 
     Senate. National PTA asks that you vote NO on Ashcroft/Frist 
     amendment and vote YES to support an alternative amendment 
     sponsored by Senator Harkin.
       The National PTA supports Sens. Ashcroft's and Frist's goal 
     of keeping children safe in school. Their amendment, would 
     allow for the expulsion of special education students who 
     possess a handgun on school, without ensuring alternative 
     education services are provided. National PTA supports 
     removing students who bring guns to school, but believes 
     students should receive education services in an alternative 
     setting.
       National PTA supports Senator Harkin's amendment, which 
     clarifies that schools have the authority to remove any child 
     who brings a gun to school. The amendment also states that 
     all students should be provided education services in an 
     alternative setting. Further, students would receive 
     immediate and appropriate intervention services, and thereby 
     minimize the possibility of future violations by the student.
       The National PTA asks that you oppose the Ashcroft/Frist 
     amendment and vote for the Harkin alternative.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Shirley Igo,
                                   Vice President for Legislation.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a number of other organizations 
whose letters in opposition to this amendment I want to print in the 
Record: the United Cerebral Palsy Association, Learning Disabilities 
Association of America, the ARC of the United States, the American 
Association of Mental Retardation, the Easter Seals of Missouri, the 
Easter Seals of Tennessee, and a number of others. I ask unanimous 
consent they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   The Council for


                                         Exceptional Children,

                                          Reston VA, May 17, 1999.
     Hon. John Ascroft,
     U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Ashcroft, On behalf of all students in special 
     education and general education, we ask you to withdraw your 
     amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     Amendments of 1997 (IDEA 1997). Amendment No. 348 would 
     seriously jeopardize the integrity of this historic piece of 
     legislation.
       While we at the Council for Exceptional Children strongly 
     support the removal of a student who endangers the safety or 
     well-being of themselves or other students, we strongly 
     oppose the cessation of services for any student. Past 
     incidents, such as the tragic story of Kip Kinkle from 
     Springfield, Oregon, prove that when a student is immediately 
     suspended without any type of service, further tragedy is 
     imminent.
       The final IDEA regulations, released March 12, 1999, offer 
     schools substantial opportunities and strategies for 
     addressing problem behavior of students with disabilities 
     including behavior that is dangerous or involves drugs or 
     weapons. When it is stated that children with disabilities 
     cannot be disciplined, that is absolutely not the case. The 
     statute and the regulations clearly state that when the 
     behavior is not a manifestation of their disability, those 
     children can be disciplined in the same manner as children 
     without disabilities. Furthermore, the statute and 
     regulations state that a child who commits an offense 
     involving drugs or weapons that is a manifestation of their 
     disability, the child can be removed from the classroom and/
     or building for up to 45 days. There is nothing in the 
     statute or regulations that prohibit another 45 day removal 
     if that is appropriate. The only difference is that child 
     will receive educational services.
       This amendment will not result in safer schools or 
     communities. In fact, every major law enforcement agency 
     reports that expelling or suspending troubled children 
     without education services only increases juvenile crime. 
     Drop out rates, incarceration rates and drug use rates also 
     increase when children are expelled or suspended without 
     education services.
       On the other hand, we support Senator Harkin's amendment to 
     the juvenile justice legislation which is presently being 
     debated. The Harkin amendment, not an amendment to IDEA, 
     clarifies that schools can and should remove children who 
     bring guns to school and that schools should provide them 
     with immediate appropriate intervention and services, 
     including mental health services in order to maximize the 
     likelihood that such child does not engage in such behavior 
     or such behavior does not reoccur. The Harkin Amendment also 
     reaffirms that nothing prohibits a school from reporting a 
     crime to appropriate authorities.
       Please reconsider your amendment and the negative effect it 
     will have to the carefully constructed IDEA Amendments of 
     1997. We need to implement IDEA, not amend it. Your amendment 
     will seriously undermine the benefits and protections of 
     IDEA. Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                B. Joseph Ballard,
     Associate Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                         Missouri Planning Council


                               for Developmental Disabilities,

                                 Jefferson City, MO, May 17, 1999.
     Hon. John Ashcroft,
     Russell Senate Office Building
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Ashcroft: On behalf of the Missouri Planning 
     Council for Developmental Disabilities, I am writing this 
     letter to support the Harkin Amendment to the Juvenile 
     Justice Bill. We believe this bill will result in safer 
     schools since it clarifies the schools' roles in removing 
     children who bring guns to school. We also support the 
     provision of intervention and services, including mental 
     health services, to reduce the possibility of such behaviors 
     reoccurring.
       We have supported IDEA, formerly the Education for All 
     Handicapped Children's Act of 1975, since it was introduced 
     and believe that because of this strong legislation many 
     children are now receiving the education to which they are 
     entitled. Because of this we cannot support legislation that 
     would weaken this most important special education law.
       Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. Please 
     call our office if you have questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Don Jackson,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                                 Easter Seals,

                                                     May 17, 1999.
     Hon. John Ashcroft,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Ashcroft: On behalf of Easter Seals Missouri, 
     I write to you today to inform you of our opposition to your 
     legislation, the School Safety Act.
       While proposed as a solution to the rising problem of 
     violence in our schools, this legislation will only 
     contribute to juvenile crime in our communities. Simply 
     removing a child from school does little to address long-term 
     behavioral problems. In fact, suspensions and expulsions 
     without education services only transfer the problem from the 
     school setting to the community setting.
       Parents of children with disabilities want safe schools. 
     They know that their children are too often the victims of 
     inappropriate conduct. Under the 1997 amendments to the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, any truly 
     dangerous child can and should be readily removed by school 
     authorities. Moreover, the 1997 amendments add numerous new 
     discipline provisions that strengthen the ability of school 
     personnel to maintain a safe and orderly environment, 
     conducive to learning.
       Easter Seals Missouri urges you to withdraw the Safe 
     Schools Act. Thank you for considering our views.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Patricia Jones,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                    State Boards of Education,

                                     Alexandria, VA, May 19, 1999.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The National Association of State Boards of 
     Education (NASBE) is a private nonprofit association 
     representing state and territorial boards of education. Our 
     principal objectives are to strengthen state leadership in 
     education policymaking, promote excellence in the education 
     of all students, advocate equality of access to educational 
     opportunity, and assure responsible governance of public 
     education.

[[Page 10399]]

       NASBE would like to express its opposition to an amendment 
     proposed by Senators Ashcroft and Frist that will 
     significantly alter the discipline provisions within the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which 
     will be considered by the Senate during debate on the 
     Juvenile Justice bill S. 254 this morning. Currently, 
     students with disabilities who bring a weapon to school can 
     be shifted to an alternative setting for up to 45 days. The 
     Ashcroft/Frist amendment would change this policy so that 
     students with disabilities could be expelled for an entire 
     year. While we certainly support strict disciplinary measures 
     for all students, we must oppose this proposal on the 
     following grounds:
       Cessation of educational services, particularly to those 
     most in need of intervention, is not an appropriate response. 
     Simply removing the offending student from school merely 
     shifts the problem to the neighborhood and streets 
     surrounding the school.
       A weapons offense is best handled by law enforcement and 
     the judicial system. The current IDEA law does not preclude 
     school personnel from referring student violations to the 
     police where state and local laws would apply.
       The amendment undermines the comprehensive compromise 
     reached on IDEA in 1997, of which the current disciplinary 
     policies were a major consideration. During the final Senate 
     vote on IDEA, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott warned that 
     any attempt to modify the legislation would cause the 
     agreement to collapse. Changes made now would only encourage 
     others to attempt to revise other sections of the carefully 
     crafted IDEA law in the future.
       Again, we urge you to oppose changing the IDEA disciplinary 
     provisions under the Ashcroft/Frist amendment to the Juvenile 
     Justice bill. If you have any questions, please have your 
     staff contact David Griffith, Director of Governmental 
     Affairs, at 703/684-4000, ext. 107. Thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                        Brenda Lilienthal Welburn,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                                      The Arc,

                                      Arlington, TX, May 20, 1999.
     Anne L. Bryant,
     Executive Director, National School Boards Association, 
         Alexandria, VA.
       Dear Ms. Bryant: The Arc of the United States is very 
     concerned with your May 17 letter to Members of the U.S. 
     Senate, in which you state that the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (P.L. 105-17) prevents schools 
     from removing students who bring firearms to school. This 
     statement is totally incorrect and very misleading. The 
     newly-reauthorized I.D.E.A. allows school authorities to 
     immediately remove all children, including children with 
     disabilities, from the school setting for any violation of 
     school discipline codes for up to ten days. In cases when a 
     child has brought a weapon to school or school function, 
     school authorities can unilaterally remove a child with a 
     disability from the child's regular placement for up to 45 
     days at a time. In addition, if school officials believe that 
     it would be dangerous to return the child after the 45 day 
     period, they can ask an impartial hearing officer to order 
     that the child remain in the interim alternative setting for 
     an additional 45 days and can request subsequent extensions.
       It is incomprehensible to The Arc why the National School 
     Boards Association would want to mislead the Senate about 
     this important civil rights law. As a result of these 
     misperceptions, the Senate is considering an amendment to 
     I.D.E.A. that would make communities more dangerous, not 
     safer. The Frist/Ashcroft Amendment currently being debated 
     as part of the Juvenile Justice legislation (S. 254) would 
     allow schools to cease educational services to children with 
     disabilities. Every major law enforcement agency reports that 
     expelling or suspending troubled children without educational 
     services only increases juvenile crime. Drop out rates, 
     incarceration rates and drug use rates also increase when 
     children are expelled or suspended without educational 
     services.
       The current I.D.E.A. law and the final regulations, just 
     released by the Department of Education in March of this 
     year, already provide adequate protections to schools. The 
     new law, which your organization agreed to, should be given a 
     chance to work. I.D.E.A. has provided millions of students 
     with disabilities the opportunity for a free and appropriate 
     public education enabling them to become independent and 
     productive citizens. The Arc is extremely disturbed that your 
     organization would use children with disabilities as the 
     scapegoat for recent school shootings.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Brenda Doss,
     President.
                                  ____

         National Organization of Black           Law Enforcement 
                                                 Executives,      
                                   Alexandria, VA, May 18, 1999.  
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the National Organization 
     of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), this letter is 
     to support your substitute amendment to S. 254. NOBLE 
     represents more than 3000 minority law enforcement managers, 
     executives, and practitioners at the local, state and federal 
     levels. We believe that students who are suspended from 
     school for carrying weapons must be placed in a supervised 
     alternative to school and be required to participate in an 
     appropriate mental health and behavioral modification 
     program. Suspending these students from school and putting 
     them out onto the streets would only serve to magnify the 
     crime problem that currently exists. Your efforts to ensure 
     that this does not happen are strongly supported by NOBLE.
       Our organization urges you to continue your efforts to 
     ensure that your substitute amendment is incorporated into S. 
     254.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert L. Stewart,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                   The Secretary of Education,

                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 1999.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: I am writing to express my strong 
     opposition to an amendment that Senator Frist has offered to 
     S. 254, the juvenile crime bill that the Senate is now 
     considering. This amendment, which is similar to S. 969, 
     Senator Ashcroft's bill to which I expressed my opposition 
     last week, would allow school personnel to suspend or expel 
     children with disabilities from their schools for unlimited 
     periods of time, without any educational services, including 
     behavioral intervention services, and without the impartial 
     hearing now required by the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (IDEA), for carrying or possessing a gun or 
     other firearm to, or at, a school function.
       The Congress need not address the particular issue that is 
     the subject of the Frist amendment, because it amended the 
     IDEA just two years ago to give school officials new tools to 
     address the precise issue of children with disabilities 
     bringing weapons to school or otherwise threatening teachers 
     and other students. For example, school officials may remove, 
     for up to 45 days, a child with a disability who takes a 
     weapon to school, and may request a hearing officer to 
     similarly remove a child who is substantially likely to 
     injure himself or others, if the child's parents object to a 
     change in the child's placement. Furthermore, the IDEA allows 
     hearing officers to keep these students out of the regular 
     educational environment beyond 45 days if they continue to 
     pose a threat to the rest of the student body. I am convinced 
     that these new tools will be effective if given a chance to 
     work.
       I am firmly committed to ensuring that all our schools are 
     safe and disciplined environments where all our children, 
     including children with disabilities, can learn without fear 
     of violence. But we should not let the tragic school 
     shootings in Littleton, Colorado, and other communities lead 
     us to responses, such as the Frist amendment, that will harm 
     children with disabilities.
       First, the Frist amendment would deny vital educational 
     services to children with disabilities who are removed from 
     school, including behavioral interventions that are designed 
     to prevent dangerous behavior from recurring. Continued 
     provision of educational services, including these behavioral 
     interventions, offers the best chance for improving the long-
     term prospects for these children. Discontinuing educational 
     services is the wrong decision in the short run and, in the 
     long run, will result in significant costs in terms of 
     increased crime, dependency on public assistance, 
     unemployment, and alienation from society. We cannot afford 
     to throw away a single child.
       Second, the Frist amendment would undo vital protections in 
     the IDEA that were included to protect children with 
     disabilities from widespread abuses of their civil rights. 
     Under this amendment, for example, the IDEA would no longer 
     require schools to determine, when suspending or expelling a 
     child with a disability, whether the behavior of the child in 
     carrying or possessing a firearm is related to the child's 
     disability. Such a determination, which can currently be made 
     while the child has been removed from school, is needed to 
     ensure that children are not unjustly denied educational 
     services during their removal without considering the effects 
     of the child's disability on their behavior. The 
     manifestation determination required by the IDEA is an 
     important tool schools use to appropriately understand the 
     relationship between a child's behavior and their disability 
     in order to best implement behavior intervention strategies.
       We should be making every effort to appropriately reach out 
     to our children and help prevent them from endangering 
     themselves and others. It is equally important that we 
     appropriately address the needs of children who have gone 
     astray, violated the rules, and put others at risk. The 
     exclusion of children with disabilities from school--without 
     the impartial due-process hearing and the continued services 
     that the IDEA now requires--is the wrong response.
       I urge you to vote against the Frist amendment.

[[Page 10400]]

       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection to the submission of this report from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program.
           Yours sincerely,
     Richard W. Riley.
                                  ____

         State of Tennessee, Department of Mental Health and 
           Mental Retardation, Developmental Disabilities Council,
                                      Nashville, TN, May 17, 1999.
     Senator Bill Frist,
     Dirksen Building
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist: The recent path of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has been an arduous one, as 
     you well know. We at the Tennessee Developmental Disabilities 
     Council and many others, especially parents of students with 
     disabilities and the students themselves, remember your 
     outstanding efforts to achieve a fair compromise around 
     complex issues during the recent IDEA reauthorization 
     process. Because of your interest and attention, IDEA still 
     ensures children with disabilities access to a free 
     appropriate public education.
       The procedural safeguards contained in IDEA are critical in 
     protecting the right of children with disabilities to receive 
     a free appropriate public education. Therefore, we are 
     distressed about your recent effort to amend IDEA concerning 
     the suspension or expulsion of students with disabilities who 
     carries or possesses a gun or firearm to or at a school, on 
     school premises, or to or at a school function. This is not 
     to say that we believe that any student who carries or 
     possesses a gun or firearm should not be disciplined. Just as 
     the positive principles of the IDEA should work for all 
     students as schools are encouraged to include students with 
     disabilities in regular classrooms and to afford them every 
     opportunity for education, so should such egregious behavior 
     by any student have consequences.
       However, we do not believe that the consequences enumerated 
     by your amendment to IDEA will have the desired outcome. They 
     will not result in safer schools or communities. In fact, 
     every major law enforcement agency reports that expelling or 
     suspending troubled children without education services only 
     increases juvenile crime. Drop out rates, incarceration rates 
     and drug use rates also increase when children are expelled 
     or suspended without educational services.
       We believe that a better approach, for all students, is 
     articulated in Senator Harkin's amendment to the juvenile 
     justice bill. It will assist schools to maintain safe 
     environments conducive to learning. It clarifies that schools 
     can and should remove children who bring guns to school and 
     that schools should provide them with immediate appropriate 
     intervention and services including mental health services to 
     maximize the likelihood that such child does not engage in 
     such behavior or such behavior does not reoccur. The Harkin 
     amendment also reaffirms that nothing prohibits a school from 
     reporting a crime to appropriate authorities.
       Senator Harkin's amendment seems very consistent with the 
     aim of IDEA and with the very compromise that you worked so 
     hard to achieve in 1997. Therefore, we ask that you support 
     Senator Harkin's amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Lana Kile,
       Chair.
     Wanda Willis,
       Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                              American Association


                                        On Mental Retardation,

     To: Senator Thomas Harkin.
     From: M. Doreen Croser, Executive Director.
     Re: Opposition to IDEA Amendments.
     Date: May 17, 1999.
       Thank you for all your hard work to maintain the integrity 
     of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 
     Your efforts are greatly appreciated by the members of the 
     American Association on Mental Retardation!
       We also want you to know that we oppose the Ashcroft/Frist 
     Amendment because we do not believe it will result in safer 
     schools or communities. Drop out rates, crime, incarceration 
     and drug use increases when children are expelled or 
     suspended from school without education services. Clearly, 
     such suspensions or expulsions are not in our society's best 
     interest.
       Your proposed amendment to the juvenile justice legislation 
     rather than to IDEA seems to be a sensible approach and we 
     support it.
       Please share our support with your colleagues and, again, 
     thank you for all work on behalf of children with 
     disabilities.
                                  ____

                                             Learning Disabilities


                                       Association of America,

                                     Pittsburgh, PA, May 17, 1999.
       Dear Senator: As President of LOA, the Learning 
     Disabilities Association of America, a national non-profit 
     volunteer organization dedicated to a world in which all 
     individuals with learning disabilities thrive and participate 
     fully in society, I ask you on behalf of all children with 
     disabilities to:
       Oppose the Ashcroft/Frist Amendment to the Mental Health 
     Juvenile Justice Act (S254) now being debated on the Senate 
     floor. This amendment, which would allow local schools to 
     deny educational services, including special education, to a 
     child with a disability who carries to or possesses a gun or 
     firearm in school or a school function, would not reduce 
     violence in schools and society. Testimony of law enforcement 
     agencies during the IDEA reauthorization process pointed out 
     that expelling or suspending troubled children without 
     educational services results in increased juvenile crime in 
     the short term and increased drop out rates, incarceration 
     rates, and drug use in the long term.
       Support the Harkin Amendment to the Mental Health Juvenile 
     Justice Act (S254) which clarifies that, under IDEA 97, 
     school can and should remove students with disabilities who 
     bring guns to school. Moreover after being in an alternative 
     educational placement for up to 45 days, the IEP team may 
     decide to move the child to a placement other than the school 
     in which the infraction occurred. The Harkin Amendment also 
     reaffirms that nothing in IDEA prohibits a school from 
     reporting a crime to appropriate authorities.
       I would like to point out that none of the children 
     responsible for the eight school tragedies in the past two 
     years was a special education student being served under 
     IDEA. However, it is also apparent that appropriate mental 
     health interventions might have prevented some of these 
     tragedies.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Harry Sylvester,
                                                        President.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 7 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. I have used up 14 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  This will be the last few minutes that I have to speak on the Frist-
Ashcroft amendment and, thus, I want to, for the sake of my colleagues 
and others who are listening, explain what the amendment is about.
  This amendment is very simple. It is about two things: No. 1, the 
safety of all students; and No. 2, equal treatment of children.
  I have a letter from the National School Boards Association. As most 
people know, it represents 95,000 local school board members.
  I will read from the first paragraph of the letter:

       sOn behalf of the Nation's 95,000 local school board 
     members, the National School Boards Association urges you to 
     support the Frist-Ashcroft amendment to S. 254 that would 
     enhance the safety of all students from gun violence. The 
     amendment provides school officials with the discretion to 
     suspend or expel students covered by the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act in the same manner as other 
     students in cases where they bring firearms to school.

  My colleagues, this amendment is about the safety of all students and 
the equal treatment of children.
  Yesterday, we had a very good debate, I thought, on the substance of 
the amendment. I gave my remarks yesterday, and I wish to also refer 
today to some statistics that I obtained not too long ago from my own 
county, Davidson County.
  For the 1997-1998 school year there were eight children in my home 
county who brought either a gun or a bomb to school, eight in that 1 
year. Of those eight, six were special education students. What 
happened? The two who were not special education students, because of 
the zero tolerance policy in Tennessee, were expelled. They were out 
for the remainder of the year.
  Of the six special education students, three were back in class. 
These are individuals who brought a bomb or a gun into the classroom 
already.
  Three of them were kept out of school. Why? Because their disability 
and bringing a gun to school were unrelated. But three of the eight had 
this manifestation process, and because of the disability, they were 
treated in a special way and allowed back into the classroom.
  Yesterday I was caught a little off guard, and I do not like that, I 
really do not like that. And I do not think the Senator from Iowa meant 
to say what

[[Page 10401]]

he said. But he said those statistics don't count. And then I said, 
well, let's look at 1999, He said, no those statistics don't count. And 
I said Why? And he said basically because the regulations just came out 
and we fixed that loophole.
  That bothered me, so what I did was go back and call to see really 
when this law took place, the law that is operating today. I found 
something very different, exactly the opposite of what the Senator from 
Iowa told all of his colleagues. And I want to straighten that out for 
the Record. It is very, very important.
  The Senator from Iowa argued yesterday that the statistics where 
individuals with disabilities ended up back in the classroom within 45 
days of having brought a gun to the schoolroom don't apply and that 
loophole had been fixed. I found something very, very different.
  In fact, the IDEA amendments of 1997 were signed into law on June 4, 
1997. The Senator from Iowa and I were both there. It was a good day. 
We were both there. Yes, the regulations were written. And it really 
took too long, they just came out a few months ago. The implication 
yesterday by the Senator from Iowa was that they were written only 
recently and, therefore, so they could not apply.
  In looking a little closer, the IDEA amendments were signed into law 
on June 4, 1997. And on June 4, 1997, section 615, the discipline 
provisions, went into effect that day. So every statistic that I have 
given for the last 2 years shows repetitively individuals with 
disabilities, because of this special treatment, it is not their fault, 
it is the fault of the law that they are ending up back in the 
classroom. These are individuals who brought a gun or a bomb to school.
  Again, I was very disappointed, because again and again he said on 
the floor yesterday and I went back to the Record again last night and 
found that the Senator from Iowa said: ``I say to the Senator from 
Tennessee, that the school he is talking about was still operating 
under the old system.''
  Not true. Not true. We talked to the director of high schools for 
Nashville, Davidson County, and the director stated very specifically 
that every school in the Davidson County was operating under the IDEA 
amendments of 1997 under advisement of their lawyers. In fact, let me 
read from the bill that we signed last year. The 1997-1998 school year 
applied on June 4.
  This is from the bill that we signed on a great day, on June 4, 1997. 
It says: ``Effective dates, these shall take effect upon enactment of 
this act,'' on that day in June 1997.
  So all the statistics of eight individuals were relevant. Two were 
expelled because they did not have a disability and of the six who had 
a disability, three were back in the classroom within 45 days. That is 
the loophole. Why am I concerned? Just because somebody has not been 
killed yet because of this loophole, I am not going to wait around 
until somebody has been killed. I want to prevent that from happening. 
This amendment is about the safety of all students and to have all 
students treated fairly.
  The amendment closes the loophole that I just pointed out. I have 
demonstrated factually it is occurring in this legislation. So I want 
to dismiss all of the arguments the Senator from Iowa made yesterday 
when he said it is not a problem.
  This amendment will, in its ultimate passage, end the mixed message 
that the Federal Government, that we in this body, send to American 
students on the issue of guns in school.
  Under IDEA, a student with a disability who is in possession of a 
firearm at school is treated differently from anybody else. Our 
amendment says very simply that if you bring a gun or a firearm to the 
school, you, as a student, are going to be treated the same, and you 
are going to be treated by the local principal or other authorities in 
the school.
  Our amendment allows principals or other qualified school personnel 
the flexibility to treat every student who brings a gun or a firearm or 
a bomb into the classroom the very same.
  Our amendment does not enforce any sort of uniform policy. We might 
like to think that we in Washington can set good school policy, but 
this shows how dangerous that can be by trying to set a uniform policy 
here for some subset of students.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee has used 8 minutes.
  Mr. FRIST. I yield myself 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the amendment is a simple amendment: Equal 
treatment for each and every student who brings a firearm, a gun or 
bomb, to school. It is an amendment which will have an impact, I 
believe, help individuals in terms of safety in our schools.
  The amendment closes a loophole, a loophole that I have definitively 
demonstrated does occur in our schools. If a student brings a gun to 
school, they, if our amendment is agreed to, will be treated the same 
regardless of their educational status.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from 
Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 18 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his leadership on this issue. 
I began to be concerned about students carrying guns in and out of our 
schools quite some time ago. On the Ed-Flex bill, which passed this 
Senate just a couple months ago, I put an amendment to close another 
loophole which would allow students who possessed guns in school--not 
just carried guns to school--to be removed from the school environment.
  This responsibility for us to close these loopholes is a serious one. 
It is a responsibility that relates to school safety. That is what we 
are talking about here. School safety is a responsibility that we can 
work hard on, and I am glad Senator Frist of Tennessee and I have been 
able to join on this amendment.
  It should not have taken this long. This is a simple amendment. This 
amendment merely allows local schools to treat all children who bring 
guns to school in the same manner. It does not target children with 
disabilities--simply not so. It protects children with disabilities. 
This is not a matter of scapegoating. This does not say that any group 
of students is subject to more severe punishments than any other group 
of students.
  This is a bill that provides for equity, simply saying that 
principals and superintendents should have the power, without 
interference from the Federal Government, to remove students from 
school who come to school with a firearm, an explosive or a gun. I 
believe we need to make sure we close the loophole in the Federal law 
that made it very difficult to discipline certain students who came in 
that setting.
  There are those who say: Well, the law is this way and the law is 
that way. And they will argue about how the law is applied here in the 
Senate Chamber. We have a lot of experience from around the country 
about how the law is applied in the schools. The Senator from Tennessee 
has eloquently spoken to the fact that as applied in the schools, you 
frequently find that individuals who, if they were not the subject of 
an individualized education program, would be gone for a year because 
of a mandated expulsion, are back in the classroom within 45 days, in 
spite of the fact that they brought a gun or a bomb to school.
  It is simply our intention to let local school boards and school 
officials decide how they should be able to make the school a safe 
place and not to reinsert a student in the school environment who has 
threatened the safety and security of the school by bringing a bomb or 
a gun to school. We must have zero tolerance for guns in school. I 
think we must let school officials decide on discipline policies.

[[Page 10402]]

  We should not have taken this long on this amendment, but I am glad 
that we are at this point.
  After we vote on this amendment, there is a consent decree which is 
going to allow the Harkin amendment to be voted on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes of the 
remaining 3 and ask to be notified.
  The Harkin amendment makes the current law even worse by imposing a 
new requirement upon schools that they couldn't remove any child for 
bringing a gun to school unless they provide special services to the 
child. I will oppose this amendment.
  When you tell people that you will make them special for bringing a 
gun to school, I think you do a great disservice. You are not making 
victims out of people by pulling them out of school. You are not making 
them unsafe. If you tell them clearly that if they bring a gun to 
school that they are not going to be allowed to stay in school, you 
will make them safer, and you will make the school safer.
  This is a school safety issue. It is an issue that requires our 
attention. The simple fact of the matter is, the current law, as 
applied and as implemented, is a real impediment to school safety.
  There will be arguments that we have yet to have a student shoot 
someone under these circumstances. I can tell you that we have come 
very close. I talked to one school superintendent in my State who had 
such a student threaten seven other students in the classroom, to kill 
them. When the student finally shot one of the other students, it 
wasn't in the classroom. It was off the school premises so that it 
really didn't qualify under IDEA. But we don't have to wait until there 
is blood on the blackboard or on the floor of the classroom in order to 
take steps to make sure we don't have guns in the classroom.
  The truth of the matter is, we should simply and clearly make it 
possible on an equal footing to say that no matter who the student is, 
there are no excuses, there are no special exceptions; if you bring a 
gun to school, the local school authority should have the opportunity 
to take that student and to remove that student without regard to other 
status.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 4 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  There is no loophole here. The equity they keep talking about is an 
equity for danger. We keep hearing they are for safety in schools. We 
all are for safety, of course.
  Why is the National PTA opposed to this amendment? Why are 500 police 
leaders around the country opposed to this amendment? Why is the 
National Association of the State Boards of Education opposed to this 
amendment? Because they all know that the amendment we are about to 
vote on is a recipe for disaster.
  It will increase crime. It will increase drug use. It will increase 
the dropout rate. Why? I am really disappointed that anyone would say 
that we can take these kids who have severe problems, kick them out of 
school and cut off all supporting services and make communities safer. 
The police chiefs who have to deal with the aftermath know better. That 
is why they are opposed to this amendment. We know more than they do, 
and the Parent Teacher Association? Why are they opposed to the 
Ashcroft-Frist amendment? Because they realize it is a formula for 
disaster. That is what it is.
  This is a dangerous, dangerous amendment and I strongly urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. President, after the vote on this amendment--by unanimous 
consent--the Senate will adopt the Harkin amendment. This is an 
amendment I have drafted and is cosponsored by the distinguished 
ranking member of the HELP committee, Senator Kennedy. Our amendment is 
supported by the police and other groups who oppose the Frist-Ashcroft 
amendment because it would make schools and communities safer. I'd like 
to say a few words about it and its intent.
  Passage of our amendment is very important. It is very important, 
because it requires that all children--whether they have a disability 
or not--are not just dumped in the streets after they commit an act of 
violence, including bringing a gun or firearm to school. Our amendment 
would require that schools provide immediate and appropriate 
supervision, tracking, educational, behavioral, health and related 
services to these children in order to reduce the likelihood that the 
child will repeat their anti-social and dangerous behavior. The 
interventions would be tailored to the individual child. This is 
absolutely critical and is demonstrated to actually make a difference. 
It will save lives and money in the long run. It makes common sense.
  The Harkin amendment also authorizes the funds necessary to assist 
our schools in providing this critical intervention.
  So passage of the Harkin-Kennedy amendment--which will occur by voice 
vote after this roll call vote on the Frist-Ashcroft amendment--is a 
very important amendment. Its adoption puts the Senate on record as 
supporting the recommendations and pleas of the police, parents and 
teachers.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Frist-
Ashcroft amendment pertaining to the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, IDEA. I respect my colleagues' intentions. They want to 
make schools safer. Their amendment would not make schools safer, nor 
the sidewalks leading to the schools, nor their communities.
  Their amendment would allow a child with a disability caught with a 
gun or a firearm, whether he knew what he was doing or not, to be 
suspended or expelled without educational services.
  If a child with a disability--if any child for that matter--is 
suspended or expelled for having a gun or firearm in school and 
subsequently not provided with educational services and adult 
supervision--Would schools be safer? Would communities be safer? Given 
what happened outside of Atlanta today, we must shift the debate. 
Yesterday, our colleagues from Tennessee, Missouri, and Iowa debated 
if, and for how long, a child with a disability could be removed from 
his school if he brought a firearm to school. I think they agreed that 
under IDEA and under the Frist-Ashcroft amendment a child with a 
disability could be removed from his school.
  The crux of the remaining disagreement was services--why a child with 
a disability who brings a gun to school should get services, while his 
peer without a disability in the same situation, would not get 
services. We don't solve anything by kicking any child out of school 
without educational services.
  There are two letters of opposition to the Frist-Ashcroft on your 
desk. One is from the National Association of State Boards of Education 
and one from the National Parent Teacher Association. They make that 
simple point very well.
  Ask yourself this question--If you could prevent a child from 
committing a violent act for the first time or a second time, by 
providing appropriate services, what would you do? The answer is 
obvious. You would provide the services--to make your school safe, to 
make your community safe, but most importantly, to save the child.
  In the rare instances when it occurs, IDEA provides schools with the 
tools to control and prevent gun and firearm use by children with 
disabilities. IDEA recognizes and promotes school safety. IDEA 
recognizes and promotes teaching consequences for wrongful behavior. 
IDEA recognizes and promotes adult supervision of, engagement with, and 
responsibility for children who break school rules or criminal laws.
  I would like to review some key facts about IDEA. IDEA permits school 
officials to immediately suspend a child with a disability with a gun 
or firearm

[[Page 10403]]

for 10 days without educational services. During that time, a 
manifestation determination review must be conducted. First, to 
determine if the child with a disability understood the impact and 
consequences of having a gun or firearm. Second, to determine if the 
child's disability did or did not impair the child's ability to control 
his behavior.
  In effect, if the child knew what he was doing, the law allows the 
child to be disciplined in the same manner as other children caught 
with guns or firearms. One distinction applies. This child with a 
disability, perhaps unlike his peers, would continue to receive 
educational services. However, school officials have total discretion 
over the details associated with providing these educational services.
  If a manifestation determination review establishes that the child 
did not know what he was doing, the child could still be removed from 
his classroom and school and placed in an interim alternative 
educational setting for 45 days. After 45 days, if the child continued 
to be dangerous, the child's placement in the interim alternative 
educational setting could be extended with the concurrence of a hearing 
officer.
  In the wake of the tragedy in Littleton, Colorado, in the wake of 
Atlanta, hearing officers will give substantial deference to claims 
from school officials that a child with disabilities continues to be 
dangerous. Concurrence of a hearing officer at 45 day intervals is a 
reasonable standard and an appropriate check and balance on the 
continued use of an interim alternative educational setting.
  There is no forum or procedures for due process in the Frist-Ashcroft 
amendment. How is a child with a disability to prove his innocence? If 
expelled without education services for 12 months, what will be the 
impact on the child's family? What will be the reaction of the child's 
next teacher? What will be the impact on the child's neighborhood? What 
will be the impact on this child as an adult?
  The real driving force behind the Frist-Ashcroft amendment is the 
obligation to provide services, and not school safety. Local school 
districts do not want the responsibility for paying for new services. 
If school districts do not now have interim alternative educational 
settings that can accommodate children with disabilities, they do not 
want to spend money to create them. If school districts do not now have 
home-based programs or alternative school programs, they want 
additional money to have them.
  School districts do not see a windfall of new Federal dollars on the 
horizon. So in the name of school safety, they bless the Frist-Ashcroft 
amendment. In the name of school safety, school districts say it is 
acceptable for Federal policy to close the school house door on the 
back of a child with a disability, whether the child knew why the door 
slammed shut or not. In the name of school safety, they say it is 
acceptable for Federal policy to leave open whether any agency gives 
the child and the child's family help, so that they can recover from a 
gun or firearm episode that profoundly altered their lives.
  Helping children and their families in these situations is a 
community responsibility. Schools are part of communities. They must do 
their part. Other agencies and organizations must do their part. To 
abdicate responsibility or shift responsibility is not acceptable. It 
makes no sense.
  All parents want their children to be safe in school and out. All 
parents want their children to have due process when they are accused 
of wrong doing. All parents want their child's education to continue, 
even if their child did wrong.
  Are we going to disregard some of America's most vulnerable children 
in the name of political expediency, by pretending that the Frist-
Ashcroft amendment will make schools and communities safer.
  In an ideal world, we would find a way to work together to develop or 
expand, and fund, local agencies and organizations that would work 
collaboratively to assist families and children in crisis, so that the 
crisis does not reoccur.
  In an ideal world, teachers and administrators in America's schools 
would be thoroughly versed in the referral procedures associated with 
IDEA; and, if IDEA were fully funded, tragedies with guns and firearms 
could be prevented.
  We don't have an ideal world, but we must try to make a positive 
difference, one day at a time, especially in the lives of children.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield myself such time as I have remaining.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa indicates there is not a 
loophole here. Well, it is strange to me, but the statistics indicate 
otherwise.
  One county in Tennessee, clear evidence, Davidson County, the home of 
the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, four people who squeezed through 
the nonexistent loophole were back in class within 45 days in that 
setting.
  I think we have to make sure that that nonexistent loophole, if that 
is what we are talking about, gets closed. It is impossible to have 
people coming through a door that is not there. There is a loophole 
that needs to be shut.
  Last but not least, it is no accident that the National School Boards 
Association wants us to pass this. This isn't discriminating against 
one class of students or in favor of another. It simply says our 
priority for learning has to be a safe and secure school environment. 
This particular amendment would enhance the safety of all students from 
gun violence, according to the National School Boards Association.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 355. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 25, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 137 Leg.]

                                YEAS--74

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--25

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The amendment (No. 355) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 368

       (Purpose: To provide appropriate interventions and services 
     to children who are removed from school, and to clarify 
     Federal law with respect to reporting a crime committed by a 
     child)
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we now turn to the Harkin amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe if the Senator from Iowa will 
send his

[[Page 10404]]

amendment to the desk, it will be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa Mr. Harkin, for himself and Mr. 
     Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 368.

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

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. __. APPROPRIATE INTERVENTIONS AND SERVICES; 
                   CLARIFICATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

       (a) Appropriate Interventions and Services.--School 
     personnel shall ensure that immediate appropriate 
     interventions and services, including mental health 
     interventions and services, are provided to a child removed 
     from school for any act of violence, including carrying or 
     possessing a weapon to or at a school, on school premises, or 
     to or at a school function under the jurisdiction of a State 
     or local educational agency, in order to--
       (1) to ensure that our Nation's schools and communities are 
     safe; and
       (2) maximize the likelihood that such child shall not 
     engage in such behaviors, or such behaviors do not reoccur.
       (b) Clarification of Federal Law.--Nothing in Federal law 
     shall be construed--
       (1) to prohibit an agency from reporting a crime committed 
     by a child, including a child with a disability, to 
     appropriate authorities; or
       (2) to prevent State law enforcement and judicial 
     authorities from exercising their responsibilities with 
     regard to the application of Federal and State law to a crime 
     committed by a child, including a child with a disability.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to pay the costs of the interventions and services described 
     in subsection (a) such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     the fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
       (2) Distribution.--The Secretary of Education shall provide 
     for the distribution of the funds made available under 
     paragraph (1)--
       (A) to States for a fiscal year in the same manner as the 
     Secretary makes allotments to States under section 4011(b) of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7111(b)) for the fiscal year; and
       (B) to local educational agencies for a fiscal year in the 
     same manner as funds are distributed to local educational 
     agencies under section 4113(d)(2) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7113(d)(2)) for 
     the fiscal year.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in our amendment, which we just passed 
in the Senate, Senator Frist and I proposed important changes to 
federal law to give schools more authority to remove from the classroom 
any student who brings a gun or firearm to school. Schools need current 
federal barriers removed so that they can preserve a safe and secure 
classroom for our children.
  The Senator from Iowa has proposed an amendment which makes it even 
more difficult for schools to remove any dangerous student--including 
one who brings a gun to school--from the classroom. I rise to state my 
opposition to the Harkin amendment.
  The Harkin amendment makes the current law even worse by imposing a 
new requirement upon schools when they desire to remove any child--
disabled or non-disabled--from the classroom for bringing a gun or 
firearm to school, or for committing any act of violence.
  The Harkin amendment takes the unprecedented step of telling schools 
across the country that if they want to remove any child from school--
even a nondisabled student--for possessing a weapon, or for committing 
any act of violence, schools must provide the child with ``immediate 
appropriate interventions and services, including mental health 
interventions and services,'' in order to ``maximize the likelihood 
that such child shall not engage in such behaviors, or such behaviors 
do not reoccur.''
  This amendment would overturn the discipline policies of schools 
across the nation, and intrude upon the right of parents, teachers, 
school administrators, school boards, to set their own discipline 
policies regarding weapons and violence in schools. Not only this, but 
it jeopardizes the ability of schools to remove any student from class 
who has a gun or firearm, and prevents them from keeping their schools 
safe.
  The Harkin amendment would also handcuff schools even more than the 
current IDEA law does regarding removal of disabled students who 
possess weapons.
  The Harkin amendment says that a school that takes action to remove a 
child with a weapon from school ``shall ensure that immediate 
appropriate interventions and services, including mental health 
interventions and services,'' are provided to the child. This is a new 
requirement in addition to current IDEA law.
  Current IDEA law requires that a school that removes a child from the 
regular classroom for 45 days for a weapons possession must already 
conduct a series of procedures in connection with the removal. Let me 
describe some of these procedures.
  First, a school must conduct a functional behavioral assessment. 
Second, it must implement or modify a behavioral intervention plan for 
the child. Included in this is the requirement that the IEP team must 
meet to develop or modify an assessment plan to address the behavior at 
issue. Third, the school must conduct a manifestation determination 
review to determine if the child's disability caused the behavior at 
issue.
  The Harkin amendment adds yet another requirement to the list of 
procedures that a school must undertake when removing a child with a 
weapon from the classroom, by requiring that schools ``ensure that 
immediate appropriate intervention and services, including mental 
health interventions and services,'' are provided to the child. Why do 
we need to handcuff schools even more with another procedure?
  Additionally, the amendment says that these additional interventions 
and services must be provided ``in order to maximize the likelihood 
that such child will not engage in such behaviors, or such behaviors do 
not reoccur.'' We are not simply asking the schools to try to reduce 
the likelihood of reoccurring behavior: we are requiring them to 
maximize that likelihood.
  School principals, administrators, teachers, school boards, and 
parents have told me about how difficult the current IDEA makes it to 
discipline students, and especially in the case of guns and firearms.
  Senator Harkin's amendment adds yet another layer of procedure. 
Rather than providing schools with more authority to take actions 
school officials deem appropriate to maintain a safe and secure 
classroom free from guns and firearms, Senator Harkin's amendment is 
going backwards from current law by imposing more federal 
responsibilities.
  The Harkin amendment's attempt to provide funding for the new 
procedures required under the amendment is disingenuous.
  The amendment authorizes ``such sums as may be necessary for each of 
the fiscal years 2000 through 2004'' to pay for the ``interventions and 
services'' that schools must conduct before they can remove a student 
with a gun from school. If the Senator from Iowa and others were 
unwilling to vote for giving schools more IDEA funding during debate on 
the ed-flex bill earlier this session, what makes us think they really 
would provide more funding at this time?
  In conclusion, the Harkin amendment actually makes current law worse 
by imposing a new set of requirements on schools when they need to 
remove any child with a firearm from the classroom. He would require 
schools to provide ``interventions and services'' to non-disabled 
students who are expelled for bringing a gun to school. And, he imposes 
a new requirement upon schools that take action to remove IDEA students 
from school for weapons possession.
  At a time when parents, teachers, school officials, and our children 
are asking for help in keeping our classrooms safe, we cannot afford to 
take a step backward and further handcuff schools from taking steps to 
get guns out of schools. We need to move forward by giving schools more 
authority to get--and keep--firearms out of the classroom. For these 
reasons, I oppose the Harkin amendment.

[[Page 10405]]


  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Harkin in his 
amendment to reduce juvenile crime by helping schools to maintain safe 
environments while ensuring that troubled students get the help they 
need.
  Students who bring guns or other dangerous weapons to school should 
be removed. But they should also be provided with the appropriate 
interventions and services.
  This amendment clearly supports the removal of a child from school 
who carries or possesses a weapon, including a child with a disability.
  This amendment clearly supports an agency reporting a crime committed 
by a child, including a child with a disability, to the appropriate 
authorities.
  This amendment clearly supports law enforcement and judicial 
authorities in exercising their responsibilities with regard to crimes 
committed by a child, including a child with a disability.
  But this amendment, unlike the Frist-Ashcroft amendment, will ensure 
that immediate, appropriate interventions, including mental health 
services, are provided to a troubled child.
  We know that when educational services for students are stopped, 
those students show increased drop out rates, increased drug abuse, and 
increased rates of juvenile crime and incarceration.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of the Harkin-Kennedy 
amendment. It will help to ensure that our schools remain conducive to 
learning and our communities remain safe.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, four weeks ago, an unspeakable act of 
violence occurred at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado when 
12 innocent students, a heroic teacher and the two student gunmen were 
killed. This incident was the 8th deadly school shooting in 39 months.
  The tragedy at Columbine High School is still very fresh in our minds 
and our hearts. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the people of 
Littleton, Colorado.
  The students of Columbine have returned to classes in a neighboring 
school. They have taken an important first step in the healing process. 
Unfortunately, the scars of this tragedy will remain with them, their 
families, the Littleton community and the nation for a long time to 
come.
  In the aftermath of this most recent school shooting, we must examine 
the causes of the outbreak of violence and work on initiatives that 
will prevent such occurrences in the future.
  During the course of the debate on the pending legislation, Juvenile 
Justice Bill we have already discussed many of the issues related to 
violence. We must examine the impact that movies, music, television and 
video games have on outbreaks of violence. We must also curtail the 
easy access to guns that enable individuals to commit such acts of 
violence.
  We must also talk about how we can prevent such heinous acts from 
happening again. I would like to take a few moments to discuss one 
innovative program that can help us prevent violent acts from happening 
in the first place.
  Two weeks ago, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
Committee, of which I am a member, held a hearing on the important 
topic of school safety. We heard testimony from many experts about the 
extent of the problem and began an important search for solutions so 
that it will never, ever happen again.
  One of the witnesses was Jan Kuhl, the Director of Guidance and 
Counseling for the Des Moines School District. Jan talked about an 
innovative elementary school counseling program called Smoother Sailing 
and the impact the program has had on students in the Des Moines 
schools.
  Smoother Sailing operates on a simple premise--get to kids early to 
prevent problems rather than waiting for a crisis. As a result, the 
district more than tripled the number of elementary school counselors 
to make sure that at least one well-trained professional is available 
in every single elementary school building.
  Smoother Sailing began in 1988 as a pilot program in 10 elementary 
schools. The program increased the number of counselors in the 
elementary schools so there is one counselor for every 250 students--
the ratio recommended for an effective program. The participating 
schools began seeing many positive changes.
  After two years, the schools participating in Smoother Sailing saw a 
dramatic reduction in the number of students referred to the office for 
disciplinary reasons.
  During the 1987-88 school year, 157 students were referred to the 
office for disciplinary action. After two years of Smoother Sailing, 
the number of office referrals in those schools dropped to 83--a 47% 
reduction in office referrals.
  During the same period, Des Moines elementary schools with a 
traditional crisis intervention counseling program had only a 21% 
reduction in office referrals.
  There were other changes as well. Teachers in Smoother Sailing 
schools reported fewer classroom disturbances and principals noticed 
fewer fights in the cafeteria and on the playground. The schools and 
classrooms had become more disciplined learning environments. It was 
clear that Smoother Sailing was making a difference so the counseling 
program was then expanded to all 42 elementary schools in Des Moines in 
1990.
  Smoother Sailing continues to be a success.
  Smoother Sailing helps students solve problems in a positive manner. 
Assessments of 4th and 5th grade students show that students can 
generate more than one solution to a problem. Further, the types of 
solutions were positive and proactive. We know that the ability to 
effectively solve problems is essential for helping students make the 
right decisions when confronted with violence or drugs.
  Smoother Sailing gets high marks in surveys of administrators, 
teachers and parents. They report a high degree of satisfaction with 
the program.
  95% of parents surveyed said the counselor is a valuable part of my 
child's educational development. 93% said they would seek assistance 
from the counselor if the child was experiencing difficulties at 
school.
  Administrators credit Smoother Sailing with decreasing the number of 
students suspensions and referrals to the office for disciplinary 
action. In addition, principals report that the program is responsible 
for creating an atmosphere that is conducive to learning.
  Experts tell us that to be effective, there should be at least one 
counselor for every 250 students. Unfortunately, the current student-
counselor ratio is more than double the recommended level--it is 531:1. 
That means counselors are stretched to the limit and cannot devote the 
kind of attention to children that is needed.
  In most schools, the majority of counselors are employed at the 
middle and secondary levels. Therefore, the situation is more acute in 
elementary schools where the student to counselor ratio is greater than 
1000:1. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this table be inserted 
in the Record at this point.
  Smoother Sailing was the model for the Elementary School Counseling 
Demonstration Act, a section of the Elementary and Secondary School 
Act.
  It reauthorizes the program and authorizes $15 million to establish 
more effective elementary school programs.
  The amendment I am offering with Senators Lincoln and Wellstone is 
supported by several organizations--the American Counseling 
Association, the American School Counseling Association, the American 
Psychological Association the National Association of School 
Psychologists, the School of Social Work Association of America and the 
National Association of Social Workers.
  Mr. President, CNN and USA Today recently conducted a public opinion 
poll of Americans. They asked what would make a difference in 
preventing a future outbreak of violence similar to those that have 
occurred over the past 39 months.
  The leading response was to restrict access to firearms. The second 
most popular response--a response selected by 60% of those polled--was 
to increase the number of counselors in our nation's schools.
  We should heed the advice of the American people. We have a desperate 
need to improve counseling services in

[[Page 10406]]

our nation's schools. Our amendment is an important first step in 
addressing this critical issue and I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent a table of U.S. counselor-to-students ratios 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                    U.S. COUNSELOR-TO-STUDENT RATIOS
                   [Maximum recommended ratio (250:1)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Number of--         Counselor-
           U.S. States            --------------------------  to-student
                                     Students    Counselors   ratio \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..........................      780,999        1,688        463:1
Alaska...........................      136,196          231        590:1
Arizona..........................      864,226        1,046        826:1
Arkansas.........................      482,590        1,213        398:1
California.......................    6,157,320        5,208      1,182:1
Colorado.........................      723,591        1,121        645:1
Connecticut......................      569,268        1,123        507:1
Delaware.........................      126,870          221        574:1
District of Columbia.............       74,395          225        331:1
Florida..........................    2,455,079        4,855        506:1
Georgia..........................    1,398,787        2,472        566:1
Hawaii...........................      213,404          544        392:1
Idaho............................      256,946          558        460:1
Illinois.........................    2,240,199        2,838        789:1
Indiana..........................    1,083,851        1,735        625:1
Iowa.............................      539,413        1,332        405:1
Kansas...........................      505,870        1,097        461:1
Kentucky.........................      706,820        1,272        556:1
Louisiana........................      888,620        2,703        329:1
Maine............................      227,590          593        384:1
Maryland.........................      911,929        1,825        500:1
Massachusetts....................    1,033,899        2,125        487:1
Michigan.........................    1,849,721        2,943        629:1
Minnesota........................      925,347          915      1,011:1
Mississippi......................      551,418          869        635:1
Missouri.........................    1,025,704        2,410        426:1
Montana..........................      175,563          411        427:1
Nebraska.........................      327,982          757        433:1
Nevada...........................      293,979          560        525:1
New Hampshire....................      219,006          656        334:1
New Jersey.......................    1,408,761        3,231        436:1
New Mexico.......................      362,001          650        557:1
New York.........................    3,211,827        5,467        587:1
North Carolina...................    1,316,796        3,025        435:1
North Dakota.....................      125,666          263        478:1
Ohio.............................    2,082,841        3,247        641:1
Oklahoma.........................      647,533        1,730        374:1
Oregon...........................      591,539        1,268        467:1
Pennsylvania.....................    2,117,697        3,707        571:1
Rhode Island.....................      170,732          307        556:1
South Carolina...................      692,743        1,546        448:1
South Dakota.....................      150,243          345        435:1
Tennessee........................      953,463        1,525        625:1
Texas............................    3,879,363        8,359        464:1
Utah.............................      490,706          594        826:1
Vermont..........................      110,228          352        313:1
Virginia.........................    1,172,672        3,202        366:1
Washington.......................    1,047,132        1,804        580:1
West Virginia....................      313,685          604        519:1
Wisconsin........................    1,004,584        1,884        533:1
Wyoming..........................      101,652          285        357:1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculated ratio is based on 1996 data, counting guidance counselors
  as full-time equivalents. Produced by the American Counseling
  Association, Office of Public Policy and Information, 5999 Stevenson
  Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22304, Phone 703-823-3800.
 
Source: ``Digest of Education Statistics 1998'' U.S. Dept. of Education.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendment on 
this side.
  Mr. LEAHY. We accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous agreement, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 368) was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 345, As Modified

    (Purpose: To establish a commission to study the motion picture 
  industry and make recommendations to Congress and the President to 
   promote accountability in the motion picture industry in order to 
   reduce juvenile access to violent, pornographic, or other harmful 
                      material in motion pictures)

  Mr. BOND. I send a modified amendment to the desk on behalf of myself 
and Senator Domenici, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself and Mr. 
     Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 345, as modified.

  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 345), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. COMMISSION ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE MOTION PICTURE 
                   INDUSTRY.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Motion 
     Picture Industry Accountability Act''.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to establish a 
     commission to study the motion picture industry and make 
     recommendations to Congress and the President to promote 
     accountability in the motion picture industry in order to 
     reduce juvenile access to violent, pornographic, or other 
     harmful material in motion pictures.
       (c) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the ``Motion Picture Industry Accountability 
     Commission'' (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Commission'').
       (d) Composition.--
       (1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 12 
     members appointed as follows:
       (A) Four members shall be appointed by the President.
       (B) Four members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (C) Four members shall be appointed by the Majority Leader 
     of the Senate.
       (2) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Commission shall 
     be jointly designated by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and the Majority Leader of the Senate from 
     among the members of the Commission.
       (3) Qualifications.--At least one member of the Commission 
     appointed by each of the President, the Speaker of the House 
     of Representatives, and the Majority Leader of the Senate 
     shall be the parent of a child under the age of 18 years.
       (e) Comprehensive Review.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a 
     comprehensive review of the motion picture industry with a 
     focus on juvenile access to violent, pornographic, or other 
     harmful materials in motion pictures.
       (2) Assessment.--In conducting the review, the Commission 
     shall assess the following:
       (A) How the Federal Government and State and local 
     governments, through their taxing power or otherwise, 
     subsidize, facilitate, or otherwise reduce the cost to the 
     motion picture industry of producing violent, pornographic, 
     or other harmful materials, and any changes that might 
     curtail such assistance.
       (B) How the motion picture industry markets its products to 
     children and how such marketing can be regulated.
       (C) What standard of civil and criminal liability currently 
     exist for the products of the motion picture industry and 
     what standards would be sufficient to permit victims of such 
     products to seek legal redress against the producers of such 
     products in cases where the content of such products causes, 
     exacerbates, or otherwise influences destructive behavior.
       (D) Whether Federal regulation of the content of motion 
     pictures is appropriate.
       (E) What other actions the Federal Government might take to 
     reduce the quantity of and access to motion pictures 
     containing violent, pornographic, or other harmful materials.
       (f) Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the 
     President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and 
     the Majority Leader of the Senate a report on the review 
     conducted under subsection (e).
       (2) Recommendations.--The report may include 
     recommendations of the Commission only if approved by a 
     majority of the members of the Commission.
       (g) Powers.--The Commission may for the purpose of carrying 
     out this section--
       (1) conduct hearings, take testimony, issue subpoenas as 
     provided in subsection (h), and receive such evidence, as the 
     Commission considers appropriate;
       (2) secure directly from any department or agency of the 
     Federal Government such information as may be necessary for 
     the Commission to carry out the duties of the Commission 
     under this section;
       (3) use the United States mails in the same manner and 
     under the same conditions as the departments and agencies of 
     the Federal Government; and
       (4) receive from the Secretary of Commerce appropriate 
     office space and such administrative and support services as 
     the Commission may request.
       (h) Subpoenas.--
       (1) In general.--If a person fails to supply information 
     requested by the Commission, the Commission may by majority 
     vote require by subpoena the production of any written or 
     recorded information, document, report, answer, record, 
     account, paper, computer file, or other data or documentary 
     evidence necessary to carry out its duties under this 
     section. The Commission shall transmit to the Attorney 
     General a confidential, written notice at least 10 days in 
     advance of the issuance of any such subpoena. A subpoena 
     under this paragraph may require the production of materials 
     from any place within the United States.
       (2) Interrogatories.--The Commission may, with respect only 
     to information necessary to understand any materials obtained 
     through a subpoena under paragraph (1), issue a subpoena 
     requiring the person producing such materials to answer, 
     either through a sworn deposition or through written answers 
     provided under oath (at the election of the person upon whom 
     the subpoena is served), to interrogatories from the 
     Commission regarding such information. A complete recording 
     or transcription shall be made of any deposition made under 
     this paragraph.
       (3) Certification.--Each person who submits materials or 
     information to the Commission pursuant to a subpoena issued 
     under paragraph (1) or (2) shall certify to the Commission 
     the authenticity and completeness of all materials or 
     information submitted. The provisions of section 1001 of 
     title 18, United States Code, shall apply to any false 
     statements made with respect to the certification required 
     under this paragraph.
       (4) Treatment of subpoenas.--Any subpoena issued by the 
     Commission under paragraph (1) or (2) shall comply with the 
     requirements for subpoenas issued by a United

[[Page 10407]]

     States district court under the Federal Rules of Civil 
     Procedure.
       (5) Failure to obey a subpoena.--If a person refuses to 
     obey a subpoena issued by the Commission under paragraph (1) 
     or (2), the Commission may apply to a United States district 
     court for an order requiring that person to comply with such 
     subpoena. The application may be made within the judicial 
     district in which that person is found, resides, or transacts 
     business. Any failure to obey the order of the court may be 
     punished by the court as civil contempt.
       (i) Procedures.--The Commission shall meet on a regular 
     basis or at the call of the Chairperson or a majority of the 
     members of the Commission.
       (j) Personnel Matters.--The members of the Commission shall 
     serve on the Commission without compensation, but shall be 
     allowed travel expenses including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, as authorized by section 5702 of title 5, United 
     States Code, when engaged in the performance of the duties of 
     the Commission.
       (k) Staff.--The Commission shall appoint a staff director 
     and sufficient support staff, including clerical and 
     professional staff, to carry out the duties of the Commission 
     under this section. The total number of staff under this 
     subsection may not exceed 10.
       (l) Detailed Personnel.--At the request of the Chairperson 
     of the Commission, the head of any department or agency of 
     the Federal Government may detail, without reimbursement, any 
     personnel of the department or agency to the Commission to 
     assist the Commission in carrying out the duties of the 
     Commission under this section.
       (m) Funding.--
       (1) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $1,000,000 to carry out this section.
       (2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations in paragraph (1) shall remain 
     available until expended.
       (n) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate 60 days 
     after the date on which the Commission submits the reports 
     required by subsection (f).

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, we have heard a lot about gun shows, pawn 
shops, and ammo clips these past few days. We have been told that if we 
just tweak the law a little here, or add another provision making 
something else illegal that somehow people who gun down others in cold 
blood won't do it anymore.
  It's as if wishing would make it so.
  Thirty years ago we had very few gun laws, and surprisingly, no high 
school shooting sprees to document every few days, every few weeks, or 
every few months.
  But thirty years ago we also had stricter discipline in schools, no 
school officials worried about lawsuits if they expelled a violent 
child, and parents who also exerted more control.
  Now we have a new gun law a year. We have school officials who fear 
lawsuits, and federal law which seems designed to keep violent kids in 
classrooms, rather than removed--although I hope the Frist-Ashcroft 
amendment will make some improvements. And we have an industry--in the 
name of entertainment--that produces violence and violent pornography 
at such a pace that no one has any idea of the breadth and width of 
exposure our kids now have to it.
  Movies, television, videos, music, computer games. Killing, maiming, 
and destruction--all in the name of entertainment.
  Why is anyone surprised in this new topsey-turvy world, that some 
students plan mass murders rather than planning their graduation party.
  Today I thought it time to inject a little dose of reality into these 
proceedings, and get us started down a road which I believe needs to be 
explored. My amendment empanels an independent commission to study the 
motion picture industry--from top to bottom--to see if the federal 
government is subsidizing, facilitating or otherwise encouraging the 
production of violent, or pornographic materials. And if so, to make 
recommendations to Congress and the President to promote accountability 
in the motion picture industry in order to reduce juvenile access to 
violent, pornographic, or other harmful material in motion pictures. 
Simply put, we want to discourage, not encourage access to these 
materials.
  At the outset, let's make it clear that a great deal of what kids see 
on the big screen is not harmful and it is done by talented people who 
are just as concerned about our young people as anyone else. However, 
there are hundreds, if not thousands of releases each year that have 
profound effects on teens who see them.
  Let us be very clear about one other thing before we continue, 
because we have head a lot about the gun industry and their so-called 
political power.
  Mr. President, they don't hold a candle to the movie industry. 
Hollywood has the money, the glamour, the lifestyle of the rich and 
famous. They have Beverly Hills, they generate publicity for a living, 
and they have access to the Lincoln Bedroom. In fact, the NRA actually 
brought in a famous actor in order to have some hope of getting a fair 
hearing for its position.
  But the most disturbing, and least discussed these past few days, is 
exactly who it is in this country that has glamourized guns and 
violence. It is certainly not everyone's favorite bogeyman the NRA. It 
is not the biathletes who compete in the Olympics. Quite simply, it is 
the entertainment industry. Guns, gore, and violence, targeted not at 
soccer moms--but to their sons.
  And worse yet, it is not just gun use, but gun misuse which is 
glorified. Gun-toting murders as heros, out to right some perceived 
wrong. Who even knew what an Uzi or Tech 9 was until they saw it in 
some show?
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a May 11, 1999, 
article by Michael Atkinson entitled ``The Movies Made Me Do It.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [The Village Voice, May 11, 1999]

                        The Movies Made Me Do It

                         (By Michael Atkinson)

       On March 5, 1995, Sara Edmondson, the 18-year-old scion of 
     one of Oklahoma's most prominent political clans, holed up 
     with her 17-year-old boyfriend Ben Darras in her family's 
     cabin with a video Copy of Natural Born Killers, a Smith & 
     Wesson .38, and a reported 17 tabs of acid. It's clear 
     neither how many times they watched the film nor what the 
     timetable had been for dropping all that dope, but, over the 
     next two days, the teenagers road-tripped south, first 
     shooting Hernando, Louisiana, cotton-gin manager Bill Savage, 
     and then, the following day, convenience-store clerk Patsy 
     Byers. Initially they had intended to go to a Grateful Dead 
     concert in Memphis, but got the date wrong. Edmondson got 35 
     years; Darras got life.
       Savage was DOA, and his hometown friend John Grisham raised 
     a public stink over the Oliver Stone film, threatening to sue 
     for product liability but never filing. Luckless, Byers was 
     left a quadriplegic and later died of cancer, but her 
     family's lawyer has filed a civil suit against Edmondson, 
     Darras, Edmondson's parents, Stone, and Time Warner, 
     maintaining that the film's creators ``knew. . . . or should 
     have known'' that violence would result from its being shown. 
     In March, after bouncing around Louisiana courts, the case 
     went to the Supreme Court and was seen as good to go.
       Here comes the flood. This April, the families of three 
     Kentucky girls left dead after the prayer-group shooting 
     spree of 14-year-old Michael Carneal in 1997 have filed a 
     $130 million lawsuit against no fewer than 25 parties, 
     including five film companies involved with the film The 
     Basketball Diaries; a single scene allegedly incited Carneal 
     to action. The dream sequence, of Leonardo DiCaprio gunning 
     down his classmates, should be immediately familiar to even 
     those who haven't bothered seeing the film, thanks to the 
     news coverage of the Littleton rampage. Littleton itself is 
     destined to become the nation's mother lode of hydra-headed 
     copycat--crime civil suits directed at the manufacturers of 
     pop culture, just as the Klebold-Harris scenario immediately 
     became something to mimic in high schools from coast to 
     coast. Copycat crimes have attained front-burner notoriety, 
     and some day soon Hollywood's liberty will be pitted against 
     the perceived welfare of America children.
       It's an old but neglected dynamic, and wherever you stand 
     on the issue, itemizing the carnage attributed to the 
     influence of movies is chilling business. After The Birth of 
     a Nation hit big in 1915, the KKK enjoyed a huge resurgence 
     and lynching stats shot up. James Cagney's psycho gangster in 
     White Heat (1949) was blamed for inspiring Brit Chris Craig's 
     1952 shooting of a policeman. A clockwork Orange's 1971 
     release was followed by several rapes in England accompanied 
     by the rapists' renditions of ``Singin' in the Rain,'' after 
     which Stanley Kubrick permanently removed the film from 
     British circulation. Magnum Force's murder-by-Drano was 
     reenacted in Utah, The Deer Hunter precipitated a rash of 
     fatal Russian roulette duels, a fierce love of First Blood 
     sent a deranged Englishman named Michael Ryan tearing through 
     his village commando-style, killing randomly. Taxi Driver 
     spoke to John Hinckley; RoboCop gave ideas to two separate 
     killers, each of whom admitted that their evisceration 
     methods were adopted from the film. Just days after its 
     premiere,

[[Page 10408]]

     Money Train, itself based in part on real incidents, inspired 
     token-booth thieves to incinerate the clerk inside. High 
     school footballers were maimed and killed lying down on busy 
     highways after viewing The Program. Child's Play and it first 
     two straight-to-tape sequels hold the record for the sheer 
     number of dead: besides two-year-old Jamie Bulger, stoned to 
     death by a pair of 10-year-old Chucky fans in Liverpool, and 
     16-year-old Suzanne Capper, burned alive in Manchester by 
     Chucky fans who played lines of the movies' dialogue to here 
     as she was being tortured, there is the dizzying slaughter of 
     35 Tasmainian vacationers by Martin Bryant, a mental patient 
     ``obsessed'' with Chucky.
       But for sheer inspirational force, and the highest number 
     of captured impulse killers who have directly credited the 
     film Natural Born Killers might be the one plus ultra of 
     copycat-killing source material. Besides the Edmondson-Darras 
     road trip, there have been killings in Utah, Georgia, 
     Massachusetts, and Texas (where a 14-year-old boy decapitated 
     a 13-year-old girl), all involving children who afterward 
     quoted the film to firends and authorities. In Paris, a pair 
     of young lovers, Florence Rey and Audry Maupin, led the 
     police on a chase that killed five; supposedly, Rey said, 
     ``It's fate,'' a la Woody Harrelson's character Mickey, when 
     caught. Another pair of Parisians, Veronique Herbert and her 
     boyfriend Sebastien Paindavoine, lured a 16-year-old to his 
     stabbing death with promises of sex; a scene right out of 
     Stone's film. Herbert has even named the Stone film in ther 
     defense
       There are scores of other examples--even Beavis and Butt-
     head has its ghosts, innocent bystanders killed by child-lit 
     fires or child-tossed bowling balls. Hunt-and-kill computer 
     games, which provide ersatz combat training, have also been 
     cited in the Carneal suit. Of course, in each case, the 
     precise psychological role media played is never clear--nor 
     can it be, until we can map a brain like a computer hard 
     drive. In fact, some of what the press has reported about the 
     similarities between particular murders and particular films 
     is flat-out wrong--scores of scenes that never occurred in 
     Child's Play 2 were said to have been reenacted in the Bulger 
     murder. Still, when a Georgia teen yells out ``I'm a natural 
     born killer!'' to news cameras after being arrested for 
     killing an elderly man, the tie-in is hard to ignore.
       Legally, it may be impossible to prove intent on behalf of 
     a filmmaker or a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt cause-and-effect 
     affiliation between specific movies and specific violence. 
     How do you account for the millions of unaffected consumers? 
     What's equally at issue is the common cultural presupposition 
     that the entertainment media bear no culpability for those 
     who wreak havoc in imitation of it. Movies are movies, 
     homicidal nuts are homicidal nuts, the crimes would occur 
     with or without a movie's sensationalized prodding. So the 
     wisdom goes. But is our relationship with movies so simple, 
     or is there in fact something deeper, darker, going on? Could 
     it be that visual media aren't merely a harmless, ephemeral 
     diversion from reality, but a powerful factor in that reality 
     bearing consequences we haven't foreseen?
       Since most of the incidents we're aware of have children at 
     their centers, this may prove to be true. According to 
     University of Michigan professor L. Rowell Huesmann, an 
     expert researcher on the relationship between violent media 
     and violent behavior, ``It's been well established that media 
     violence makes kids behave more aggressively. Of course, 
     there's no scientific way to evaluate how media violence may 
     have or many have not caused real violence, but there's 
     definitely a relationship, a ``priming'' or ``curing'' of 
     behavior for certain individuals. The reasons are well 
     understood in psychology: even as toddlers, if we see other 
     kids push and hit to get what they want, we imitate it, we 
     begin to learn scripts for that behavior. In addition, there 
     have been studies: you show images of gore to young children, 
     they have a universally negative reaction: their heartbeat 
     goes up, their palms sweat, and so on. You show it to them 
     again and again, and those indications go away. They adapt, 
     they become desensitized.''
       Dr. Carole Lieberman, a Beverly Hills-based ``media 
     psychiatrist,'' blames parental patterns of consumerism. 
     ``There's no question that parents see it happen. The Ninja 
     Turtles were a significant sign: everyone could see how 
     specific violent behaviors were derived directly from that 
     show. But they still buy the kids the computer, the violent 
     CD games. It's cognitive dissonance--they know, but they 
     don't want their kids to be left out, to be unarmed.''
       It seems the entertainment complex knows, too: Last week, 
     MGM announced they'd like to recall every copy of The 
     Basketball Diaries from store shelves but can't thanks to a 
     prohibitive rights agreement that lasts until June 30. Even 
     within the Hollywood chambers, the cattle can get spooked: 
     Money Train scriptwriter Doug Richardson was voted down for 
     membership in the Academy thanks to the subway-booth 
     torching. ``Nobody would say it was because of that 
     incident,'' Richardson says, ``but no one would deny it. So, 
     as a writer, am I supposed to wonder if what I'm doing is 
     drama or pornography? Science is going to have to get in up 
     to its elbows in this, I think. It's a very complicated 
     issue, and doesn't deserve sound-bite answers. Especially 
     since there's so much suffering.
       And the suffering, not of Hollywood filmmakers told they 
     shouldn't make ultraviolent movies but of families with 
     murdered children, may be what the debate should be about. 
     ``We could make a great step forward by simply restricting 
     the amount of violence to which children are exposed,'' 
     Huesmann says. ``That's no great constitutional dilemma. I 
     wouldn't be surprised if at this point Oliver Stone came 
     forth and said, `Yes, the film obviously affects some people 
     in a certain way,' and if he did, that would be a significant 
     first step.'' (Oliver Stone declined to comment.)
       ``Every study indicates a relationship,'' Huesmann 
     concludes. ``Here's a not greatly known fact: that the 
     statistical correlation between childhood exposure to 
     violence in media and aggressive behavior is about the same 
     as that between smoking and lung cancer.''

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it outlines ``copycat'' acts of violence who 
fashion their criminal actions--murder and rape--off brilliant ``how 
to'' works of theater such as ``Natural Born Killers'' and ``Basketball 
Diaries.''
  We know that merchants of violence profit handsomely from some 
products which hurt our children and cost our society. Who for a second 
believes that the 40,000 murders that our children witness on the TV 
screen during their childhoods does not have some terrible numbing 
effect. We can't stop Hollywood from producing the insanity, but we can 
attempt to discourage it and to help them share in the burden that 
their ``profiteering at any cost'' imposes on society.
  Now I don't believe we need any more studies outlining the numbing 
effects that movie and television violence have on our children. What 
we need to know is--are the American taxpayers subsidizing this numbing 
down of American youth? And if so, what can and should we do about it?
  That is why our Commission looks to people who are independent of the 
power and influence of the motion picture industry.
  Clearly, advertising is directed at attracting all audiences 
including our young. These wealthy and talented industry people have a 
right to produce this material but we should not extend them every 
courtesy when it comes to polluting the minds of our young. There is 
always parental responsibility, but that does not excuse others from 
acting responsibly as well.
  Does it, or does it not, take a village to raise a child? Last I 
looked, Hollywood is part of our village. So where is the 
responsibility of those who produce the harmful material?
  Though the power of the motion picture industry is great, we should 
take a turn listening to parents instead of actors and show leadership 
instead of cowardice. Some may object on behalf of the wealthy 
merchants of carnage and smut saying they have a constitutional right 
to pollute the minds of our children and have no responsibility as an 
artist or producer to use their power to try and help our nation's 
parents. But I think they are wrong. Short-sighted and wrong.
  Thus if we adopt the Bond-Domenici amendment, we will be saying it is 
time that parents, and grandparents--not just Hollywood moguls--will 
have an opportunity to participate in the debate on how best to protect 
our children. And if this notion offends the Hollywood crowd and their 
ubiquitous presence in Washington--so be it. We should make quite 
certain that the public is not contributing or facilitating the 
production of this sort of material and not facilitating its marketing 
to our young people. Of, that if we are, people understand it and 
decide it is good use of national resources.
  Now there are other thoughtful amendments to this underlying bill 
which call on Clinton Administration agencies to study advertising or 
anti-trust provisions. My amendment is designed to get the best minds 
outside of the Clinton Administration and Hollywood--and if you have 
any serious questions why, I think this past weekend's multi-million 
fund-raising trip to Beverly Hills answers those immediately.
  It is with a great sense of frustration that I come to you and that 
is because

[[Page 10409]]

I am tired of telling parents that there is nothing we can do to help 
shield their kids beyond relying on the good will and tender mercies of 
the same ones making blood money off the trash.
  If the government can't do anything about it at this time, I think it 
is worth letting someone on the outside see if it is possible to bring 
some discipline and responsibility to those who are producing and 
marketing the insanity. As you all know, not everyone in the film 
industry is proud of what their colleagues produce for the public. I 
have no intention of painting with a broad brush, but the ones without 
discipline--the ones that don't care about our children, should not be 
shielded from scrutiny just because they may be some of the best people 
to invite to parties, vacations and fund-raisers.
  The Commission is proposed to be made up of 12 members appointed by 
the President, the Majority Leader and the Speaker and review the 
following:
  (1) How the government, through the tax code or otherwise, 
subsidizes, facilitates or otherwise reduces the cost of the production 
of violent, pornographic, or harmful materials and changes necessary to 
curtail such assistance;
  (2) How the movie industry markets to children and how such marketing 
can be regulated;
  (3) What standard of civil and criminal liability currently exists 
and what standard is sufficient to allow victims to seek legal redress 
against motion picture productions in cases where content leads to 
destructive behavior;
  (4) Whether federal regulation of content is appropriate;
  (5) What other federal action might be taken to reduce the quantity 
of and juvenile access to movies containing violent, pornographic, or 
harmful materials.
  The amendment requires that a majority report be made within a year 
of enactment and requires that a minimum number of parents be appointed 
to the commission. Further, it authorizes a budget for professional 
staff to assist on these very complex issues.
  This would be a powerful commission with a broad mandate that could 
recommend that we make merchants of death liable for their work, that 
we make the polluter pay; or outline ways to discourage advertising to 
our children. We may not enact their recommendations but I think it is 
time we hear the truth from parents--parents without connections to 
Hollywood.
  It is a balanced commission and the President will get his 
opportunity to make appointments. He must appoint a parent of a child 
but he can also appoint a first amendment absolutist and he can appoint 
Oliver Stone to the commission if he so desires.
  I know Members on both sides of the aisle share my frustration. They 
too have had parents tell them that each year it gets harder and harder 
to keep the violent images out of their kids lives. Not only movies and 
videos, but television, CDs, video games, radio, and even print ads.
  The images are starker, the violence more pronounced, the mayhem more 
graphic. No parent can keep it all out because it comes from 
everywhere. What I am saying here today is that it is time to start 
holding people responsible for their choices, and that at a minimum, we 
should know if the parents of America are paying taxes to subsidize the 
filth they then try to keep out of their homes.
  The Bond-Domenici amendment is the right thing to do.
  Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I might not even take that long.
  I want to compliment the Senator from Missouri for his proposal and 
just speak a little bit about a word that is on a lot of people's minds 
these days. In fact, many people are saying: Boy, it sure would be 
great if we could get responsibility back into our schools so our 
children could learn what responsibility means.
  I think it would be great if we could get the entertainment industry 
to show a little responsibility. Some responsibility from those who 
make films and produce TV shows, produce advertisements, produce many 
of the vile computer games our young people are using so they become 
excellent sharpshooters, excellent killers. In fact, some of these 
computer games have made our children proficient at shooting people 
right through the head, one after another, because they learned it on 
the computer game.
  Everyone seems to be saying that our children need to learn greater 
responsibility. Actually, Hollywood and those who produce television 
shows and movies, they are the ones in need of a new sense of 
responsibility. I do not know any way, under our Constitution, to stop 
what is happening. I do not know if I would be wise enough to figure it 
out. But I tell you, the adults who are in the entertainment industry 
have to, sooner or later, look at themselves and say: What is our 
responsibility to the young people of this country?
  Right now it seems there is none, other than to make money. If the 
adults in the entertainment industry continue to refuse to produce 
films that are good for our young people, even if it is more difficult 
to sell them, if they refuse to go out and get innovative people to 
write the kinds of things that are salutary and healthy and helpful, 
then I believe they are irresponsible. I believe they need a lesson in 
responsibility. Instead, they hide admirably behind the Constitution.
  I believe, if our forefathers who put the First Amendment in the 
Constitution, the freedom of speech that the entertainment industry 
hides behind, could see what they produce, what they feed to our young 
people, what they feed to our society under the alleged protection of 
that Amendment, I believe they would reconsider and try to figure some 
way to make sure we had a bit more responsibility built into this 
aspect of the American free enterprise system.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have to oppose this $1 million study of 
``how the Federal Government and State and local governments, through 
their taxing power or otherwise'' helps support or subsidize the cost 
of producing ``violent, pornographic or other harmful materials.'' Even 
though this is just a study, I have serious concerns about researching 
the need for more taxing power.
  Second, the juvenile crime bill already contains a package of 
amendments regarding the study of the motion picture industry. Third, 
the causes of teen violence are complex and difficult to handle with 
tax policy. Fourth, the amendment provides broad subpoena powers.
  I appreciate that Senator Bond modified his amendment by taking out 
the study of how another tax, an excise tax, might be structured for 
``violent, pornographic, or other harmful motion picture materials.'' 
What is considered harmful in Tulsa, may not be considered harmful in 
Niagara Falls, or Boise, or Key West. But in terms of the ``power to 
tax'' language still in the amendment it is not clear if the Federal 
Government, or towns or states, would tell movie producers what content 
they considered ``harmful'' or ``violent.'' Thus while the ``excise 
tax'' language was just taken out the study of the ``power to tax'' is 
still in the amendment. And that raises a lot of issues.
  If this power to tax authority were used what would that mean? It is 
not at all clear how that would work. I do not see why we should spend 
$1 million to study the ``power to tax.'' There were major fights years 
ago about whether to censor the line in ``Gone with the Wind''--
``Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.'' In many towns, that line 
could have been taxed under a ``power to tax'' if they had it then. 
Now, that line caused enormous numbers of debates and editorials. I 
suspect that could have gotten a whopping tax back then. Or Clark Gable 
could have just said: ``Frankly, my dear, I am really annoyed.''
  How would a new ``power to tax'' given to local, state or the Federal 
government work? The earlier ``excise tax'' idea that was recently 
dropped

[[Page 10410]]

raised lots of questions also. I do not know what editing of movies 
local governments might have ended up doing.
  Concerning the excise tax language, now dropped, I wondered would the 
local or the Federal government have imposed the tax before the movie 
was produced, after the movie was produced, or during the editing of 
the movie? Or, would the States or the Federal Government have told the 
producers ahead of time how much they would tax them on each scene? If 
they were to do it that way, could they take some scenes out or pay the 
extra tax, like a gas-guzzler tax? I understand there are a lot of 
violent battle scenes in the new Star Wars movie. That would have had a 
pretty big gross to tax. Fortunately, the ``excise tax'' language was 
taken out by the sponsor of the amendment, but the ``power to tax'' 
language remains.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the ranking member for 
yielding. I hope he will stay on the floor just a moment because I 
wanted to ask him something. In this amendment, on page 4, is something 
that completely astounds me. This commission is going to look at 
whether the regulation of the content of motion pictures is 
appropriate.
  Federal regulation--is this the Soviet Union? What are we doing? I 
ask my friend if this disturbs him that we would be considering the 
Federal Government regulating the content of motion pictures.
  Mr. LEAHY. I say to my friend from California, what I also worry 
about is how you determine what it is. I heard one Senator on the floor 
speak of having more wholesome movies. I am all for that. There are a 
lot of movies that I consider absolutely classic. I like the ``Quiet 
Man'' with John Wayne. It was filmed near the part of Ireland from 
where my father's family came. But there is violence, fighting, 
drunkenness a little bit here and there. What do you determine it is? 
Does the market carry that? There are a lot of wholesome films that 
make it.
  I see some things that might be considered wholesome. One very 
popular with children are Teletubbies, but yet we heard one leading 
conservative religious leader say that it should be taken off the air 
because he objected to one of the Teletubbies.
  Maybe we have Teletubbies on one side and televangelists on the 
other. Somebody suggested in one cartoon: Teletubby Tinky Winky; 
Televangelist Dopey Wopey. But that is what I read in the paper.
  Do we take that off or tax it? Maybe after the $1 million this 
amendment refers to we might have a better idea. I am not too sure I 
want even my own communities to determine what tax they will impose and 
the Federal Government determine what tax they will impose and then 
have censor boards all over the place determining this one we will tax 
a little itty-bitty, and this one we will tax biggie bitty-bit.
  I point out, we do already have in the juvenile justice bill a 
package of amendments regarding the study of the motion picture 
industry, so that is going to be done anyway.
  Mrs. BOXER. I point out to my friend, who is such an advocate of the 
Constitution, that this is the third one. We have investigation mania 
going on here. This is the third investigation of the entertainment 
industry that is going to be voted on in this Senate; the third 
investigation. Fortunately, on the first one, we expanded it to include 
the gun industry. So there is one investigation of the gun industry and 
how it peddles its products to kids, and then there are three 
investigations of the entertainment industry. But this is the very 
first one where it says in this bill--and I say to my friends, read it. 
They are going to look at whether there should be Federal regulation of 
the content of motion pictures.
  Maybe the Senator from Missouri is interested in writing movies, but 
I am not. This is what it is about. None of us was elected to be a 
movie writer. There is no bureaucrat I know who ought to sit around and 
write movies. We now have three investigations of the motion picture 
industry in this bill.
  Let me tell you what they are. The first one was the Brownback 
amendment. I actually supported it. Everybody did. I thought: OK, we 
will have a commission; it will look at youth violence. That commission 
calls for the Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney General, with 
all the powers of their offices, to look at the marketing tactics of 
the motion picture industry, the entertainment industry, and the video 
games industry and see if they are, in fact, taking advantage of our 
children.
  Then we have the Lieberman Commission, which is part of the managers' 
amendment, which sits in this bill. I have it in front of me. Mr. 
Lieberman, Mr. McCain, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Brownback, Ms. Landrieu, et 
cetera. They are establishing a national youth violence commission and 
it refers to the various powers of that commission. That is 
investigation No. 2.
  Now comes along, in case we did not do enough of this, investigation 
No. 3. Duplicative, I add, of the others, but a lot more frightening, 
because it includes the possibility of Federal regulation of the 
content of motion pictures.
  It refers to changing the law to seek legal redress against 
producers. My friend from Missouri can take comfort in the fact that we 
are already doing what he wants to be done, with the exception of 
looking at the content.
  I do not know whether this is going to be accepted or if there is a 
vote. More than likely it is going to be adopted. Set up a commission. 
How about doing something that will help? How about keeping our kids 
busy after school? Oh, no, I only got two people from the other side of 
the aisle. Keep our children busy after school so they are not sitting 
in front of the television? Oh, no, we couldn't do that, even though we 
have a million children waiting in line to get into afterschool 
programs.
  But, oh, let's have a third commission and beat up on the 
entertainment industry and that is going to help keep our kids out of 
trouble.
  Look at the FBI statistics. That is when there is juvenile crime. 
This is a juvenile justice bill. We do a little something for 
afterschool in this bill, but it is just that, a little something. It 
will not take care of the backlog of all the children who are waiting, 
but, oh, we can feel real good and set up a third investigation of the 
entertainment industry.
  This is amazing to me. And this one is frightening to me, to think 
that the Federal Government may now begin to regulate the content of 
movies. I simply think that the American people do not want to see 
their Government regulating what can be said in a movie. If you do not 
like a movie, don't go see it, as Senator Leahy said yesterday. Don't 
spend your dollars on violence. Turn the movie channel. But to set up 
now a third commission on the entertainment industry, this is just 
going over the top. And suggesting that they look at ways to regulate 
content, that is a frightening thought to me.
  I do not have much hope that this will be defeated because it seems 
to be something we are getting used to here: Let's have an 
investigation; it's easy; it's easy; have an investigation.
  By the way, it is going to cost $1 million. Do you know how many 
slots that could take care of for kids waiting in line to get in 
afterschool programs? Let's use it on something that works. A million 
dollars on this commission. I know my friend is a fiscal conservative. 
I hope when this bill gets to conference, they can take these three 
investigations and put them into one, because this is simply amazing to 
me.
  I have every belief that the Senator's commission will be adopted. 
The Senate is in the mood to launch yet another investigation, point 
another finger and, ``Yes, I voted against afterschool, but I voted for 
that commission; I am going to save our kids.''
  I am very surprised we are looking--as a matter of fact, I did not 
even know this was coming up until somebody said it. I thought: Wait a 
minute, that is confusing; we already have two investigations. Now we 
have yet a third.
  I know what I am saying is not popular around here, but I worry when 
we start talking about the Government regulating content. That reminds 
me of

[[Page 10411]]

the old Soviet Union. That is gone. Let's not follow that model.
  I hope people vote against this. Again, I do not hold out much hope, 
but I hope people vote against this. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. BOND. One always is impressed with the ability of Hollywood and 
their obfuscation. We have heard some responses from the Hollywood 
community. They said this is a massive tax bill. That is not what the 
purpose was. We amended the amendment so it does not even refer 
directly to taxes.
  The Senator from Vermont mentioned and gave a wonderful rendition of 
``Gone With The Wind'' and ``Star Wars.'' We are not worried about 
``Star Wars.'' We are not worried about ``Gone With The Wind.'' We are 
worried about parents who cannot stop all of the mayhem and violence 
and murder that is being marketed to their kids, to their kids' 
friends, to their kids' neighbors every time they turn around.
  We think it is time that somebody looked at how we hold Hollywood 
accountable. I am asking not that we investigate. I believe there is 
enough evidence of these teenage killers, citing the fact that they 
have been inspired by movies, to know that something has to be done.
  My good friend from California said, we are regulating content. I 
believe she was one of the leaders who argued for regulating the 
content of tobacco advertising and said we are going to eliminate 
tobacco advertising. That is content. That is regulation. That is 
regulation of speech.
  Incidentally, you can regulate what is going to children. We do 
regulate speech. We do not allow pornography to go to kids. We do not 
allow tobacco advertising to go to them. I will tell you something, 
when I see ``Basketball Diaries,'' with Leonardo DiCaprio as a teenage 
hero walking into a classroom in a black trenchcoat, with a gun, and 
murdering his fellow students, I see there is a message that Hollywood 
has sent to our kids. If I could regulate it, if I could stop it, I 
would like to stop it.
  I want to get a national debate going and ask and see how we can stop 
this filth being targeted at our kids. Does anyone think ``Basketball 
Diaries'' is designed to attract older movie viewers like me? I do not 
think so. That is targeted directly to kids. How do we deal with that? 
That is what the Domenici-Bond amendment asks. All of the obfuscation 
and all of the misleading arguments put up by the good folks in 
Hollywood are not going to take attention away from the fact that they 
are responsible.
  Just in the last couple days the President of CBS said he was going 
to withdraw a violent drama called ``Falcone.'' I quote Leslie Moonves.

       While it's not fair to blame the media for the rampage, 
     Moonves said that ``anyone who thinks the media has nothing 
     to do with this is an idiot.''

  I suggest that tells the tale.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. HATCH. All the Senator wants to do is set up a Commission to 
review these matters. We have plenty of work in this bill to take care 
of it.
  Now look, the first amendment is not absolute. There are a lot of 
limitations on the first amendment recognized by the courts: obscenity, 
pornography, fighting words, time restrictions, such as nudity in 
television programming--that may be stopped, television programming 
that may be aired--indecent speech, exposure to children, and we could 
go on and on. It isn't like this is something unprecedented.
  I think we have to look at these matters and see what we can do to 
change the culture in this society, because that is what is wrong. It 
is a lot more important than guns or anything else.
  We have made it possible for these kids to see all kinds of filth and 
violence coming out of their ears. After a while, they get so that it 
becomes part of their lives. That is why this bill is so important. It 
is a lot more important than some of the assertions by some people on 
behalf of their amendments. But this is an amendment that I think we 
ought to vote for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  The Senator from Vermont has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this side has how many minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two and a half minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. We yield back the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back the remainder of their 
time.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that we stack this amendment along 
with the Biden amendment to be voted upon at a time to be determined by 
the two leaders.
  Mr. LEAHY. I agree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EDWARDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                             Change Of Vote

  Mr. EDWARDS. On rollcall vote No. 137, I voted ``no.'' It was my 
intention to vote ``aye.'' I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to change my vote. This would in no way change the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                  Amendments Nos. 369 And 370, En Bloc

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send a Helms amendment on safe schools 
and a Harkin-Lincoln amendment to the desk and ask for their immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] proposes amendments 
     numbered 369 and 370, en bloc.

  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendments be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments, en bloc, are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 369

(Purpose: To amend the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 to require a local 
    educational agency that receives funds under the Elementary and 
    Secondary Education Act of 1965 to treat possession, on school 
  property, of felonious quantities of illegal drugs the same as gun 
                      possession on such property)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     ``SEC  . SAFE SCHOOLS.

       ``(a) Amendments.--Part F of title XVI of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8921 et seq.) 
     is amended as follows:
       ``(1) Short title.--Section 14601(a) is amended by 
     replacing ``Gun-Free'' with ``Safe'', and ``1994'' with 
     ``1999''.
       ``(2) Requirements.--Section 14601(b)(1) is amended by 
     inserting after ``determined'' the following: ``to be in 
     possession of felonious quantities of an illegal drug, on 
     school property under the jurisdiction of, or in a vehicle 
     operated by an employee or agent of, a local educational 
     agency in that State, or''.
       ``(3) Definitions.--Section 14601(b)(4) is amended by 
     replacing ``Definition'' with ``Definition'' in the catchline 
     with ``part'', by redesignating the matter under the 
     catchline with ``part'', by redesignating the matter under 
     the catchline after the comma as subparagraph (A), by 
     replacing the period with a semi-colon, and by adding new 
     subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) as follows:
       ``(B) the term ``illegal drug'' means a controlled 
     substance, as defined in section 102(6) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)), the possession of which is 
     unlawful under the Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or under the 
     Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et 
     seq.), but does not

[[Page 10412]]

     mean a controlled substance used pursuant to a valid 
     prescription or as authorized by law; and
       ``(C) the term ``illegal drug paraphernalia'' means drug 
     paraphernalia, as define in section 422(d) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 863(d)), except that the first 
     sentence of that section shall be applied by inserting `or 
     under the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 
     U.S.C. 915 et seq.)' before the period.
       ``(D) the term ``felonious quantities of an illegal drug'' 
     means any quantity of an illegal drug--
       ``(i) possession of which quantity would, under federal, 
     State, or local law, either constitute a felony or indicate 
     an intent to distribute; or
       ``(ii) that is possessed with an intent to distribute.''.
       ``(4) Report to state.--Section 14601(d)(2)(C) is amended 
     by inserting ``illegal drugs or'' before ``weapons''.
       ``(5) Repealer.--Section 14601 is amended by striking 
     subsection (f).
       ``(6) Policy regarding criminal justice system referral.--
     Section 14602(a) is amended by replacing ``served by'' with 
     ``under the jurisdiction of'', and by inserting after ``who'' 
     the following: ``is in possession of an illegal drug, or 
     illegal drug paraphernalia, on school property under the 
     jurisdiction of, or in a vehicle operated by an employee or 
     agent of, such agency, or who''.
       ``(7) Data and policy dissemination under idea.--Section 
     14603 is amended by inserting``current'' before ``policy'', 
     by striking ``in effect on October 20, 1994'', by striking 
     all the matter after ``schools'' and inserting a period 
     thereafter, and by inserting before ``engaging'' the 
     following: ``possessing illegal drugs, or illegal drug 
     paraphernalia, on school property, or in vehicles operated by 
     employees or agents of, schools or local education agencies, 
     or''.
       ``(b) Compliance Date; Reporting.--
       ``(1) States shall have two years from the date of 
     enactment of this Act to comply with the requirements 
     established in the amendments made by subsection (a).
       ``(2) Not later than three years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education shall 
     submit to Congress a report on any State that is not in 
     compliance with the requirements of this part.
       ``(3) Not later than two years after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary of Education shall submit to 
     Congress a report analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of 
     approaches regarding the disciplining of children with 
     disabilities.''
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 370

   (Purpose: To amend section 10102 of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 regarding elementary school and secondary school 
                              counseling)

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. __. SCHOOL COUNSELING.

       Section 10102 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8002) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 10102. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND SECONDARY SCHOOL 
                   COUNSELING DEMONSTRATION.

       ``(a) Counseling Demonstration.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may award grants under 
     this section to local educational agencies to enable the 
     local educational agencies to establish or expand elementary 
     school counseling programs.
       ``(2) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give special consideration to applications 
     describing programs that--
       ``(A) demonstrate the greatest need for new or additional 
     counseling services among the children in the schools served 
     by the applicant;
       ``(B) propose the most promising and innovative approaches 
     for initiating or expanding school counseling; and
       ``(C) show the greatest potential for replication and 
     dissemination.
       ``(3) Equitable distribution.--In awarding grants under 
     this section, the Secretary shall ensure an equitable 
     geographic distribution among the regions of the United 
     States and among urban, suburban, and rural areas.
       ``(4) Duration.--A grant under this section shall be 
     awarded for a period not to exceed three years.
       ``(5) Maximum grant.--A grant under this section shall not 
     exceed $400,000 for any fiscal year.
       ``(b) Applications.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each local educational agency desiring a 
     grant under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(2) Contents.--Each application for a grant under this 
     section shall--
       ``(A) describe the school population to be targeted by the 
     program, the particular personal, social, emotional, 
     educational, and career development needs of such population, 
     and the current school counseling resources available for 
     meeting such needs;
       ``(B) describe the activities, services, and training to be 
     provided by the program and the specific approaches to be 
     used to meet the needs described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(C) describe the methods to be used to evaluate the 
     outcomes and effectiveness of the program;
       ``(D) describe the collaborative efforts to be undertaken 
     with institutions of higher education, businesses, labor 
     organizations, community groups, social service agencies, and 
     other public or private entities to enhance the program and 
     promote school-linked services integration;
       ``(E) describe collaborative efforts with institutions of 
     higher education which specifically seek to enhance or 
     improve graduate programs specializing in the preparation of 
     school counselors, school psychologists, and school social 
     workers;
       ``(F) document that the applicant has the personnel 
     qualified to develop, implement, and administer the program;
       ``(G) describe how any diverse cultural populations, if 
     applicable, would be served through the program;
       ``(H) assure that the funds made available under this part 
     for any fiscal year will be used to supplement and, to the 
     extent practicable, increase the level of funds that would 
     otherwise be available from non-Federal sources for the 
     program described in the application, and in no case supplant 
     such funds from non-Federal sources; and
       ``(I) assure that the applicant will appoint an advisory 
     board composed of parents, school counselors, school 
     psychologists, school social workers, other pupil services 
     personnel, teachers, school administrators, and community 
     leaders to advise the local educational agency on the design 
     and implementation of the program.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Grant funds under this section shall be 
     used to initiate or expand school counseling programs that 
     comply with the requirements in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Program requirements.--Each program assisted under 
     this section shall--
       ``(A) be comprehensive in addressing the personal, social, 
     emotional, and educational needs of all students;
       ``(B) use a developmental, preventive approach to 
     counseling;
       ``(C) increase the range, availability, quantity, and 
     quality of counseling services in the elementary schools of 
     the local educational agency;
       ``(D) expand counseling services only through qualified 
     school counselors, school psychologists, and school social 
     workers;
       ``(E) use innovative approaches to increase children's 
     understanding of peer and family relationships, work and 
     self, decisionmaking, or academic and career planning, or to 
     improve social functioning;
       ``(F) provide counseling services that are well-balanced 
     among classroom group and small group counseling, individual 
     counseling, and consultation with parents, teachers, 
     administrators, and other pupil services personnel;
       ``(G) include inservice training for school counselors, 
     school social workers, school psychologists, other pupil 
     services personnel, teachers, and instructional staff;
       ``(H) involve parents of participating students in the 
     design, implementation, and evaluation of a counseling 
     program;
       ``(I) involve collaborative efforts with institutions of 
     higher education, businesses, labor organizations, community 
     groups, social service agencies, or other public or private 
     entities to enhance the program and promote school-linked 
     services integration;
       ``(J) evaluate annually the effectiveness and outcomes of 
     the counseling services and activities assisted under this 
     section;
       ``(K) ensure a team approach to school counseling by 
     maintaining a ratio in the elementary schools of the local 
     educational agency that does not exceed 1 school counselor to 
     250 students, 1 school social worker to 800 students, and 1 
     school psychologist to 1,000 students; and
       ``(L) ensure that school counselors, school psychologists, 
     or school social workers paid from funds made available under 
     this section spend at least 85 percent of their total 
     worktime at the school in activities directly related to the 
     counseling process and not more than 15 percent of such time 
     on administrative tasks that are associated with the 
     counseling program.
       ``(3) Report.--The Secretary shall issue a report 
     evaluating the programs assisted pursuant to each grant under 
     this subsection at the end of each grant period in accordance 
     with section 14701, but in no case later than January 30, 
     2003.
       ``(4) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall make the programs 
     assisted under this section available for dissemination, 
     either through the National Diffusion Network or other 
     appropriate means.
       ``(5) Limit on administration.--Not more than five percent 
     of the amounts made available under this section in any 
     fiscal year shall be used for administrative costs to carry 
     out this section.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `school counselor' means an individual who 
     has documented competence in counseling children and 
     adolescents in a school setting and who--
       ``(A) possesses State licensure or certification granted by 
     an independent professional regulatory authority;
       ``(B) in the absence of such State licensure or 
     certification, possesses national certification in school 
     counseling or a specialty of counseling granted by an 
     independent professional organization; or

[[Page 10413]]

       ``(C) holds a minimum of a master's degree in school 
     counseling from a program accredited by the Council for 
     Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs 
     or the equivalent;
       ``(2) the term `school psychologist' means an individual 
     who--
       ``(A) possesses a minimum of 60 graduate semester hours in 
     school psychology from an institution of higher education and 
     has completed 1,200 clock hours in a supervised school 
     psychology internship, of which 600 hours shall be in the 
     school setting;
       ``(B) possesses State licensure or certification in the 
     State in which the individual works; or
       ``(C) in the absence of such State licensure or 
     certification, possesses national certification by the 
     National School Psychology Certification Board;
       ``(3) the term `school social worker' means an individual 
     who holds a master's degree in social work and is licensed or 
     certified by the State in which services are provided or 
     holds a school social work specialist credential; and
       ``(4) the term `supervisor' means an individual who has the 
     equivalent number of years of professional experience in such 
     individual's respective discipline as is required of teaching 
     experience for the supervisor or administrative credential in 
     the State of such individual.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I'm pleased to join my colleagues 
Senator Harkin and Senator Wellstone in offering an amendment that will 
help reduce crime and violence in our nation's schools.
  This amendment specifically addresses the issue of our children's 
emotional well-being, and what we as a nation, can do to provide 
schools with the necessary resources to help our kids.
  The lives of America's children are very different than they were 20, 
30 or 40 years ago. Before our children reach their teenage years, 
they've already been exposed to drugs, alcohol, violent movies and a 
general culture of violence that influences their thoughts and actions.
  Many have expressed that they are even desensitized to violence in 
their everyday lives.
  And today's students bring more to school than just backpacks and 
lunch boxes. They bring severe emotional problems.
  They disrupt classes, they have difficulty learning, they suffer from 
depression, and they fight with teachers and students.
  And when they do not know how to deal with their feelings of anger 
and rage, they may even kill.
  Since the school shooting a year ago in Jonesboro, I have been 
grappling with ideas to ensure that this type of tragedy never happened 
again. Unfortunately, it did happen again and we as a nation have got 
to act.
  Children should not be afraid to go to school in the morning and 
parents should not be scared to send them there. Studies show that 71% 
of children ages 7 to 10 say they are worried they will be stabbed or 
shot while at school.
  The Department of Education reported that in 1997, there were 
approximately 11,000 incidents nationally of physical attacks or fights 
in which weapons were used.
  I don't claim to have all the answers on how to help our children, 
but I do think we should do more to get to the root of the problem.
  We've got to look at the source of this problem; we must come up with 
some kind of preventive medicine, rather than using a haphazard Band-
aid approach.
  Metal detectors and controlling access to guns can hinder their 
ability to act out, but doesn't address their illness to begin with.
  And as the tragedies in Jonesboro, Paducah and most recently as the 
horror in Colorado has shown us--while much of our country is 
prospering economically, we cannot allow our country's economic success 
cause us to ignore our social ills.
  We can train our children to use computers, to analyze stocks and to 
meet the economic challenges of the new millennium. But if we do not 
address their emotional needs or teach them the value of human life, 
then what have we accomplished?
  As Theodore Roosevelt said, ``To educate a man in mind and not in 
morals is to educate a menace to society.''
  Together, we must call for improvements, changes and accountability. 
This can be done, and it must be done.
  We can install more metal detectors and surveillance cameras in 
schools, but we won't get to the root of the problem. The youth of 
America are suffering and all the increased security in the world may 
ease our minds, but it won't solve their problems.
  The United States Congress can lead the way. We can take common-sense 
steps to see that tragedies like those in Colorado and Jonesboro become 
a distant, painful memory.
  I've traveled all over my home state of Arkansas talking with 
educators and school administrators about what's happening in our 
schools.
  The one common denominator--the one thing they all tell me is--``We 
need more counselors in our schools. We need more qualified mental 
health professionals to adequately deal with the enormous and 
overwhelming problems kids have today.''
  The National Institute of Mental Health estimates that although 7.5 
million children under the age of 18 require mental health services, 
fewer than 1 in 5 receive it.
  The Harkin/Lincoln/Wellstone amendment calls for $15 million in 
authorizing funds for FY 2000. In order for these services to reach 
children at a younger age, this money must be spent in elementary 
schools.
  Only qualified mental health professionals may be hired with this 
funding. Fortunately, these funds are eligible to urban, suburban and 
rural local school districts. As we all know, rural and suburban areas 
need our help as much as inner city schools.
  The additional school counselors, psychologists and social workers 
will work hand-in-hand with an advisory board of parents, teachers, 
administrators and community leaders to design and implement counseling 
services.
  School counselors will involve the parents of children who receive 
services so parents can be more involved in the development and well-
being of their children.
  This legislation will help accomplish that and will allow teachers to 
focus more on a student's skills at writing and arithmetic, rather than 
on his or her potential for violence.
  I will fight to see that this legislation passes, so we can begin to 
make changes happen in my home state and across our country now, and 
not wait until the next tragedy. I hope my colleagues will work with me 
in that effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article by Doug Peters 
of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette regarding teen death be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, May 18, 1999]

          State's Teen Death Rate Near Top in U.S., Study Says

                            (By Doug Peters)

       Being a teen-ager is risky, no matter where you are.
       In Arkansas, it can be downright dangerous.
       Only two states and the District of Columbia had higher 
     rates of teen-age deaths by accident, homicide or suicide in 
     1996, according to a study of childhood risk factors released 
     today by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
       According to the Kids Count 1999 study, 181 Arkansas teen-
     agers between 15 and 19 died of such causes in 1996, for a 
     rate of 94 deaths per 100,000. Arkansas' rate is more than 50 
     percent higher than the national rate of 62 deaths per 
     100,000 teen-agers.
       And while the national rate decreased slightly between 1985 
     and 1996, Arkansas' rate increased by 16 percent.
       Only Mississippi, Wyoming and the District of Columbia had 
     higher teen-age death rates in 1996, the most recent year 
     statistics were available for all states and the District of 
     Columbia.
       Dr. Bob West, a pediatric medical consultant for the state 
     Department of Health, said Arkansas' increase appeared to be 
     caused by increasing numbers of teen suicides and homicides.
       Between 1985 and 1989, Arkansas averaged 18 suicides and 15 
     homicides a year among 15 through 19-year-olds, according to 
     Health Department statistics. In 1996, 32 Arkansans

[[Page 10414]]

     in that age group committed suicide. Another 32 were 
     murdered.
       Arkansas traditionally has a high rate of accidental deaths 
     among teen-agers, West said. And although the number of 
     traffic deaths among 15 through 19-year-olds dropped from an 
     average of 95 a year between 1985 and 1989 to 85 in 1996, the 
     state's rate remains significantly higher than the national 
     average.
       Traditionally, Arkansas accidental death rates run about 40 
     percent above the national average, West said.
       West said that accidents in rural areas sometimes turn 
     fatal because of a lack of nearby trauma services. But 
     location isn't the only factor, he said. Attitude also may 
     play a role.
       Some people, he said, simply don't see accidents as being 
     preventable.
       ``I think there are a lot of folks who think, `If it 
     happens, it happens,' '' West said. ``There doesn't seem to 
     be the willingness to do the kind of things that will keep 
     you safe'' such as wearing seat belts or installing smoke 
     detectors.
       The dismal teen-age death rate helped Arkansas slip to 43rd 
     overall in the Kids Count rating, an annual state-by-state 
     ranking of risk factors to children's well-being. Arkansas 
     ranked 41st last year.
       The survey wasn't all bad news, though.

  Mr. HATCH. With respect to the amendment offered today by Senator 
Helms, which amends the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994, I must say that I 
support this effort to make our schools gun and drug free.
  The amendment would require an educational agency that receives 
federal funds to expel for not less than one year a student determined 
to be in possession of felonious quantities of illegal drugs. We're 
talking about quantities that indicate hard-core drug use, or drug 
trafficking. We're talking about dangerous, and predatory, behavior. 
We've simply got to get the people who bring these things into our 
schools out of our schools.
  Now, I know that some of my colleagues may be concerned with the 
consequences of turning disruptive students out onto the streets for 
one year. I assure everyone that I understand that concern and direct 
their attention to the Alternative Education Grant provision found in 
the underlying bill. This demonstration grant provides funding to state 
and local education agencies to set up alternative education in 
appropriate settings for disruptive or delinquent students. These 
services are designed to improve the academic and social performance of 
these students and to improve the safety and learning environment of 
regular classrooms. This three-year demonstration project will provide 
alternative education to juveniles in trouble with or at risk of 
getting in trouble with the law, such as students who are expelled for 
carrying firearms or drugs to school.
  I applaud the efforts of Senator Helms for continuing to seek 
effective ways to curb the spiraling increase in drug abuse among our 
nation's youth. Anyone familiar with my record on combating illegal 
drug use knows that I am in favor of stiff penalties designed to deter 
criminal behavior, and never more so than when we are talking about 
behavior that harms our school children. I think this amendment, which 
contains a specific exception to the one-year expulsion rule by 
allowing the chief administering officer of the local educational 
agency to modify the expulsion requirement for students on a case-by-
case basis, is a measured and principled response to the scourge of 
drugs in our schools.
  Like the original Gun Free Schools Act, this amendment is motivated 
not only by a desire to punish those who bring illegal objects into 
schools, but also to address the immediate threat to the entire student 
population created by the presence of those objects. As with guns, 
felonious quantities--drug-trafficking quantities--of illegal drugs 
present a direct and serious hazard, both to the individual possessors, 
and to the other students as well. For this reason, it is appropriate 
that sanctions be the same in both cases.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be accepted en 
bloc and that any statements relating to the amendments be printed at 
the appropriate place in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 369 and 370), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. I understand we now move to the Biden amendment, the last 
amendment before final passage.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 371

  (Purpose: To establish a 21st century community policing initiative)

  Mr. BIDEN. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] for himself, Mr. 
     Specter, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Kohl, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 371.

  Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 22\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. I beg your pardon? I thought I had 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am sorry. The Senator from Delaware has 30 
minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I send this amendment on behalf of the primary 
sponsors: The Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter; the Senator from 
New York, Mr. Schumer; the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer; and the 
Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl; and others.
  This is a pretty straightforward amendment. My amendment extends for 
another 5 years the COPS Program which was created in the 1994 crime 
bill. As we all know, the COPS Program has put over 100,000 police 
officers on the--well, they are not all on the street yet, but it 
funded 100,000 police officers, of whom about 11,000 are in training 
now. I have put on the desk of every Member of the Senate a list of the 
number of police officers, State and local police officers, that have 
been funded under the COPS Program in their States.
  I have put on the desk of every Member of the Senate the reduction in 
violent crime, in property crimes, that has occurred in their State 
since the crime bill of 1994, which was passed, and I would make the 
argument that we do not have to reinvent the wheel here; it works. Cops 
on the street through the COPS Program work.
  The COPS Program is going to expire next year. Our amendment 
authorizes $1.15 billion per year through the year 2005.
  Let me explain what it does. There is $600 million more for police on 
the streets every year, which would give the States up to another 
50,000 police officers over the next 5 years. This money, though, can 
always be used to retain current officers hired under the COPS Program; 
it can be used to pay overtime; it can be used to reimburse current 
cops for college and graduate school courses up to a percentage of the 
total money here.
  Since the original crime bill was the Biden crime bill that became 
the 1994 crime bill--we put in this COPS amendment. At the time, we 
were told by everyone, whether it was liberal newspaper editorials 
saying, we have tried this before and more cops don't work, or 
conservatives arguing that this was just a great big social welfare 
program--it was going to hire a bunch of social workers--we have 
demonstrated that it had never been done before and it works when it is 
done.
  I am reminded of the quote attributed to G.K. Chesterton. He said, it 
is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting; it has been 
found difficult and left untried.
  The truth of the matter is, up to the time of the crime bill of 1994, 
we had never made a full blown major commitment to help local law 
enforcement officers increase their number. We have, in fact, increased 
the number of cops wearing uniforms--of local police officers, not 
Federal cops--by 100,000 cops. The crime rate has plummeted, not

[[Page 10415]]

solely because of that but, I would argue, in large part because of 
that.
  Now, I have been here long enough to know that one of the dangers of 
being here long enough and having worked hard on setting up a 
government program, which you thought about and conceived and worked on 
for years and years to get adopted, is that you become a captive of 
your own program. So the Senator from Pennsylvania and I would talk, 
back in the early days when he got here and I got here, about community 
policing and how important it was.
  Cops didn't want community policing. Mayors did not want community 
policing. No one wanted it. My friend from Pennsylvania talked about 
career criminals and pointed out that only 6 percent of the criminals 
in America committed over 60 percent of the violent crimes in America. 
To both of us, it didn't seem like rocket science. If you focused on 
going after that 6 percent and you put more cops on the street and you 
took them out of patrol cars and put them on a beat, that would have a 
positive impact.
  I didn't have the experience my friend from Pennsylvania had of being 
a prosecutor. I might add, the office he was the chief prosecutor of in 
Philadelphia tries more criminal cases in 1 year than the entire 
Federal system tries in a year. The entire Federal system tries fewer 
cases than are tried in the Philadelphia prosecutor's office, the 
Philadelphia DA. I didn't have the experience, but I was smart enough 
to listen to him. And I was smart enough to listen to enough people who 
have been out there and had the experience. So as hard as it is to 
believe, it took us about 6 years to convince people that putting local 
cops on the beat made sense.
  I have spent, as has the Senator from New Mexico who was on the 
floor, a long time in this body. I think we both agree that if you take 
this job seriously and you sit in hearings year after year, day after 
day, month after month, unless you are an absolute idiot, you 
eventually learn something. Every single, solitary criminologist, every 
single expert, every single person who testified before the Judiciary 
Committee in the 16 years I chaired it or was a ranking member, said, 
we don't know a lot about crime but one thing we know: If there is a 
cop on this corner and no cop on the other corner and a crime is going 
to be committed, it is going to be committed where the cop is not.
  The second thing we know: If you have a cop in a neighborhood and 
they get to know the folks in the neighborhood, a simple thing 
happens--trust gets built. They know the cop's name. If they know who 
the cop is, they are going to be more inclined to call the officer 
aside when a crime has been committed and say, Officer John, I know who 
did that. If it is a wave-by and a cop is going by in a car and he is 
not a community cop, they don't want to take the chance of putting them 
on the line.
  I realize these are very simple, basic, trite-sounding things I am 
saying, but this program works. It works well.
  There are a lot of ideas here that ended up being rejected because 
they do not pass the test of ``not invented here.'' I realize there are 
some concerns, on the part particularly of my Republican colleagues, 
that this may be--and I am not talking about the Senator from 
Pennsylvania or anyone in particular--a program that is viewed as being 
identified with the Democratic Party, the President; therefore, why do 
we keep it going for another 5 years?
  I respectfully suggest that there have been some incredibly good 
ideas that have come out of the Republican caucus, including the block 
grant notion for police departments, including more flexibility to be 
given to local law enforcement officers. I want my colleagues to know--
and I understand the limitations my friend from Utah had in being able 
to reach an agreement here--I was prepared to accept the community 
block grant portion of the Republican program in order to get a 
consensus in this process. We didn't get there. I hope that when this 
passes, if it passes, we can still, as we move on through this year, 
move on to that good idea as well. I didn't try to incorporate it here 
because it is not my idea, it is the idea of the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee and others on the Republican caucus with whom I 
have to agree.
  Now, let me say this: One of the things we learned from the COPS 
Program and its functioning is that, as well as it works, it can be 
made to work better. I say to my friend from New York, Senator Schumer, 
he has been deeply involved. He carried this load in the House when we 
did this in 1994. He was a leader on the COPS Program. What he and I 
have both found out from our local law enforcement officers is that 
they need more flexibility. They need to be able to use this COPS money 
in ways that go beyond hiring a new shield, to be able to keep cops who 
are on the beat and use this money. They also want to be able to pay 
overtime, because they get the same coverage as they would if they 
hired a new cop, if they are allowed to pay overtime. So we built into 
this extension of the COPS Program more flexibility.
  To the best of my knowledge--my staff is behind me; I don't have it 
in front of me--I believe every major police organization has endorsed 
this and endorsed it on this bill, because it works.
  The second thing--and I will shortly yield to my friend from 
Pennsylvania, and then I want to reserve time for my friend from New 
York as well--is that there is $350 million in here for law enforcement 
to get new technologies to enhance crime fighting, such as better 
communications systems so cops in different jurisdictions can 
communicate, and even the ability to target hot spots, and new 
investigative tools like DNA analysis. The cops have come to me and 
they have said, this is what we need; this is what we need.
  I am one who believes that as long as they keep doing the job as well 
as they have been, we should give them the tools they need.
  There is one last piece, and then I will yield. The cops have been 
doing such a good job that the prosecutors in Senator Specter's old 
office are overwhelmed. They are overwhelmed. You put 100,000 more cops 
on the job, 545,000 cops who have already been on the job and who had 
not been in community policing but are all now community police, and 
you have had a phenomenal impact on crime, but also a phenomenal impact 
on putting more pressure on the court systems in the State and local 
governments.
  So there is in this bill $200 million for community prosecutors to 
expand the community policing concept to engage the whole community in 
preventing crime. These cops, as I said, have been so successful with 
their jobs that the next piece of the puzzle, the new bottleneck, is 
State prosecutors. Local prosecutors, they need help. So the next major 
piece of this bill is $200 million for community prosecutors.
  Lastly, you are only allowed to use a portion of the COPS money for 
this, but one of the things the cops have come to us and said is, we 
have a lot of cops who want to increase their education; we have a lot 
of cops who want to go back to college, who want to be better cops. If 
you are a schoolteacher in most districts and you go off and teach 
school and you go off and get your graduate degree, the school district 
helps you pay for that. I think we should be allowing the cops to take 
a portion of the money they get and pay for the continuing education of 
law enforcement officers. I still believe that the greatest safety lies 
in educated police officers who fully understand the Constitution, who 
increase their educational background. So that is another innovation in 
this bill.
  There is much more in it that I will not bore the floor with at this 
time. I know a lot of people are trying to get through this bill. I 
respectfully suggest--and it is imprudent of me to say this--I think 
this is, in a substantive sense, the single most important amendment we 
could add to this bill.
  I guarantee you--and I am willing to bet anybody in this body 
dinner--that if we add another 50,000 cops out there and this 
technology, we are going to have a significantly greater impact on 
reducing juvenile crime than we would

[[Page 10416]]

without it. It works, folks. Let's not reinvent the wheel.
  I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. How much time remains 
in control of the Senator from Delaware?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 minutes 33 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield 9 minutes to my friend from 
Pennsylvania and 9 minutes to my friend from New York. I will reserve 2 
minutes for myself to close.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 9 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Delaware for 
yielding me the time and for submitting this amendment, which I have 
cosponsored. I believe that police on the street constitute a very 
significant deterrent effect--and that the 95,000 or 100,000 police who 
have been added across America have been a factor in reducing the crime 
rate--which we have noted in the past several years. I think that is 
one factor.
  The additional prison space, the fact that more men and women are 
incarcerated--regrettably, but necessarily--I think has been a 
contributing factor. The armed career criminal bill, which provides for 
a sentence for 15 years to life for those found in possession of a gun 
and have committed three or more serious offenses has been a 
significant contributing factor.
  I would like to offer a comment or two about the bill. I compliment 
Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy, the managers of the bill, for the work 
they have done. I am hopeful that within the authorized portions of 
this bill comes to the appropriations process, there will be an even 
50/50 split on measures designed for prosecution and incarceration, 
contrasted with measures for rehabilitation, job training, and 
education.
  When we deal with juvenile offenders, we deal with a category of 
offenders who will one day get out. I believe--based on the experience 
I had being district attorney of Philadelphia for 8 years where the 
principal job was prosecution, tough sentences for tough criminals, and 
dealing with career criminals--that when we deal with offenders who are 
going to be released, we ought to have rehabilitation. It is no 
surprise when a functional illiterate, without a trade or a skill, 
leaves incarceration will go back to a life of crime. It is not only in 
the interest of the individual to have rehabilitation, but also in the 
interest of law-abiding citizens to avoid having that individual become 
a repeater.
  The same thing, candidly, applies to first and second offenders. 
Where we have a career criminal--somebody who has three or more major 
offenses--then I think life imprisonment and throwing away the key is 
the appropriate consequence. When we deal with juveniles, we ought to 
be aware of the so-called seamless web, to apply 50 percent of the 
funding which, of course, comes to the attention of the appropriators. 
I considered submitting an amendment which would have called for a 50/
50 split between the tough aspect of prosecution and incarceration 
contrasted with rehabilitation, literacy training, and job training. I 
decided not to do that since it really is within the function of the 
appropriators.
  I have a comment on the vote in the Senate to defeat the provision 
that was offered as an amendment yesterday. This would have imposed, in 
this bill, a mandatory requirement on the States that all those 14 
years and older be tried as adults on a category of serious offenses. 
That was defeated soundly. A majority of Republicans voted against it, 
and I voted against it, and I was glad to see that amendment rejected 
on a number of grounds. One is that we ought not to be dictating to the 
States how they construct their juvenile justice system. And we ought 
not to condition Federal funding, which would be the stick to dictate 
the States as to how they operate.
  The other concern I had was that being tough on crime is very, very 
important, but there are a lot of variations on juveniles. The theory 
of the juvenile court was to treat an adjudication of delinquency as 
those under 18. There is ample discretion in the juvenile court to have 
a juvenile tried as an adult for a serious offense. That flexibility 
ought to be left to the juvenile courts, and that flexibility and that 
determination ought to be left to the States.
  Overall, I think this bill will be a step forward. The legislation 
that has been enacted with respect to guns, I think, has to be viewed 
as only a part of the picture. My own reluctance on the restrictions on 
guns has come from the fact that there has not been an appropriate 
response by the courts on tough sentences for tough criminals.
  There are three layers that we have to attack on this line. I have 
discussed two. One is the life sentences and the long periods of 
incarceration for career criminals. Second, is realistic rehabilitation 
for juveniles and other offenders who will be released from jail. 
Third, is the violence that has gripped America--juvenile violence 
especially.
  After Littleton, CO, I called Dr. Koop, former Surgeon General, who 
commented to me that he had--as early as 1982--filed a report 
identifying juvenile violence as a medical problem. I conferred with 
Surgeon General Satcher on the issue. We are trying to structure 
hearings on the Appropriations subcommittee I chair on health and human 
services which funds the Office of Surgeon General. Those three lines, 
I think, have to be studied very closely--the sentencing for career 
criminals and rehabilitation for those who will be released and an 
effort to understand and try to deal with the culture of violence we 
have in our society today.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from Delaware. I yield 
the floor, releasing the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 9 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank the 
Senator from Delaware not only for his generous use of the time--which 
I will not need all of--but, more importantly, for his leadership on 
this issue in 1994, and again today. And I thank my friend from 
Pennsylvania, as well, for both of those things.
  I have been in this Congress a long time; this is my 19th year. I 
have rarely seen a program be as effective as the COPS Program. It has 
worked. It has brought police officers and, just as important, new 
policing techniques from the largest city to the smallest rural hamlet. 
Before this bill passed, America, from one end of the country to the 
other, was crying out: Do something about ending crime.
  Some said it is a local issue, not a Federal issue. But the average 
person didn't care about that. The average person just said to his or 
her government: Please, in God's name, do something. Stop the 
robberies, stop the burglaries, stop the auto thefts, and stop the 
murders.
  A number of us who were concerned about this issue, including the 
Senator from Delaware, the Senator from Pennsylvania, and myself when I 
was then in the House, just scoured the country. We tried to find out 
what worked--not ideological, but something where we could have 
prevention or punishment. We found out that community policing worked 
just about better than anything else. Yes, we should have incarcerated 
more criminals--now we are--and had tougher penalties. Yes, we needed 
afterschool programs and things to help.
  The bill Senator Biden and I authored--he in the Senate and myself in 
the House--was called ``tough on punishment, smart on prevention.'' 
That was our credo. Probably the most important and best program in 
that bill was the COPS Program. As I say, I have seen it work in every 
part of my State.
  Violence is down, property theft is down, police officers are more 
fulfilled in the job that they do. In my own home State, in Buffalo, 
crime has been slashed more than 30 percent; in Albany, 24 percent; in 
Nassau County, 24 percent; in New York City, 44 percent. Talk to police 
chiefs, talk to ordinary cops, talk to criminologists; they will all 
point to the COPS Program.
  My colleagues, this program expires in the year 2000. If it is so 
successful,

[[Page 10417]]

and if we want to continue our fight against crime, we should be doing 
this. Keep up tough punishment, keep up smart prevention, but continue 
to fund this successful program.
  My colleague from Delaware is not being hyperbolic when he says this 
is one of the most important programs that we passed. We need to 
continue it. And putting 30 to 50 new officers on the beat, 
particularly the middled-sized and small cities, which have not applied 
because they haven't had the chance that the larger cities have had, is 
vital. It will help economically distressed communities, which all of 
us represent--no matter what part of the country we are in--to absorb 
some of the long-term costs of new police hires. And when crime goes 
down, which it does, because of the COPS Program, there are more jobs 
in a community, there is better health in a community, and the 
educational system works better in a community. It is good in every 
way.
  COPS isn't the only reason crime has gone down. But, just the same, 
no one can reasonably claim it is not a good part of the reason.
  I urge my colleagues in the strongest of terms to support this 
amendment to continue this magnificently successful program.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to reserve the remainder of 
the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator reserves 9 minutes 4 seconds.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The time the Senator from Delaware so generously yielded 
to me I yield right back to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from 
Oklahoma desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank the former chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Biden, who is on the floor. Maybe he can 
answer a couple of questions.
  I am trying to find out how much this amendment costs. Can you tell 
me how much it costs a year?
  Mr. BIDEN. It will cost over 5 years $1.15 billion--total cost for 5 
years.
  Mr. NICKLES. Maybe I am reading the amendment wrong. The way I am 
reading the amendment, it says----
  Mr. BIDEN. I beg the Senator's pardon. It is $1.150 billion per year.
  Mr. NICKLES. Just a few billion dollars.
  Mr. BIDEN. Over 5 years--it is over $1 billion.
  Mr. NICKLES. $1.150 billion each year.
  Mr. BIDEN. That is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. That is to hire how many cops?
  Mr. BIDEN. It could hire up to 50,000 cops.
  Mr. NICKLES. One-hundred and fifty thousand, or fifty thousand?
  Mr. BIDEN. It could fund 50,000 cops for the entirety of the 5 years. 
But it could also only hire 30,000 cops, if in Oklahoma City they 
decide to use the COPS money for overtime instead of hiring new 
shields.
  Mr. NICKLES. What is the estimated cost, or subsidy, or the Federal 
payment per cop?
  Mr. BIDEN. It is roughly $50,000.
  Mr. NICKLES. The first year?
  Mr. BIDEN. The first year--per year.
  Mr. NICKLES. Let me back up. I will reclaim my time, but please 
correct me if I am wrong. I asked staff how much this subsidy cost, and 
they said the old program cost a total of $75,000 over 3-year period--
$50,000 the first year, $15,000 the second year, and $10,000 the third 
year--for a total over a 3-year period of $75,000 in a Federal subsidy.
  Mr. BIDEN. That is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. The staff tells me that under the proposed new 
authorization that cost rises from $75,000 to $125,000 per police 
officer. Is that correct?
  Mr. BIDEN. I don't know how they get that number.
  Mr. NICKLES. I am just getting it from staff. My point is that this 
is an enormously expensive program.
  Let me ask the question a different way. If I can have the Senator's 
attention, I only have 7 minutes and I have to go kind of quick.
  Can he tell how much the cost is per cop per subsidy per year? It is 
graduated--100 percent the first year, and some other reduced 
percentage over the next 2 years. Can the Senator give us those 
percentages?
  Mr. BIDEN. The same as the existing COPS Program.
  Mr. NICKLES. Let me reclaim my time. On page 10 of the amendment, it 
says ``hiring cops.'' It says the bill is amended by striking $75,000 
and inserting $125,000.
  The cost of this program--the subsidy of this program right now of 
the current program, the one we have had for the last 5 years--has been 
a Federal subsidy per cop of $75,000. That is a pretty generous 
subsidy. I believe the first year subsidy is $50,000. In Oklahoma that 
may pay the entire salary of a cop. Maybe it doesn't in some places. 
But it does in my State. Then the subsidy is reduced the next couple of 
years so that by the fourth year, the total cost of the program needs 
to be borne by the city.
  This subsidy is much greater. The Senator's amendment says the 
subsidy increases from $75,000 to $125,000. For $125,000, you can pay, 
frankly, probably the entire 3-year salary in many areas--certainly in 
rural areas. And some people said we purported to help them 
particularly.
  I just question the wisdom of doing it.
  I have just two more comments. We are having the Federal Government 
provide for police in cities, and that is not a Federal responsibility. 
I think it is a mistake.
  I also think it is kind of gratuitous to say this program is 
responsible for the decline in crime rates. I think that might be a lot 
more attributable to a change in political leadership in the states and 
in the Congress. I know the mayor in New York City has had a different 
philosophy on crime which is greatly responsible for the reduction in 
crime. Now he may take advantage of this program. In a lot of cities 
they are going to say: Hey, if you will help pay for our police force, 
thank you very much.
  But why should we be doing it? Is that a Federal responsibility?
  The whole purpose of the program initially, if I understand it, was 
that we were going to put 100,000 cops on the street, but then phase it 
out. This was not going to be an addiction for cities. We would phase 
it out where the Federal Government may pay 100 percent the first year, 
but by the fourth year the subsidy is reduced to zero. Put another way, 
where the Federal Government was paying most of the subsidy to get this 
thing started to hire new cops, but by the fourth year the cost would 
be totally borne by the city. Now we are saying let's extend it. Let's 
just keep this thing going. Let's have more Federal cops.
  Then we passed an amendment yesterday, for the information of my 
colleagues, over my objection. But it passed by unanimous consent, 
unfortunately. It said that we have a COPS Program, and some of these 
cops are going into schools, and we will waive the requirement of local 
matching funds. In other words, the cops will be paid for 100 percent 
by the Federal Government. That is now part of this bill. We will waive 
the local contribution. So it won't be just a partial Federal subsidy, 
it will be a total Federal subsidy.
  Is that the Federal Government's responsibility? I don't think so.
  If we want to subsidize cities, subsidize cities. We are saying: 
Well, let's have the Federal Government do it. We have a problem. Let's 
just write a check. We don't think the city should be able to decide 
their own needs.
  Maybe they need computers and cars, and not cops. Maybe they need a 
different training program. But we are saying, no: you are going to 
have the cops.
  There is a study that was done by the inspector general, the IG. 
Maybe the Senator from Utah will allude to it. The IG's research said--
in just one example--52 out of 67 grantees are receiving more grants; 
78 percent either could not demonstrate that they redeployed officers, 
or could not demonstrate they had a system in place to track the 
redeployment of officers into community policing. At that point, the

[[Page 10418]]

COPS office counted 35,852 officers under more programs toward the 
President's goal of adding 100,000: we hadn't made it to 100,000. It 
says 60 of 147 grantees--41 percent--showed indicators of using Federal 
funds to supplement local funding instead of using grant funds to 
supplement local funding.
  In other words, hey, Federal Government, thank you very much. You are 
helping meet our budgets, and we appreciate the contribution. 
Meanwhile, it just so happens that we have a Federal Government that 
doesn't have a surplus, if you do not include the Social Security 
surplus.
  I don't think we should be subsidizing cities. I don't think we 
should get cities addicted to this program that will never end, 
especially when you are talking about increasing the cost from $75,000 
per police officer to $125,000. I don't think we can afford that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I recommend to the Senator from Delaware 
that what we should have done is consider this amendment--that is, the 
Senator's legislative proposal--on the Department of Justice 
reauthorization bill, and deal with this issue at that time, but only 
after hearings to see whether we can resolve some of these problems 
raised by the Inspector General. The Biden amendment reauthorizes the 
Clinton administration's COPS Program. This amendment would cost in the 
neighborhood of $7 billion. It doubles the cost of this bill. I don't 
oppose more money to hire police and have law enforcement, but we need 
to ensure flexibility in our grant programs. The Biden amendment does 
not provide for adequate flexibility. The Congress has provided 
flexible grants to law enforcement through the local law enforcement 
block grants.
  Ironically, the President's budget zeros out funding for the block 
grant program. Here we are debating a $7 billion amendment. The 
Department of Justice is proud of this program, but the Department of 
Justice's Inspector General does not share their view. The Department 
of Justice's Inspector General found serious mismanagement and 
inappropriate use of funds.
  Let me cite a few examples that the distinguished Senator from 
Oklahoma referred to:
  20 out of 145 grantees, 14 percent, overestimated salaries and or 
benefits in their grant application. I won't read all of this, but let 
me cite just a few more.
  74 of 146 grantees, 51 percent, included unallowable costs in claims 
for reimbursement; 52 out of 67 grantees receiving COPS MORE grants, 78 
percent, either could not demonstrate that they redeployed officers or 
could not demonstrate they had a system in place to track redeployment 
of officers in community policing; 60 of 147 grantees, 41 percent, 
showed indications of using Federal funds to supplant local funding, 
instead of using grant funds to supplement local funding; 83 of 144 
grantees, 58 percent, either did not develop a good-faith plan to 
retain officer positions or said they would not retain the officer at 
the conclusion of the grant.
  I believe there are some positive aspects to the COPS Program, but a 
$7 billion program with serious questions concerning the management of 
the program and the use of grants by recipients should not pass the 
Senate with only a 45-minute debate.
  I want to work with my colleagues on the law enforcement grant 
programs, but we should not try to do it on this bill. I will work with 
anyone who wishes to join me, but not on this bill. I plan to move a 
Department of Justice reauthorization bill later this year. If my 
colleagues truly wish to work with me, I suggest to them we do this on 
that authorization bill.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I reserve my remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 9 minutes and 
the Senator from Utah has 5 minutes 14 seconds.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Senator Hatch chairs the Judiciary 
Committee. It would be the responsibility of that committee to give 
oversight to the COPS Program. It has been a 5-year program and 
requires a reauthorization.
  We just received, within the last month or 6 weeks, an inspector 
general's report from the Department of Justice. This is President 
Clinton's Department of Justice. It raised serious concerns about how 
this program is being managed and administered.
  When 78 percent of the recipients could not demonstrate they 
redeployed officers, or could not demonstrate they had a system in 
place to track the redeployment of officers in the community policing, 
then we have a problem, since the whole COPS Program was sold as a 
program to further community policing. It was supposed to bring new 
police officers on line.
  We found 41 percent of the programs inspected by President Clinton's 
Department showed indicators of using Federal funds to supplant local 
funds instead of using grant funds to supplement local funding.
  I am reading directly from the report.
  These are very serious allegations. To pass this amendment, $7 
billion to reauthorize this program, in the dead of night without any 
hearing would be a colossal blunder. It would be an abdication of our 
responsibility, especially in light of this scathing report by the 
inspector general's office. The thought of it boggles my mind. I can't 
believe it would be even suggested.
  We ought to review, as we were supposed to when the program passed 5 
years ago, how it has worked. We haven't had any hearings on it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by my distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden. I 
would like to take this moment to highlight one element of Senator 
Biden's amendment, the extension and expansion of the Community 
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program.
  I have heard one consistent theme throughout the debate on this 
juvenile justice bill: a desire to stop, once and for all, the 
senseless schoolhouse shootings like those that occurred in Littleton, 
Jonesboro and Paducah. There is a growing sense among Americans that we 
are no longer safe in our homes, in our schools, in our communities. 
But while we have heard sharply disparate views about issues like gun 
control and content of video games in the debate so far, one sure way 
to reduce crime and restore peace of mind is through community oriented 
policing.
  As you are aware, the COPS Program was established in 1994 to put 
more police officers on the streets and to encourage police interaction 
with the communities in which they work. This program is a shining 
example of an effective partnership between local and federal 
governments. It provides federal assistance to meet local objectives. 
It does not interfere with local prerogatives; it does not impose 
mandates. The program provides funding to counties, towns and cities to 
enable communities to put more police on the street. Individual police 
and sheriff's departments have discretion over how those funds are 
used, because they know what problems their communities face and the 
places they need help most.
  COPS has had a positive, and very tangible, impact on communities 
throughout the country, including in my home state of Wisconsin, by 
putting more police officers on our streets and making our citizens 
safer. In the state of Wisconsin alone, COPS has funded over 1,100 new 
officers and contributed more than $70 million to communities to make 
it happen. The COPS Program has succeeded because it helps individual 
officers to be a friendly and familiar presence in their communities. 
They are building relationships with people from house to house, block 
to block, school to school. This community policing helps the police to 
do their job better, makes the neighborhoods and schools safer and, 
very importantly, gives residents peace of mind.

[[Page 10419]]

  Let me illustrate the strong causal relationship between community 
oriented policing and a reduction in the crime rate. I would like to 
share with you the story of Chief Jeff Lieberman of Fountain City, 
Wisconsin. Chief Lieberman polices a small town with big city crime 
problems. Chief Lieberman moved to Fountain City in 1992 and was faced 
with an alarming juvenile crime rate. What could he do to decrease the 
juvenile crime rate? While jails were being built and sentences were 
being stiffened, Chief Lieberman reached out to the community. He 
embarked upon a crusade to visit classrooms and teach children about 
law enforcement and safety. To allow the children to relate to him as 
they would to any other person and feel comfortable talking to him, he 
would sometimes dress in shorts and bring his dog to class. Not only 
has he won their respect, the children now show greater respect for 
their community. This success is reflected by the fact that during his 
tenure, he has reduced the juvenile crime rate by an astonishing 99%.
  Chief Lieberman has earned a reputation in the community as a caring 
and compassionate citizen, as well as an outstanding law enforcement 
officer. I might add that Chief Lieberman was recently recognized for 
his effective community oriented policing by the National Law 
Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund as the March 1999 Officer of the 
Month.
  I do not believe the answer to the tragedies in Littleton, Jonesboro 
and Paducah is one extreme or the other--a ban on all guns or 
censorship of the entertainment industry. The answer is to educate our 
young people, nurture them, protect them and give them thousands more 
``Chief Liebermans'' across this country. Senator Biden's bill does 
just that. It provides for expanding the much-lauded COPS Program to 
ensure that we have 30,000 to 50,000 ``Chief Liebermans'' in schools, 
towns and cities across, not only Wisconsin, but the entire nation. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and 
continuing our drive to put more police officers on the streets and in 
touch with their communities.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Let me make just a few more comments on this amendment. It 
has been suggested by the amendment's sponsors that the COPS program is 
responsible for the decline in crime in our country. Now, crime rates 
are still far too high, and are very high by historical standards. Be 
that as it may, we have seen some improvement in the past several 
years. But has the COPS Program been responsible for even the modest 
improvements we have seen? The evidence certainly suggests not.
  First of all, the program's grants have always been too spread out to 
have more than a marginal impact on crime rates. Second, law 
enforcement authorities themselves have been skeptical. For instance, 
in 1995, Chicago experienced sizable reductions in murder, robbery, and 
assault well before the COPS Program ever got off the ground. The 
Chicago Police Department cited a number of local initiatives that made 
a difference, including tracking every gun used by juvenile offenders, 
and using a towing ordinance in effect for narcotics and prostitution 
enforcement.
  Time and time again, the factor cited by the successful police 
executives traced the roots not to the Federal Government, but to local 
institutions, citizens, and police chiefs imposing accountability on 
their local police departments.
  Perhaps the best example of all is New York City, where a new police 
chief successfully attacked quality-of-life crimes and enforced 
accountability for the officers of the New York Police Department by 
setting standards of performance backed by a system of incentives and 
disincentives. New York City's murder rate fell so fast its decrease 
alone accounted for over 25 percent of the total nationwide drop in 
homicides in 1996.
  In 1997, the 21.7-percent drop in murders in New York City 
represented 14.8 percent of the total national decrease in murders. 
Yet, in New York City, which had 38,189 police officers in 1996, they 
added precisely 342 Clinton cops by 1995. Only 28 of the 342 new cops 
were actually new hires.
  I would like hearings on this matter. I would like another full 
authorization bill. I hope our colleagues will not vote to double the 
costs of this bill with this particular amendment, as well intended as 
it is.
  The distinguished Senator from Delaware knows that I have great 
feelings for him and for what he is trying to do, but I also believe we 
ought to do it in the right way.
  Mr. BIDEN. Benjamin Disraeli says there are three kinds of lies: 
lies, damn lies, and statistics.
  I don't know where my friends have been. Every major police agency in 
the United States of America strongly endorses this particular bill. 
The National Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association 
of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the 
National Association of Police Organizations.
  You all ought to go home and speak to your chiefs. Find me in your 
State more than a handful of police officers who will come and say this 
is a bad idea. Find me anybody in this country who will say adding 
92,000 cops on the street has not had an impact on crime.
  Where have you been? What are we talking about here? This doesn't 
even pass the smell test. Those cops don't matter? Ask Rudy Giuliani, 
who picks up the phone and calls me and says, Joe, great idea, when the 
COPS bill passed.
  Mr. Riordan, a Republican mayor in Los Angeles: Great bill.
  I wonder if anybody goes home to their States. My Lord, I don't know 
where you all are. I look at these numbers.
  Let's talk about that report. Remember, I said there are three kinds 
of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.
  That report referred to by the inspector general says 1.2 percent of 
the COPS Program could have been spent better. Name for me a 
multibillion-dollar program the Federal Government has ever conceived 
that has a 1.2-percent problem.
  Come on. As my daughter's friends would say, Get real. What are we 
talking about here?
  I was so amazed by the assertions being made, I lost my train of 
thought here. The inspector general's report, ``Summary of the Findings 
of the IG,'' page II:

       In considering our COPS audit results it should be kept in 
     mind that they may well not represent the overall universe of 
     grantees because, as a matter of policy, the COPS program has 
     referred to us for review those riskiest grantees.

  Do you get this? Unlike the Defense Department, the Department of 
Education, any other Department, the Attorney General's Office said, we 
think maybe some of what we put out there may not be being used 
properly, so you go out and investigate for us. Give me a break.
  When is the last time you heard someone at the Defense Department 
say: You know, we may have overpaid a contract; you ought to go 
investigate.
  When is the last time you heard someone at the Department of 
Education say: You know, we think we may have given a school district 
too much money; go investigate.
  With the Attorney General of the United States of America, in the 
COPS Program, there is a department called COPS. They said: We want you 
to look at this. We could have made some mistakes here. We are not 
certain that every municipality used this money for cops the way we 
wanted to use it. Go look at it.
  Now these guys are trying to hoist them on their own request?
  By the way, 1.2 percent? I ask my friend from Oklahoma, let's look at 
the Defense Department; 1.2 percent? I will lay you 8 to 5 I can find a 
50-percent waste of money in half the programs you support: 1.2 
percent, what an indictment. Come on. You do not like the COPS Program 
because it was not invented there.
  By the way, I find it fascinating. One of my friends said: You know, 
part of the problem here is this has nothing to do with COPS. It had to 
do with political leadership.

[[Page 10420]]

  Guess who has been in charge. A guy named Clinton. That is the first 
admission I have heard: Clinton reduced crime, more than the COPS 
Program. More than the COPS Program. I find that not true, but kind of 
encouraging.
  Look, COPS makes a difference. Ask your folks back home, ask the 
people in the gallery, ask the people out in the street, where would 
they rather have their money being spent? This works. This works.
  By the way, this bill has a little provision Barbara Boxer has in 
here. It says we will pay for all the money it costs to put a cop in a 
school. Go home and tell the folks you do not want to do that. Go home 
and tell the folks that is simply a local requirement.
  Inflexibility? The reason it is under $25,000 is flexibility. We want 
to give them more flexibility to use the moneys they can use, still 
requiring the local municipality, the State, to put up their own money 
to do this. Come on, name a program that has worked this well. Name a 
program that has had this much success. Name a program that has this 
little amount of waste. Name a program that has fewer Federal strings 
attached to it. Name a program.
  By the way: Oversight; oversight. We have had 5 years to have 
oversight. One of the reasons we have not had oversight hearings, I 
suspect, is you do not want to hear the results. Call in your mayors, 
call in your chiefs of police, call in your citizens, call in the PTA, 
call in the Marines. Call in anybody you want. Say: ``By the way, I'll 
tell you what we are going to do. We are going to cut funding for COPS, 
that's what we're are going to do.'' I dare you. Come on.
  In New York City--I do not know how many New York received. I will 
tell you what, New York State over this period received--I bring up the 
subject because New York was mentioned --New York State has 10,550 
cops. ``But they did not make any difference, by the way. New York is 
safer because there is a Republican mayor. That is the reason. COPS had 
nothing to do with this, nothing to do with this. I want you all to 
know that, COPS had nothing to do with crime going down.''
  Does everybody hear that? Is everybody listening? ``The additional 
cops have nothing to do with this.'' That is the Republican position. 
COPS do not have anything to do with this. If they do, the Federal 
Government should not be involved.
  Let me conclude by saying this. My friend says, why should the 
Federal Government be involved? Because Federal policy is part of the 
problem. The drug problem in America is a Federal problem, not just a 
local problem. A significant portion of the crime is caused as a 
consequence of the international drug problem, and it is a Federal 
problem, Federal responsibility.
  I thank my friend. I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I note the distinguished Senator did not 
dispute the findings of the inspector general.
  I ask unanimous consent an editorial from USA Today entitled 
``100,000-cops program proves to be mostly hype'' be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From USA Today, Apr. 13, 1999]

             100,000-Cops Program Proves To Be Mostly Hype

       Nassau County, N.Y., needed more police, or so it said. So, 
     Uncle Sam ponied up $26 million from President Clinton's 
     much-vaunted Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 
     program to help it add 383 police to the beat.
       And what happened? In an audit being compiled for the 
     Justice Department, its Office of Inspector General found 
     that the actual number of county-funded police officers went 
     from 3,053 in May 1995 to 2,835 in May 1998--a decline of 
     218.
       What's going on? A lot of funny number crunching at the 
     expense of taxpayers and possibly crime-fighting.
       When President Clinton initiated the $8.8 billion program 
     in 1994, he promised it would put 100,000 more police on the 
     street after five years. Then, communities pay their own 
     tabs.
       But Nassau County is one of more than 100 communities where 
     federal auditors found costly problems. A final report 
     detailing them is expected this week. And initial research 
     for that report paints a bleak picture.
       Richmond, Calif., for example, received $944,000 in COPS 
     grants from 1995 to 1997 to add nine officers. It used the 
     money to fund vacant positions instead. Atlanta, federal 
     auditors found, used COPS money to replace it own police 
     funds, too. And auditors looking at $400,000 in grants for 
     Alexandria, Va., found no documentation that equipment 
     purchased with the grant money put more officers on the 
     street as pledged.
       Many of the communities have excuses. For instance, Nassau 
     County is in fiscal crisis.
       The discrepancies, though, indicate much of the hype for 
     COPS is misleading.
       Two weeks ago, Vice President Al Gore claimed COPS had 
     already added 92,000 police, who were playing ``a significant 
     role in reducing crime,'' Yet, as the audits indicate, the 
     numbers don't add up. Many of the new police are fictitious. 
     In addition, the administration counted 2,000 police hired 
     with prior federal grants toward the 100,000 goal.
       Finally, a third of the counted positions have come from 
     grants funding new civilian positions and equipment, not 
     police. Spokane, Wash., which wasn't audited, says it added 
     only a couple of dozen officers, though it was credited with 
     adding more than 90. The reason: a $2.5 million equipment 
     grant.
       As for the claim that more police equals less crime, the 
     evidence isn't clear.
       Nassau County, despite its drop in police, has seen its 
     crime rate drop as much as in New York City, which has 
     increased its force by a third since 1992. And many 
     communities that didn't accept any COPS grants saw crime 
     decline precipitously, too.
       The COPS program has done little to explain these 
     discrepancies. It instead points to support from police 
     chiefs and national crime statistics as proof the program 
     works.
       The public naturally wants safer streets, and the Clinton 
     administration is trying to politically cash in again by 
     pushing a new $6.4 billion plan to add up to 50,000 more 
     police on the beat. But before Congress gives it the money, 
     it should demand that the administration better monitor its 
     grants and results. Taxpayers shouldn't be asked to pay for 
     police who may not even be there.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the report of the 
IG be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

  Police Hiring and Redeployment Grants Summary of Audit Findings and 
    Recommendations, October 1996-September 1998--Executive Summary


                             i. background

       In 1994, the President pledged to put 100,000 additional 
     police officers on America's streets to promote community 
     participation in the fight against crime. He subsequently 
     signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
     1994 (Crime Act), authorizing the Attorney General to 
     implement over six years an $8.8 billion grant program for 
     state and local law enforcement agencies to hire or redeploy 
     100,000 additional officers to perform community policing.
       The Attorney General established the Office of Community 
     Oriented Policing Services (COPS) to administer the grant 
     programs and to advance community policing across the 
     country. Management of the COPS grants entails both program 
     and financial management. The COPS office is responsible for: 
     (1) developing and announcing grant programs, (2) monitoring 
     programmatic issues related to grants, (3) receiving and 
     reviewing applications, and (4) deciding which grants to 
     award. The Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs 
     (OJP) is responsible for financial management of the COPS 
     program and is charged with: (1) disbursing federal funds to 
     grantees, (2) providing financial management assistance after 
     COPS has made an award, (3) reviewing pre-award and post-
     award financial activity, (4) reviewing and approving grant 
     budgets, and (5) financial monitoring of COPS awards.
       In order to meet the President's goal of putting 100,000 
     additional police officers on the street, COPS developed six 
     primary hiring and redeployment grant programs for state and 
     local law enforcement agencies. Hiring grants fund the hiring 
     of additional police officers and generally last for three 
     years. Redeployment grants are generally one-year grants and 
     fund the costs of equipment and technology, and support 
     resources (including civilian personnel) to free existing 
     officers from administrative duties and redeploy them to the 
     streets. At the end of the grant period, the state or local 
     entity is expected to continue funding the new positions or 
     continue the time savings that resulted from the equipment or 
     technology purchases using its own funds.
       According to COPS, as of February 1999, COPS and OJP had 
     awarded approximately $5 billion in grants under the six 
     programs to fund the hiring or redeployment of more than 
     92,000 officers, of which 50,139 officers had been hired and 
     deployed to the streets. COPS obtains its ``on the street'' 
     officer count by periodically contacting grantees by 
     telephone.

[[Page 10421]]




                          ii. summary findings

       From October 1996 through September 1998, the Office of the 
     Inspector General (OIG) performed 149 audits of COPS and OJP 
     hiring and redeployment grants totaling $511 million, or 10 
     percent of the funds COPS has obligated for the program. We 
     continue to perform additional grant audits as our resources 
     permit. Executive summaries of these audits are available for 
     public review on our website: <http://www.usdoj.gov/oig>. A 
     comprehensive program audit of COPS' and OJP's administration 
     of the overall $8.8 billion Community Policing Grant Program 
     is nearing completion and should be issued in the next few 
     months.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ In addition to expanding on issues contained in this 
     summary report, the program audit will report on COPS' 
     ability to meet the President's goal to put 100,000 
     additional police officers on the street by 2000. The exact 
     nature of the goal has become confused because of conflicting 
     statements made by Administration officials, who state that 
     the goal is to put 100,000 new officers on the street by the 
     year 2000, and recent statements made to use by COPS 
     officials, who state that the goal is to fund 100,000 new 
     officers. The program audit addresses that issue at length 
     and also addresses COPS' and OJP's monitoring of grantees and 
     the quality of guidance provided to grantees to assist them 
     in implementing essential grant requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Our audits focus on: (1) the allowability of grant 
     expenditures; (2) whether local matching funds were 
     previously budgeted for law enforcement; (3) the 
     implementation or enchantment of community policing 
     activities; (4) hiring efforts to fill vacant sworn officer 
     positions; (5) plans to retain officer positions at grant 
     completion; (6) grantee reporting; and (7) analyses of 
     supplanting issues. For the 149 grant audits, we identified 
     about $52 million in questioned costs and about $71 million 
     in funds that could be better used. Our dollar-related 
     findings amount to 24 percent of the total funds awarded to 
     the 149 grantees.
       In considering our COPS audit results, it should be kept in 
     mind that they:
       (1) Are snapshots as of the grant report's issuance date. 
     Subsequent communication between the auditee and COPS/OJP may 
     result in correction to, or elimination of, the issues noted 
     during our audit; and
       (2) May well not be representative of the overall universe 
     of grantees because, as a matter of policy, COPS has referred 
     to us for review what it believes to be its riskiest 
     grantees. During FY 1998, we began supplementing COPS 
     requests for audits by selecting about one-half of the 
     grantees ourselves. Our results to date, however, may still 
     be skewed because of the number of audits conducted on COPS-
     requested grantees and because our selections were not 
     entirely random. Some of our audits were also intended to be 
     targeted at suspected problem grantees. (Of the 149 audits we 
     performed through September 30, 1998, 103 were referred to us 
     by COPS or OJP. Although we selected only 46 of the 149 
     audits summarized in this report ourselves, our results to 
     date do not differ markedly from the results in the COPS/OJP 
     referred audits.) It should also be noted that COPS and OJP 
     do not always agree with our findings and recommendations. 
     Upon further review and follow-up, COPS and/or OJP may 
     conclude that, in their judgment, a grant violation did not 
     occur.
       Other findings include:
       20 of 145 grantees (14 percent) overestimated salaries and/
     or benefits in their grant application. The COPS office 
     depends primarily on the information provided by the law 
     enforcement departments that submit the grant applications. 
     When grantees overestimate salaries and/or benefits, COPS 
     overobligates funds that could be available for use 
     elsewhere. Also, grantees may be using the excess grant funds 
     for purposes that are unallowable.
       74 of 146 grantees (51 percent) included unallowable costs 
     in their claims for reimbursement. Types of unallowable costs 
     include overtime, uniforms, and fringe benefits not 
     previously approved by OJP. When grantees overstate costs, 
     COPS program costs are overstated and taxpayer money is at 
     risk.
       52 of 67 grantees receiving MORE grants (78 percent) either 
     could not demonstrate that they redeployed officers or could 
     not demonstrate that they had a system in place to track the 
     redeployment of officers into community policing. The COPS 
     office counts 35,852 officers under the MORE program towards 
     the President's goal of adding 100,000 additional officers.
       60 of 147 grantees (41 percent) showed indicators of using 
     federal funds to supplant local funding instead of using 
     grant funds to supplement local funding. The findings 
     included budgeting for decreases in local positions after 
     receiving COPS grants (27 grantees), using COPS funds to pay 
     for local officers already on board (7 grantees), not filling 
     vacancies promptly (22 grantees), and not meeting the 
     requirements of providing matching funds (35 grantees). When 
     grantees use grant funds to replace local funds rather than 
     to hire new officers, additional officers are not added to 
     the nation's streets. Instead, federal funds are used to pay 
     for existing police officers.
       83 of 144 grantees (58 percent) either did not develop a 
     good faith plan to retain officer positions or said they 
     would not retain the officer positions at the conclusion of 
     the grant. COPS and OJP started awarding community policing 
     grants in FY 1994 and most grants last for about three years. 
     If COPS positions are not retained beyond the conclusion of 
     the grant, then COPS will have been a short-lived phenomena, 
     rather than helping to launch a lasting change in policing.
       106 of 140 grantees (76 percent) either failed to submit 
     COPS initial reports, annual reports, or officer progress 
     reports, or submitted these reports late. The reports are 
     critical for COPS to monitor key grant conditions such as 
     supplanting and retention.
       137 of 146 grantees (94 percent) did not submit all 
     required Financial Status Reports to OJP or submitted them 
     late. Without these reports, OJP cannot monitor 
     implementation of important grant requirements.
       33 of 146 grantees (23 percent) had weaknesses in their 
     community policing program or were unable to adequately 
     distinguish COPS activities from their pre-grant mode of 
     operations. The findings suggest a need for COPS to refine 
     its definition of the practices that constitute community 
     policing as well as those that do not.
       After we issue our grant reports, COPS, OJP, and the 
     grantee are responsible for ensuring that corrective action 
     is taken. By agreement with COPS, OJP is our primary point of 
     contact on follow-up activity for the grants, although COPS 
     works with OJP to address our audit findings and 
     recommendations, particularly those that indicate supplanting 
     has occurred. The options available to COPS and OJP to 
     resolve our dollar-related findings and recommendations 
     include: (1) collection or offset of funds, (2) withholding 
     funds from grantees, (3) bringing the grantee into compliance 
     with grant terms, or (4) concluding that our recommendations 
     cannot or should not be implemented. To address our non 
     dollar-related findings and recommendations, COPS and OJP 
     can, in addition to other options, bring the grantee into 
     compliance with grant requirements or waive certain grant 
     requirements. When OJP submits documentation to us showing 
     that it has addressed our recommendations, the audit report 
     is closed.
       The report consists of the body of the report; a detailed 
     matrix setting forth the audit findings made during the 149 
     audits; the response of COPS and OJP to a draft of the 
     report, and our reply to their response.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, are the yeas and nays ordered on any of 
these amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the Bond amendment only.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                 Vote On Amendment No. 345, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
345, as modified.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) 
and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings) are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 138 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--56

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid

[[Page 10422]]


     Robb
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Hollings
     Landrieu
     McCain
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 371

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
votes--there are two of them in a series--be limited to 10 minutes in 
length. Senators, please don't leave the room. We are actually going to 
see if we can do one in 10 minutes. It is this one right now.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader 
allow a minute on each side just prior to the vote?
  Mr. LOTT. Usually we do that. I hope that we will not exceed that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on the Biden amendment, Biden-Kohl-Schumer-
Boxer-Specter amendment, it is very basic. Every major police 
organization in the country endorses this amendment. It adds a total of 
$600 million a year for the next 5 years for cops and $200 million a 
year for the next 5 years for prosecutors. It is endorsed by every 
major police organization. I hope my colleagues will vote for it.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, our bill is $1.1 billion per year. This is 
a $7 billion add-on. The fact of the matter is, we are going to have a 
Department of Justice authorization bill in the future. We will look at 
this and try to do it. We will have hearings on it, and we will do it 
the right way. It shouldn't be done on this bill.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
371. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Hollings) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 139 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hollings
     McCain
       
  The amendment (No. 371) was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am grateful to Senators Hatch, Allard, 
Ashcroft, and Sessions who have spent countless hours over the past two 
Congresses addressing the complex issues of school safety and juvenile 
violence.
  And, needless to say, I deeply appreciate their accommodating my 
concerns regarding a bill that I regard as among the most significant 
pieces of legislation to be considered this Congress--and for their 
having included three of my amendments in the manager's education 
package.
  When enacted, these provisions will improve access to public school 
disciplinary records by other schools; expand the authority of schools 
to run a national criminal background check on their employees; and 
encourage State and local governments to run such checks on all school 
employees who are charged with providing educational and support 
services to our children.
  Together, these provisions will make sure that local public, private, 
and parochial schools are able to make informed decisions about these 
individuals--whether a student, a teacher, or other school employee--
who pose an unreasonable risk to the safety and security of our 
children.
  Mr. President, we all share a common responsibility to protect our 
children and a common hope that our children will have a bright future. 
Though we disagree on the wisdom of creating more gun control laws, 
there are things that we ought to agree are necessary and in our 
children's best interests.
  In this spirit, I introduced a bill in the past two Congresses 
seeking to extend the provisions of the Gun-Free Schools Act to illegal 
drugs. This amendment is based on that bill and is cosponsored by the 
distinguished Assistant Majority Leader, Mr. Nickles, and the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Thurmond. I trust that 
this amendment will be looked upon favorably by Senators on both sides 
of the aisle.
  Mr. President, this amendment will strike an important blow in the 
war against drugs by helping to protect America's school-children from 
the scourge of drugs in their classrooms. It does this by requiring 
States to adopt a low mandating ``zero tolerance'' for illegal drugs at 
school in order to qualify for Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
(ESEA) funds. Zero tolerance is defined as requiring any student in 
possession of a felonious quantity of this contraband at school to be 
expelled for not less than one year. Its adoption will finally send a 
clear unambiguous message to students, parents, and teachers--drugs and 
schools do not mix.
  Anybody who questions the necessity of this measure should consider 
these excerpts from the 1998 CASA National Survey of Teens, Teachers 
and Principals. This outstanding report was prepared by the National 
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University under 
the direction of President Carter's former HEW Secretary, Joseph 
Califano. Under the heading ``Drug Dealing In Our Schools'', the report 
states:

       For too many kids, school has become not primarily a place 
     for study and learning, but a haven for booze and drugs. . . 
     . Parents should shutter when they learn that 22 percent of 
     12- to 14-year-olds and 51 percent of 15- to 17-year-olds 
     know a fellow student at their school who sells drugs. . . . 
     Indeed, not only do many of them know student drug dealers; 
     often the drug deals take place at school itself. Principals 
     and teachers may claim their schools are drug-free, but a 
     significant percentage of the students have seen drugs sold 
     on school grounds with their own eyes. . . . In fact, more 
     teenagers report seeing drugs sold at school (27 percent) 
     than in their own neighborhoods (21 percent).

  In other places, the report details that students consider drugs to 
be the number one problem they face and that illegal drugs are readily 
available to students of all ages. Exacerbating this terrible 
situation, illegal drugs are not cheaper and more potent than ever 
before. The CASA report goes on to state that ``one in four teenagers 
can get acid, cocaine or heroin within 24 hours, and given enough time, 
almost half (46 percent) would be able to purchase such drugs.'' 
Clearly, eliminating drugs from America's classrooms is a necessary 
first step to the restoration of order in our schools.
  The harm that illegal drugs causes our students in incalculable. 
Though

[[Page 10423]]

its' ill effects, disruptions, and the violence associated with it are 
not limited to those actually involved in the drug trade. The PRIDE 
survey, conducted by the National Parents' Resource Institute for Drug 
Education, found a link between school violence and drugs when it 
demonstrated that:

       Gun-toting students were 23 times more likely to use 
     cocaine;
       Gang members were 12 times more likely to use cocaine; and
       Students who threatened others were 6 times more likely to 
     use cocaine than others.

  Clearly, the connection between drugs and school violence is an 
irrefutable as it is frightening.
  Mr. President, it should seem obvious that many children take guns to 
school because they are either involved in illegal activity or because 
they seek to defend themselves from those who are. It is clear that any 
further effort to eliminate guns and violence from schools must focus 
not merely on the gun but on the reasons why students choose to arm 
themselves. My amendment does precisely that.
  My home state of North Carolina has not been immune to the ravages of 
illegal drugs. In fact, ``possession of a controlled substance'' has 
been either the first or second most reported category of school crime 
in North Carolina for the past four years. That's according to North 
Carolina State University's Center for the Prevention of School 
Violence, an outstanding organization that tracks the incidence of 
school crime and suggests ways to prevent it.
  As bleak as the picture is, there are immediate steps that we can 
take to reverse course. Those who are on the ``front lines'' of our 
country's drug war have important things to contribute to the 
discussion. Overwhelmingly, students, teachers and parents support the 
adoption of a zero tolerance policy for drugs at school.
  Among those surveyed, the CASA study found broad support for the 
adoption of firm policies on random locker searches, drug testing of 
student athletes, and zero tolerance policies. Regarding zero 
tolerance, 80% of principals, 79% of teachers, 73% of teenagers and 69% 
of parents voiced support for the adoption of such a policy at their 
school.
  Additionally, 85% of principals, 79% of teachers and 82% of students 
believe that zero tolerance policies are effective at keeping drugs out 
of schools and that they would actually reduce drugs on their campus. 
Quoting from the CASA report again:

       If these students believe them [zero tolerance policies] so 
     effective, these policies must make an impact on their 
     decisions to not bring drugs on campus. Given this, it seems 
     that schools . . .  should implement and strictly enforce 
     zero tolerance policies. Perhaps in doing so they can 
     increase their likelihood of eradicating drugs on their 
     school grounds.

  It is not my position that this amendment, by itself, will eliminate 
all drugs from our schools but it is clear that this is a long overdue 
step in the right direction.
  This policy is firm but fair. The drug trade and the violence 
associated with it have no place in America's classrooms. Schools 
should foster an environment that is conducive to learning and 
supportive of the vast majority of students who want to learn. Children 
and teachers deserve a school free of the fear and violence caused by 
drugs.
  Removing drugs and violence from our schools is a goal that we should 
all agree on. The President, in his 1997 State of the Union address, 
said ``we must continue to promote order and discipline'' in America's 
schools by ``remov[ing] disruptive students from the classroom, and 
hav[ing] zero tolerance for guns and drugs in school.'' I could not 
agree more with the President on this point: it is time that the Senate 
go on record in support of removing illegal drugs from America's 
classrooms, by approving this amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, there was yet another tragedy in Atlanta 
this morning. This is one more violent act that brings America together 
in sorrow. We hope that it is also an opportunity to bring us together 
to learn some important lessons. What are people--young people 
especially--saying to us all when they turn to violence to address 
their problems?
  This is an American challenge. We all have to do our part--in 
partnership. We must each do our job, but we must all work together. We 
in Congress are trying to do our part--passing bills, appropriating 
funds. But the Congress, like all of us, will do a better job when it 
really listens to the American people, and listens to young people. 
Every young person has the capacity to grow up to be a constructive 
citizen or a violent criminal. It's our job--all of us--to listen 
better.
  When we do listen, we find two issues at the core: working in 
partnership, and improving the tools to help build the adult/child 
relationship.
  How do we work together? There are many people who have answered this 
problem in communities all over the Nation. They abandon turf issues 
and special interests, they listen, and they remember that the child is 
at the center of the work. There are specific things we can learn in 
Congress from these communities--where to find the money and time and 
energy to get the work done together.
  How do we improve the relationships and connections that young people 
make with adults?
  It frustrates me that we cannot do some fairly obvious things--for 
young people, families, teachers, and communities.
  What can we do for students? Why is it that we can't figure out ways 
of building meaningful roles for young people in their own education, 
and in their own community? Why is it that if you are too young to 
vote, you are not taken seriously or treated as a citizen? Why is that 
when a child's hand goes up in the classroom, that child can't get the 
attention he or she needs from a teacher?
  We can do some simple things. We can ask young people what they think 
about how to prevent violence. We can reduce class size. We can make 
sure that when we hire more teachers, we have better and smaller 
schools in which to put them. We all have a role in making these things 
happen.
  What can we do to better support parents and families? We all know 
that a strong family unit is the engine that drives our economy, and 
that when it works well, it is the best and cheapest prevention program 
out there. So why is it so difficult to improve the tools and 
information available to parents?
  All parents want to do their best, so why is it off limits to talk 
about the problems with our economy, to talk about how parents spend 
too much time at work and not enough time with kids? Why can't we do 
the simplest things to make life easier for people who work harder and 
harder to provide for their family and spend less and less time with 
their kids?
  We can start with something simple, like making sure parents don't 
suffer at work just because they want unpaid leave time to go to a 
school conference, or take care of an emergency at their child's day 
care. We should improve the Family and Medical Leave Act. Again, there 
are things we all can do to make these things happen.
  What can we do for teachers and other educators? Why can't we give 
them a small enough class so they get to know each child, and can find 
5 extra minutes with the child who needs the most help that day? Why do 
we expect our teachers to deal with every educational and social issue 
under the Sun, but we can't treat them as professionals?
  We need to reduce class size. We need to improve teacher training. We 
need to improve teacher pay and professionalism. And, we need to think 
about one thing we can each do to act as a resource to that classroom. 
Is there a phone call we could make? An educational tool we could buy 
for the class? A day we could give to working for the passage of the 
school levy? There are things we all can do.
  What can we do to help communities support the adult-child 
relationship, and build connections for young people? Why is it that we 
don't have more adults participating in the lives of young people? Why 
is it that a student can walk from home to school to the mall to the 
quickie-mart and back

[[Page 10424]]

home again and feel invisible and anonymous? Why can't we allow our 
communities into our public school buildings at nights and on weekends?
  We should expand community education opportunities, and when we offer 
tax incentives, they should be the right ones that help communities 
invest in young people. We should each make sure to smile at young 
people, to keep an eye on them, to set high expectations, and to give 
them meaningful opportunities. Again, there are things we all must do.
  All over America, there is a conversation going on around the kitchen 
table, and on the school bus, and at the mall, and around the water-
cooler. We need to listen carefully to this conversation--to what is 
being said and asked for, and what is not. We need to act carefully, 
and invest wisely. But, most importantly, each of us need to keep this 
conversation going--to find out what to do and do it--until we create 
the America we want for our children and young people. And you know one 
of the best, most overlooked resources for building the America we all 
want? The young people themselves. Let's start by listening to them.
  The juvenile justice bill fails to fully address these problems. 
While many amendments have been adopted that focus on the right 
solutions, we failed to achieve support for most of those that would 
have focused this legislation on those things that could best solve 
youth violence. With that said, I will vote for the bill because I 
believe it has many positive provisions that combat youth violence.
  The bill provides important block grants to States to assist them in 
their efforts to address juvenile crime. While I prefer a high 
percentage of these funds be required for prevention, I know my State 
of Washington intends to continue to invest in steering kids away from 
crime through proven community-based prevention programs. The bill also 
provides for Internet filtering and screening software that will allow 
parents to regulate what their children are viewing over the Internet. 
It also made transfers of several types of firearms to children 
illegal.
  As I have already said, I agree with many of my colleagues who have 
said that there is no legislative ``quick fix'' to this terrible 
problem that is destroying so many young lives. The issue of youth 
violence involves complex and interrelated factors. From prevention 
programs that involve parents, teachers and communities, to strong law 
enforcement measures, there are many different tools we must use to 
attack the problem from all angles and prevent further tragedies like 
the one in Littleton.
  We must punish those who commit crimes, but we must also do all we 
can to prevent crimes before they happen, to intervene before small 
problems grow to crisis proportions. We must give schools and law 
enforcement officers the tools they need to identify the warning signs 
that lead to juvenile violence and to let youth know that crime is not 
an acceptable answer.
  While the bill does contain a ``prevention block grant,'' there is no 
guarantee the money will be used for prevention. Dollars from these 
grants could be used to build more prisons or increase enforcement. 
While these are laudable goals, without a guaranteed set-aside for 
prevention, a State could fail to attack youth violence before it 
starts. We must reach out to prevent at-risk youth from starting down a 
path of crime in the first place. While we were unable to secure 
specific amounts for prevention, I am hopeful that States will use 
their discretion and undertake prevention programs. An ounce of 
prevention is worth a pound of cure.
  Some of my colleagues have offered amendments to provide resources 
for effective violence prevention, and I am disappointed they have not 
been adopted. Last week, Senator Robb offered an amendment that would 
have provided funds for schools and law enforcement to identify and 
effectively respond to juvenile violent behavior. It would have 
established a National Clearinghouse of School Safety Information and 
provided an anonymous hotline to report criminal behavior and a support 
line for schools and communities to call for assistance.
  In addition, the Robb amendment would have provided treatment 
programs that identify and address the symptoms of youth violence to 
steer juveniles away from criminal behavior. It also would have 
provided authorization for afterschool programs, which have been very 
effective at keeping high-risk youth off the street and involved in 
activities that assist in their education and growth.
  I am hopeful that similar legislation will be offered again and that 
my colleagues will reconsider and give it their support.
  In addition to my disappointment at the lack of adequate resources 
for violence prevention, I have other concerns about this bill.
  I am very concerned about the fate of our youth serving time in 
prisons and other detention facilities. While we must certainly punish 
those who have committed crimes, we must make a serious attempt at 
rehabilitation and not allow juveniles to turn into hardened criminals 
in the course of their incarceration. It is well-known that juveniles 
who have contact with adults in prison are further indoctrinated into a 
life of crime or worse, assaulted or even killed. Current requirements 
prohibit juveniles, whether they were tried as adult or juveniles, from 
being kept in any adult jail or corrections institution where they have 
regular contact with adult inmates.
  The Hatch bill weakens that standard by allowing ``incidental'' 
contact and permitting construction of juvenile facilities on the same 
site as those for adults. Even convicted juveniles should be protected 
from hardened criminals. Those youth who are the most successful in a 
mixed juvenile-adult environment will be the ones we will least want 
back on the streets once they have served their time. It is my 
understanding that the Feinstein-Chafee amendment improved this 
provision, for which I am thankful, increasing protection of our 
children while they are in state custody.
  I also feel the Hatch bill critically weakens measures to address 
disproportionate minority confinement. The legislation replaces 
references to ``minority'' or ``race'' with the vague phrase ``segments 
of the juvenile population.'' Further, the Hatch bill is less 
instructive on what must be done to address the problem of 
discrimination, essentially making the issue a mere concern rather than 
a problem we must correct. This is the wrong direction to be heading if 
we truly seek to achieve fair and unbiased treatment of all people 
within the judicial system. An amendment to correct this problem was 
defeated.
  The Hatch bill also contains very troublesome provisions to allow the 
prosecution of children as young as 14 as adults, and gives 
prosecutors--not judges--the discretion to try a juvenile as an adult. 
Judges make judgments; prosecutors prosecute. It is obvious who is 
better qualified to render an unbiased decision on whether a 14-year-
old should be considered an adult.
  There is another idea missing from this bill. To solve youth violence 
we must all talk to the true experts: young people themselves. We need 
to listen to more than the student body presidents and the class 
valedictorians. We need to hear from ``regular'' kids.
  I know that I have learned a tremendous amount from doing that. Two 
weeks ago, I met with 10th graders in Kent, WA who told me some 
shocking things. They said that nearly all of them knew where they 
could get a gun within a day. That is a sad statement abut the lives of 
our youth. They are afraid and they are thinking about how to defend 
themselves with a gun.
  In the end, we were able, through the Lautenberg amendment on gun 
shows, to close one of the more glaring loopholes that allow young 
people and children to get guns. After much flip-flop on the issue by 
Republicans, a handful of their courageous Members lent enough support 
to this amendment by Senator Lautenberg to close some of these guns 
show loopholes, but this was not until they had tried two amendments of 
substance on the issue. Furthermore, it took the Vice President of the 
United States, acting in his role as the President of the Senate, to 
cast the

[[Page 10425]]

final vote to break the tie that will help keep kids and guns separate.
  Overall, S. 254 does much to tackle the tough questions surrounding 
juvenile justice. But as I have stated, there are a number of ways we 
could have improved this bill. We need to focus on preventive measures 
that bring together parents, kids, counselors and teachers; provide 
resources to enable people to identify and intervene in potentially 
dangerous situations; and give law enforcement the tools it needs to 
deal with the symptoms of youth violence not just the results of the 
violence.
  I hope in the future we can pass legislation that will address the 
remaining problems and can come up with even better solutions. We owe 
that much to our children.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am voting in favor of the juvenile crime 
bill, S. 254, because on balance it comes close enough to promoting the 
kind of approach that we need to reduce juvenile violence--the type of 
plan that is already working to reduce crime in cities like Milwaukee 
and Boston, and the type of strategy that will help us prevent future 
tragedies like the recent school shootings in Jonesboro, AR, Peducah, 
KY, Springfield, OR, Conyers, GA and Littleton, CO. There are many 
causes of juvenile crime--poverty, a deterioration of American families 
and family values, increased youth access to firearms, and the 
explosion of violent images in our culture, just to name a few--and it 
would be naive to presume there is a simple solution. Indeed, we need a 
comprehensive crime-fighting strategy to address all of these root 
causes and the entire range of juvenile offenders and potential 
offenders, from violent predators to children at-risk of becoming 
delinquent. That is the approach this bill takes, more or less.
  Let me explain the four keys to this balanced, proven strategy: 
keeping guns out of the hands of kids and of criminals; punishment; 
prevention; and reducing kids' exposure to violence in our culture.
  First, this bill will help keep firearms out of the hands of young 
people. It promotes gun safety with the Kohl/Hatch/Chafee amendment to 
require the sale of child safety locks with every new handgun. Child 
safety locks can help save many of the 500 children and teenagers 
killed each year in firearms accidents, and the 1,500 kids each year 
who use guns to commit suicide. Just as importantly, they can help 
prevent some of the 7,000 violent juvenile crimes committed every year 
with guns children took from their own homes. This measure passed with 
an overwhelming 78 votes, twice the number of votes a virtually 
identical proposal received last year.
  The bill also helps identify who is supplying kids with guns, so we 
can put them out of business and behind bars. Through the ``Youth Crime 
Gun Interdiction Initiative,'' the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms has been working closely with cities like Milwaukee and Boston 
to trace guns used by young people back to the source. Using ATF's 
national database, police and prosecutors can target illegal suppliers 
of firearms and help stop the flow of firearms into our communities. 
While I served as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for Treasury 
Appropriations, we provided funding to expand this initiative to 27 
cities. This measure will expand the program to up to 200 other cities 
and, with the increased penalties outlined above, help stanch illegal 
gun trafficking.
  And not only will this bill prohibit all violent criminals from 
owning firearms, no matter what their age, through ``Project CUFF'' it 
also encourages aggressive enforcement of this federal law by 
dedicating federal prosecutors and investigators to this task. This 
builds on a successful program, supported by the NRA, that has helped 
reduce gun violence in Richmond, Va., and Boston through increased 
federal prosecution, close coordination with state officials, public 
outreach and fewer plea bargains. Still, to be truly effective, this 
measure needs to be improved, so that we don't force it on 
uncooperating cities where it's unlikely to succeed.
  Unfortunately, the bill fails in its stated intent to close an 
inexcusable loophole that allows violent young offenders to buy guns 
legally when they turn eighteen. Under current law, violent adult 
offenders can't buy firearms, but violent juveniles can--for example, 
even the kids convicted of the schoolyard killings in Jonesboro, 
Arkansas--once they are released at age eighteen. Simply put, this has 
to stop, and the bill tries to do this--sort of. A provision declares 
that all violent felons are disqualified from buying firearms, 
regardless of whether they were 10, 12, or just a day short of their 
18th birthday at the time of their offense. However, although the bill 
technically closes this loophole, because it only applies to violent 
crimes committed once juvenile records become ``routinely available'' 
on-line, its indefinite effective date merely opens another loophole in 
its place. This provision may never take effect. When juvenile records 
are all ``on-line'' is a long way away, and in the meantime many young 
criminals will continue to have the ability to get a gun at 18 once 
they get out of jail.
  Each of these provisions was addressed in my juvenile crime bill, the 
21st Century Safe and Sound Communities Act. In addition, after much 
back-and-forth--and forth-and-back--we finally agreed to close the gun 
show loophole once and for all. I am pleased to see a bipartisan 
consensus start to emerge over taking these steps to keep guns out of 
young hands.
  Second, we need to lock up the worst offenders, including dangerous 
violent juveniles. Naturally, we can't even begin to stop violent kids 
unless we have police officers on the street to catch them, and the 
state and local prosecutors, defense attorneys and courts we need to 
try them. To that end, this bill provides $100 million per year for 
state and local prosecutors, defense attorneys and courts for 
juveniles. Unfortunately, we missed an opportunity to extend the highly 
successful COPS program--which is due to expire after next year--in 
this bill. Extending the COPS program will make it easier to lock up 
dangerous juveniles, and I look forward to working with my colleagues 
to make that happen.
  Of course, we can't keep criminals off the streets unless we have a 
place to send them. So this measure dedicates funding for juvenile 
prisons or alternative placements of delinquent children--a long-needed 
measure for which I have advocated since before the 1994 Crime Act.
  This proposal also helps rural communities keep dangerous kids behind 
bars. Now, although the closest juvenile facility may be hundreds of 
miles away, federal law prohibits rural police from locking up violent 
juveniles in adult jails for more than 24 hours. This means that state 
law enforcement officials either have to waste the time and resources 
to criss-cross the state even for initial court appearances, or simply 
let dangerous teens go free. In my view, that's a no-win situation. 
This measure gives rural police the flexibility they need by letting 
them detain juveniles in adult jails for up to 48 hours, or longer with 
parental consent, provided they are separated from adult criminals. 
Working with Wisconsin's rural sheriffs, I first proposed a similar 
extension three years ago.
  Moreover, this measure will help lock up gun-toting kids--and the 
people who illegally supply them with weapons. It builds on my 1994 
Youth Handgun Safety Act by turning illegal possession of a handgun by 
a minor into a felony. And the same goes for anyone who illegally sells 
handguns to kids. Both of these provisions were in my juvenile crime 
bill. Kids and handguns don't mix, and our Federal law needs to make 
clear that this is a serious crime.
  In addition, this measure makes it easier to identify the violent 
juveniles who need to be dealt with more severely--by strongly 
encouraging states to share the records of juvenile offenders and 
providing the funding necessary for improved record-keeping. The fact 
is that law enforcement officials need full disclosure to make informed 
judgments about who should be incarcerated, but current law allows too 
many records to be concealed or to vanish without a trace when a teen 
felon turns eighteen.

[[Page 10426]]

  Finally, this measure includes my proposal, cosponsored by Senator 
DeWine: the Violent Offender DNA Identification Act of 1999, which will 
promote the use of modern DNA technology to resolve unsolved crimes 
committed by both juveniles and adults. Our measure will reduce the 
backlog of hundreds of thousands of unanalyzed DNA samples from 
convicted offenders by providing the funding necessary to analyze them 
and put them ``on-line,'' so they can be shared between states and 
matched with crime scene DNA evidence. And, while all 50 states 
authorize collection of DNA samples, it closes the loophole that allows 
DNA samples from Federal and Washington, D.C. offenders to go 
uncollected. The Department of Justice estimates that upgrading our DNA 
databases alone could solve a minimum of 600 crimes tomorrow.
  Third, a balanced approach also requires a significant investment in 
crime prevention, so we can stop crime before it's too late. In fact, 
no one is more adamant in support of this approach than our nation's 
law enforcement officials. For example, last year more than 400 police 
chiefs, sheriffs and prosecutors nationwide endorsed a call for after-
school programs for all children. And in my home state of Wisconsin, 90 
percent of police chiefs and sheriffs I surveyed agreed that we need to 
increase federal prevention spending.
  This proposal promotes prevention by concentrating funding in 
programs that already have a record of success and those that rely on 
proven strategies, like the ones that give children a safe place to go 
in the after-school hours between 3 and 8 p.m., when juvenile crime 
peaks.
  For example, it includes my amendment to expand the Families and 
Schools Together (FAST) program, a successful program that finds 
troubled youth and reconnects them with their schools and families. 
FAST, which was created in my home state of Wisconsin and is already 
being implemented in 484 schools in 34 States and five countries, helps 
ensure that youth violence does not proliferate to our schools and 
communities by empowering parents, helping to improve children's 
behavior and performance in school, preventing substance abuse, and 
providing support and networking for families by linking them to 
community resources and services.
  The bill also promotes innovative prevention initiatives by 
reauthorizing and expanding the Prevention Challenge Grant program 
(formerly known as Title V), which former Senator Hank Brown and I 
authored in 1992. This program encourages investment, collaboration, 
and long-range prevention planning by local communities, who must 
establish locally tailored prevention programs and contribute at least 
50 cents for every federal dollar. And, in response to concerns I 
raised about the risk of watering down this program with non-prevention 
uses, 80 percent of its funding is reserved for prevention--that is, 
programs addressing at-risk kids before they ever enter the juvenile 
justice system.
  It also builds on our support for the valuable work of Boys & Girls 
Clubs by continuing to dedicate funding to the Clubs and expanding 
funding to other successful organizations like the YMCA. And it 
requires that at least 25 percent of $450 million juvenile 
accountability block grant be dedicated to prevention.
  Of course, we shouldn't blindly invest in prevention programs, just 
because they sound good. Quality matters. And it would foolish to throw 
good money after bad. That's why this measure requires at least 5 
percent of all Prevention Challenge Grant funds--and more than 15 
percent of FAST funds--be set aside for rigorous evaluations, so we can 
keep funding the programs that work, and zero out programs that don't.
  Finally, this bill also aims to provide us with a better 
understanding of how violence in our culture is marketed to children, 
and it encourages industry to take self-regulatory steps to reduce this 
violence. For example, the Brownback amendment, which I consponsored, 
orders a joint FTC/DOJ study of the marketing practices of the video 
game, motion picture, and television industries to determine whether or 
not the industries are peddling violence to kids. In particular, it 
will help us determine whether or not the industries are peddling 
violence to kids. In particular, it will help us determine whether the 
video game industry is marketing the same ultraviolent games to 
children that are rated ``adults only.''
  Mr. President, while explaining what causes a tragedy like Littleton 
remains a mystery, the question about how to reduce juvenile crime no 
longer is. We have a good idea about what works. And this bill overall 
is a step in the right direction. Like any piece of legislation, of 
course, it isn't perfect. For example, we need to really close the 
loophole that allows violent juvenile offenders to buy guns. We need to 
extend the COPS program so that we have enough police officers on the 
streets to catch and lock up dangerous juveniles and criminals. We 
should restore the so-called ``mandate'' requiring states to make 
efforts to reduce disproportionate minority confinement. This 
requirement, which I helped write in 1992, at most simply encourages 
states to address prevention efforts at minority communities. And it 
may be most important for its symbolic recognition of continuing racial 
divisions that dominate our society and our justice system, whether or 
not the justice system is actually discriminatory. Still, it makes no 
sense to cast away this provision without any hearings, any organized 
opposition, or any constitutional challenges to it over its seven-year 
history. I am hopeful that the House, which has always been supportive 
of this provision, will insist on restoring it in Conference.
  And while the bill is a step forward for prevention, we can still do 
better. Although some suggest that as much as 55 percent of the $1 
billion in spending at the heart of the bill goes toward prevention, in 
reality less than 30 percent is dedicated to prevention ($160 million 
through the 80 percent set-aside of the Prevention Challenge Grant, 
$112.5 million through the 25 percent earmark from the Accountability 
Block Grant, and $15 million for mentoring). To effectively reduce 
juvenile crime, the ratio of prevention spending to enforcement 
spending has to be a lot higher.
  Finally, Mr. President, I express my appreciation to Senators Hatch 
and Leahy, and their staffs--Beryl Howell, Manus Cooney, Rhett DeHart, 
Mike Kennedy, Bruce Cohen, Ed Pagano, Craig Wolf, and, of course, Brian 
Lee, Jessica Catlin, Kahau Morrison and Jon Leibowitz of my staff--for 
their hard work in putting together this balanced bill, which is 
significant improvement from where we were headed last Congress. I look 
forward to continuing to work with them when we move to conference.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of final 
passage and explain why I plan to vote for final passage of S. 254, the 
Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation 
Act of 1999. At the outset, I must make clear that I do not support 
every provision in this bill. There is much in this bill that is simply 
extraneous--provisions that do not address the problem of youth 
violence. Moreover, there are items included in this bill by amendment 
that I opposed. There are also items that were included through the 
manager's amendment, such as the creation of new federal judgeships, 
that I oppose.
  However, there are many provisions in this bill that I have long 
championed and have worked hard to include in the bill. Let me briefly 
summarize these key provisions of this law:


                     ashcroft provisions in S. 254

  There are four main Ashcroft initiatives in the core Senate juvenile 
justice bill, S. 254. Those provisions are: (1) Trying juveniles as 
adults on the federal level, (2) targeting adults who use juveniles 
through increased penalties, (3) funding for improving juvenile record 
system and incentives for recordsharing, and (4) Charitable choice--
preventing discrimination against faith-based organizations that stand 
ready to provide counseling to troubled youth.

[[Page 10427]]

  First, the core bill makes it easier for federal prosecutors to try 
juveniles as adults in federal court. Specifically, the bill provides 
local United States Attorneys with new authority to try juveniles 14 
and older who commit violent federal crimes and federal drug crimes as 
adults. This provision is an important improvement in the law. Violent 
federal crimes and major federal drug crimes are not youthful 
indiscretions or juvenile pranks--these are serious adult crimes. The 
bill makes important steps to ensure that in the federal system 
juveniles who commit adult crimes do adult time.
  Second, the core bill also targets adults who would exploit children 
and ensnare them into a life of crime. One sad consequence of a 
juvenile justice system that treats juvenile crime less seriously than 
adult crime is that adults try to game the system by using juveniles to 
perform criminal tasks with the greatest risk of detection. Adults use 
children as drug runners or couriers precisely because the children are 
likely to end up back on the street even if they are caught. The core 
bill addresses this problem by including two provisions from my Protect 
Children from Violence Act, S. 2023, from the last Congress. 
Specifically, section 202 increases the mandatory minimums for adults 
who use juveniles to commit drug crimes from 1 year to 3 years for 
first-time offenders and from 1 year to 5 years for repeat offenders. 
Section 203 doubles the penalties on adults who use juveniles to commit 
crimes of violence and trebles penalties for repeat offenders.
  The core bill also includes important provisions to facilitate the 
sharing of juvenile criminal records. This legislation encourages 
States to keep records on violent juveniles that are the equivalent of 
the records kept for adults committing comparable crimes. In addition, 
the bill conditions the availability of federal funds on States' 
participation in a nationwide system for collecting and sharing 
juvenile criminal records. Under the bill, state authorities must make 
these criminal records available to federal and state law enforcement 
officials and school officials to assist them in providing for the best 
interests of all students and preventing more tragedies. Providing 
judges and school officials with accurate records is a critical step in 
preventing tragedies. School officials and judges have a right and a 
need to know when they are dealing with dangerous juveniles. Providing 
accurate records is not only an important role for the government, it 
is a role that only the federal government can fulfill. Violent 
juveniles routinely cross state lines. The federal government has an 
important role in ensuring that their criminal records cross state 
lines with them.
  Finally, the core bill includes my provision ensuring that faith-
based organizations have an equal opportunity to provide services to 
at-risk youth. The experience of the past decade has made clear that 
government does not have all the answers for what ails our culture. No 
organizations should be excluded from the process of trying to heal our 
violent culture, let alone faith-based organizations. The ``charitable 
choice'' provisions in the bill do not provide for any special 
treatment for faith-based organizations, but they do ensure that faith-
based groups will not be arbitrarily excluded when the government turns 
to non-governmental organizations to deal with at-risk juveniles.
  The bill in its current form also includes a number of important 
provisions that were added by amendment. These include:
  Semi-automatic assault rifles ban for juveniles. The Senate 
overwhelmingly adopted this Ashcroft amendment. The amendment had three 
major provisions:
  (1) Ban on juvenile possession of semi-automatic assault rifles. This 
provision extends the current limitations (subject to the current 
exceptions) on youth possession of handguns to semi-automatic assault 
weapons. The provision does not affect a juvenile's right to possess 
hunting rifles.
  (2) Requirement that juveniles be tried as adults for weapons 
violations in a school zone. Juveniles who commit firearms violations 
near a school zone must be sent a clear message--such actions will not 
be tolerated and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
  (3) Increased penalties for unlawfully transferring a firearm to a 
juvenile with knowledge that it will be used in a crime of violence.


                       Ashcroft education package

  The Senate overwhelmingly approved this comprehensive amendment which 
reflects not only specific Ashcroft initiatives but the work product of 
the Republican Education Task Force, which Senator Ashcroft chaired. 
The major Ashcroft initiatives in the package include:
  (1) Flexibility for local schools to address school violence. This 
provision provides schools with the flexibility to use existing 
education funds, and the new education funds included in the Republican 
budget, to address security concerns as they see fit. Permissible uses 
include everything from the installation of metal detectors, to the 
formulation of inter-agency task forces, to the introduction of school 
uniform policies.
  (2) School uniforms. Another Ashcroft provision makes clear that 
nothing in federal law prevents local school districts from instituting 
school uniform policies.
  (3) School records. Another provision makes clear that student 
disciplinary records should follow students to a new school, without 
regard to whether it is public or private. Teachers and administrators 
need to know who they are dealing with and whether they have security 
risks in their midst.


                     frist-Ashcroft idea amendment

  This amendment removes a loophole in federal law that prevents States 
from disciplining an IDEA student in the same manner as a non-IDEA 
student, if an IDEA student brings a gun to school. The Senate passed 
this common sense amendment 74-25. A number of my colleagues also added 
my initiatives to the bill through their own amendments. These include:


                hatch/craig comprehensive crime package

  This amendment included a number of Ashcroft mandatory minimums. 
Specifically, Ashcroft provisions in the bill raised mandatory 
minimums:
  (1) From 1 to 3 years for distributing drugs near a school zone (from 
1 to 5 years for subsequent offenses). This provision was adopted from 
Ashcroft's Protect Children from Violence Act, S. 2023.
  (2) From 1 to 3 years for distributing drugs to a juvenile (1 to 5 
years for subsequent offenses). This provision was adopted from 
Ashcroft's Protect Children from Violence Act, S. 2023.
  (3) From 7 to 10 years for brandishing a firearm during the 
commission of a federal crime. This provision was adopted from 
Ashcroft's Juvenile Misuse of Firearms Prevention Act, S. 994.
  (4) From 10 to 12 years for discharging a firearm during the 
commission of a federal crime. This provision was adopted from 
Ashcroft's Juvenile Misuse of Firearms Prevention Act, S. 994.
  The amendment also included two new Ashcroft mandatory minimum 
sentences also adopted from S. 994:
  (1) A 15-year mandatory minimum for maiming or injuring someone with 
a firearm during the commission of a federal crime
  (2) A 5-year mandatory minimum for transferring a firearm with 
knowledge that it will be used in a crime of violence.


                     hatch/feinstein gang amendment

  The Senate also overwhelmingly passed the Hatch-Feinstein amendment 
designed to target and punish gang violence. The amendment included 
many provisions long-championed by Ashcroft, including almost the 
entirety of the gang subtitle of Ashcroft's ``Protect Children from 
Violence Act,'' S. 538, introduced on March 4, 1999.
  Specifically, the amendment included the following Ashcroft 
provisions: enhanced sentences for crimes committed as part of gang 
violence, new crimes for interstate gang activities, the treatment of 
juvenile crimes as adult crimes for purposes of the federal laws 
imposing severe penalties on armed career criminals, and increased

[[Page 10428]]

penalties for witness tampering. All of these provisions were included 
in the ``Combating Gang Violence'' subtitle of Ashcroft's Juvenile 
Crime bill.
  In summary, this is not a perfect bill. There is much that is 
extraneous and some that is misguided. I am hopeful some of these 
provisions will be removed in conference. On balance, however, this 
bill will help make our schools places of learning, not places of fear.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in strong 
opposition to final passage of S. 254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile 
Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999. I do so because 
I believe that the gun control amendments to this bill that have been 
adopted by the Senate will do lasting damage to the fundamental right 
to keep and bear arms, which is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States.
  I am outraged, Mr. President, that the gun control lobby in this 
country has taken advantage of the tragedy last month at Littleton, 
Colorado, as well as the incident today in Georgia, to mount an 
unprecedented assault on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun 
owners. They cast blame on law-abiding gun owners, while leaving the 
movie moguls and video game makers who promote wanton violence to 
children virtually unscathed.
  Frankly, Mr. President, I am also disappointed by some of my 
colleagues in my own political party here in the Senate. I have spent a 
great deal of time, over the past two weeks as the Senate has debated 
this bill, arguing privately with these colleagues and trying to 
persuade them to hold the line against this onslaught of gun control 
amendments. Sadly, Mr. President, I have not been successful. 
Nevertheless, I am proud to have stood up for the Second Amendment, 
even, in one case, when I was only one of two Senators to vote against 
a gun control amendment to this bill.
  I am particularly angered, Mr. President, by what the Senate has 
voted to do with respect to gun shows. Sadly, it seems evident to me 
that the practical effect of the Lautenberg Amendment, adopted earlier 
today when Vice President Gore cast the tie-breaking vote, will be 
effectively to ruin gun shows--to put them out of business. This, 
unfortunately, seems to me to be the aim of the Lautenberg Amendment.
  I am also deeply concerned about the effects of the so-called 
``trigger lock'' amendment. Even though the amendment appears only to 
require trigger locks to be sold with guns, the legal effect of the 
amendment may well be to do great damage to the Second Amendment rights 
of law-abiding gun owners. This is because courts may construe the 
amendment as creating a new civil negligence standard under which gun 
owners will be seen as having a legal obligation to use their trigger 
locks or face legal liability if their gun is misused by some third 
party.
  If, in fact, the law develops such that gun owners have a legal 
obligation to use trigger locks, these law-abiding gun owners may be 
forced to put their safety, and that of their families, at risk. It is 
certainly not unreasonable to imagine a single mother of small 
children, depending on her gun for safety, panic-stricken as she 
struggles unsuccessfully with her trigger lock in the middle of the 
night after hearing a burglar break into her home.
  Mr. President, these are but two examples of the grave harm that the 
gun control amendments adopted to this bill by the Senate have done to 
the Second Amendment rights of Americans. When the heat of this moment 
is gone, and the passions so shamelessly stirred up by the gun control 
lobby have subsided, I am afraid that many of those who supported these 
amendments will realize that they have done the Second Amendment 
serious and lasting harm. Sadly, though, it will be too late.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           amendment no. 322

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue raised 
by the Hatch amendment number 322, which the Senate agreed to on 
Tuesday, May 11. While I support both the underlying bill and this 
amendment, I am concerned about a portion of this amendment which is 
within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on the Budget. The 
Hatch amendment contained language which amends that portion of the 
1994 Crime Bill which created the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.
  This portion of the amendment does two things: (1) it extends the 
fund through fiscal year 2005 and (2) it extends the discretionary 
spending limits (albeit indirectly) through fiscal year 2005 for the 
violent crime reduction category. As a result, the amendment was 
subject to a point of order pursuant to section 306 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 because it contained matter within the 
jurisdiction of the Budget Committee and was offered to a bill that was 
not reported by the committee. I chose not to challenge this provision 
because I support the underlying legislation and I have been assured by 
the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator hatch, that my 
concerns will be addressed when the bill goes to conference.
  Let me begin by saying that I support full funding for crime fighting 
efforts. I am, however, troubled by this amendment because--in its 
attempt to ensure funds are available for these important programs it 
has stumbled into a series of, as yet, unresolved issues regarding the 
budget process: should the discretionary spending limits be extended 
beyond fiscal year 2002? If yes, should there be limits within the 
overall cap for items such as defense, highways and mass transit, and 
crime? Current law (section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
Deficit Control Act of 1985) provides limits on discretionary spending 
(the ``caps'') through the end of fiscal year 2002.
  When the issue of the caps was last addressed during deliberations on 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress decided that the overall caps 
on discretionary spending would end after 2002, that the defense cap 
would end after 1999, and that the crime cap would end after 2000. This 
was decided as part of a very carefully crafted compromise between the 
Congress and the President, involving both mandatory and discretionary 
spending, that has now led us to a balanced budget. Our ability to live 
within these discretionary caps has played a significant role in 
producing not only a balanced budget, but surplus for the foreseeable 
future. Thus I feel it is not appropriate at this time to extend only 
the crime cap without addressing the broader issue of the appropriate 
level of discretionary spending. Moreover, I fear that raising the 
issue of the caps at this time will unnecessarily complicate the 
passage of this important juvenile justice legislation.
  I know that I do not have to remind my colleagues how difficult it is 
going to be both this year and next to pass all 13 appropriations bills 
and stay within the caps which we currently have in place for the next 
three years. While I am supportive of funding for criminal justice 
programs, I am concerned that extending the crime cap will only make an 
already difficult task that much harder. I might also point out to my 
colleagues that by extending only the crime cap and not the overall 
cap, this legislation has the effect of limiting crime spending for 
fiscal years 2003 through 2005 when there will be no such limits upon 
any other type of discretionary spending.
  I thank my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, for recognizing my 
concern with this amendment and I look forward to working with him on 
this issue when the bill is in conference.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to thank the distinguished 
managers of this bill, Senators Leahy and Hatch, for including the 
Feinstein-Chafee amendment regarding separation of juveniles from 
adults in custody in the managers' ``technical amendment.'' I also wish 
to thank Senators Akaka, Feingold, Kohl, and Jeffords, who agreed to 
co-sponsor our amendment, for their support.
  This amendment resolves a major concern that many, many people had 
with this bill, and will help speed the way to its final passage.
  Our amendment is designed to strengthen the bill's requirements for

[[Page 10429]]

separating juveniles in custody from adult criminals. We should not be 
counter-productive by allowing juvenile detention to be a school for 
crime, nor should we be cruel in permitting the victimization of youths 
by hardened adult criminals.
  Under current law, juveniles cannot have any contact with adult 
inmates. None whatsoever. When a juvenile is in an adult facility, that 
juvenile cannot be within ``sight or sound'' of any adult--ever!
  Why is that one of the four so-called ``core'' requirements?
  Because I remind my colleagues that we are talking about children.
  Children who may or may not have committed a violent offense.
  Children who may have been arrested for the first time.
  Children who perhaps are on the wrong path but most likely never 
commit another offense ever: statistically, over two-thirds of 
juveniles arrested never commit another crime.
  In the early 1970s, before there were protections for children who 
came into contact with our court system, a number of studies found that 
children in adult jails were subject to rape, assault, sodomy, murder, 
and other acts which sometimes, frankly too often, led to suicide.
  The Judiciary Committee at the time learned of numerous tragedies and 
outright atrocities, including a report on practices in Philadelphia 
which estimated that 2,000 sexual assaults occurred inside adult jails 
or ``sheriff's vans'' used to transport juvenile and adults to court 
over a 26-month period. One juvenile was raped five times while inside 
such a van.
  The numbers tell the story. Children in adult jails are 8 times more 
likely to commit suicide; 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted; 
twice as likely to be assaulted by staff; and 50 percent more likely to 
be attacked with a weapon than are children in juvenile facilities, 
according to studies by the Justice Department and others.
  In my state of California, we passed our laws to keep juveniles out 
of adult jails in the mid-1980s in the wake of tragedies such as the 
case of Kathy Robbins, a 15-year-old girl who hung herself when she was 
placed in an adult jail in Glenn County for violating a juvenile 
curfew.
  After those reports were released, Congress enacted the Juvenile 
Justice Delinquency Prevention Act and subsequent renewals of the law 
to ensure that children would be treated fairly by the juvenile justice 
system and be kept safely away from adults in jail.
  Kentucky chose to forgo Federal money and continue placing juveniles 
in adult jails. This chart shows the result: four suicides, one 
attempted suicide, two physical assaults by other inmates, two sexual 
assaults by other inmates, and one rape by a deputy county jailer.
  Let me give you some of the names behind the numbers:
  In Oldham County, 15-year-old Robert Lee Horn, Jr. was put in jail 
for truancy and beyond parental control. He was paraded through the 
jail in front of adult inmates who called out to him for sex. He hung 
himself.
  In McCracken County, a 16-year-old Todd Selke was put in adult jail 
for being a runaway and disorderly conduct. He committed suicide.
  In Franklin County, a 16-year-old runaway was raped by a deputy 
county jailer.
  The core protections help to prevent these tragedies elsewhere around 
the country.
  Yet, this bill as introduced would have weakened the core protections 
for children. I was puzzled by why the authors felt the need to weaken 
the current standard. According to the latest figures from the Justice 
Department, 48 of the 50 states are in compliance with the current 
standard for separating children from adults, including such large, 
rural states as Alaska and Montana.
  And yet this bill would have allowed for juveniles to be in close 
proximity to adult inmates. While it generally prohibits physical 
contact between juveniles and adults in custody, there is an exclusion. 
And the exclusion to the definition of prohibited physical contact said 
that the term ``does not include supervised proximity between a 
juvenile and an adult inmate that is brief and incidental or 
accidental.''
  In other words, it permitted regular contact, planned contact, 
between delinquent juveniles and adult criminals, as long as it is 
deemed to be ``brief and incidental.''
  Senator Chafee and I were concerned that this standard would have 
allowed juveniles to be paraded in front of adult inmates as they are 
being transported from one area of a facility to another. That means 
that every day the same youth could be required to walk by the adult 
cell block.
  Adult inmates would have a chance to tease, taunt, harass, use 
suggestive body language, expose areas of their private parts, spit, 
and otherwise scare juveniles as they are being transported through the 
facility.
  Now some might think that's OK. That to scare a child by exposing 
them to adults may reduce the likelihood of the child committing 
another crime.
  But, actually, these young children who might be tough on the 
outside, but not so tough on the inside, could be scared to death--
meaning scared enough to commit suicide--just as Robbie Horn was in 
Oldham County, Kentucky.
  Older gang members, or veteranos, could pass messages on to younger 
gang members to coordinate criminal activities, or to intimidate them 
from turning state's evidence.
  The amendment which we have agreed upon remedied this. In fact, it is 
even better than what Senator Chafee and I originally proposed. It 
makes two changes, which bring the bill into line with the current 
Justice Department regulations:
  1. It eliminates any planned or regular contact between juvenile 
delinquents and adult criminals by changing the exception to ``brief 
and inadvertent, or accidental,'' contact. The minority report to last 
Congress' juvenile crime bill, S. 10, erroneously stated that the 
Justice Department's regulations, like the bill, excepted ``brief and 
incidental'' contact. However, there is a world of difference between 
``incidental'' and ``inadvertent.'' Changing this exception to the 
Justice Department standard has the same effect as the amendment which 
Senator Chafee and I originally proposed, and will provide much greater 
protection for juveniles in custody.
  2. The amendment passed in the manager's package then goes even 
further, limiting even this exception to nonresidential areas only. In 
other words, there is no exception at all in residential areas to the 
prohibition on physical contact between juveniles and adults. 
Specifically, the amendment provides that the inadvertent/accidental 
exception applies only ``in secure areas of a facility that are not 
dedicated to use by juvenile offenders and that are nonresidential, 
which may include dining, recreational, educational, vocational, health 
care, entry areas, and passageways.'' This language is taken almost 
verbatim from the Justice Department regulations.
  This amendment ensures that a juvenile cannot be in close proximity 
such as supervised ``brief and incidental'' parades by adult cells or 
other planned or spontaneous actions by adults to transport children 
from one area of a jail to another.
  Our amendment was endorsed by: The Department of Justice; the 
Children's Defense Fund; the National Network for Youth; and the 
National Collaboration for Youth, an alliance of 28 youth service 
groups, including Boy Scouts, 4-H, Girl Scouts, American Red Cross, 
National Urban League, United Way and YMCA.
  A coalition of 22 other organizations wrote to the Majority Leader, 
asking that the standard for separating delinquent juveniles and adult 
criminals be strengthened, including: Minorities in Law Enforcement, 
National Association for School Psychologists, National Council of 
Churches of Christ-Washington Office, the Alliance for Children and 
Families, Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy, and Covenant House.
  With the passage of this amendment, we have provided this protection, 
and substantially improved this bill. Coupled with the passage of other 
amendments that I offered, including banning

[[Page 10430]]

imports of large-capacity ammunition magazines, the Federal Gang 
Violence Act, the James Guelff Body Armor Act, and anti-bombmaking 
legislation, this bill now represents a great step forward in the 
effort to reduce juvenile and violent crime. I ask that I be added as a 
co-sponsor of the bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting its passage.


                      early childhood development

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support Senator Kerry's amendment on 
early childhood development. The nation's highest priority should be to 
ensure that all children begin school ready to learn. Our governors 
realized this a decade ago when they said that the country's number one 
goal should be to prepare all children to enter school ``ready to 
learn.'' We aren't going to meet our school readiness goals by the year 
2000, but we must do all we can to reach this objective soon. We cannot 
afford to let another decade pass without investing more effectively in 
young children's educational development.
  As we debate how to prevent youth violence, it is gratifying that 
Senators on both sides of the aisle are recognizing the importance of 
investing in children while they are young. During these early, 
formative years, constructive interventions have the potential to make 
the greatest impact. Early learning programs--including pre-
kindergarten, Early Head Start, Head Start, and other activities for 
young children--are building blocks for success. Scientific research 
confirms that in the first few years of life, children develop 
essential learning and social skills that they will use throughout 
their lives.
  Quality early education stimulates young minds, enhances their 
development, and encourages their learning. Children who attend high 
quality pre-school classes have stronger language, math, and social 
skills than children who attend classes of inferior quality. Low-income 
children are particularly likely to benefit from quality programs.
  These early skills translate into greater school readiness. First 
graders who begin school with strong language and learning skills are 
more motivated to learn, and they benefit more from classroom 
instruction. Quality early education programs also have important long 
range consequences and are closely associated with increased academic 
achievement, higher adult earnings, and far less involvement with the 
criminal justice system.
  Investments in these programs make sense, and they are cost effective 
as well. Economist Steven Barnett found that the High/Scope 
Foundations' Perry Preschool Project saved $150,000 per participant in 
crime costs alone. Even after subtracting the interest that could have 
been earned by investing the program's funding in financial markets, 
the project produced a net savings of $7.16--including more than $6 in 
crime savings--for every dollar invested.
  At risk 3 and 4 years olds in the High/Scope program were one-fifth 
as likely, by age 27, to have become chronic lawbreakers, compared to 
similar children randomly assigned to a control group. In other words, 
failure to provide these services multiplied by 5 times the risk that 
these infants and toddlers would grow up to be delinquent teenagers and 
adults.
  Over 23 million children under 6 live in the United States, and all 
of these children deserve the opportunity to start school ready to 
learn. To make this goal a reality, we must make significant 
investments in children, long before they ever walk through the 
schoolhouse door. Our children cannot wait, nor can we.
  In March, Senator Stevens and I introduced a bill, S. 749, 
cosponsored by Senators Dodd, Jeffords, and Kerry, to create an ``Early 
Learning Trust Fund'' to improve funding for early education programs. 
This bipartisan bill provides states with $10 billion over 5 years to 
strengthen and improve early education programs for children under 6. 
By increasing the number of children who have early learning 
opportunities, we will ensure that many more children begin school 
ready to read. The ``Early Learning Trust Fund'' will provide each 
state with resources to strengthen and improve early education.
  Governors will receive the grants, and communities, along with 
parents, will decide how these funds can best be used. Grants will be 
distributed based on a formula which takes into account the relative 
number of young children in each state, and the Department of health 
and Human Services will allocate the funds to the states. To assist in 
this process, governors will appoint a sate council of representatives 
from the office of the governor, other relevant state agencies, Head 
Start, parental organizations, and resource and referral agencies--all 
experts in the field of early education. The state councils will be 
responsible for setting priorities and approving and implementing state 
plans to improve early education.
  One of the great strengths of the ``Early Learning Trust Fund'' is 
its flexibility. States will have the flexibility to invest in an array 
of strategies that give young children the building blocks to become 
good readers and good students. Essentially, our proposal does four 
things: (1) it enhances educational services provided by current child 
care programs and improves the quality of these programs; (2) it builds 
on the momentum of states like Georgia and New York, which are 
expanding their pre-kindergarten services; (3) it expands Head Start to 
include full-day, full-year services to help children of working 
parents begin school ready to learn; and (4) it ensures that children 
with special needs have access to as wide a range of these services as 
possible.
  This legislation will give communities what they have been asking 
for--funding for coordinated services to ``fill in the gaps.'' 
Communities needs this so-called ``glue'' money to strengthen their 
early education services, and this approach will give them much needed 
support. As a result, many more children will benefit and begin school 
ready to learn, ready to reach their full potential.
  The nation's future depends on how well today's children are prepared 
to meet the challenges of tomorrow. If we are serious about improving 
our children's lives, I urge my colleagues to support the Early 
Learning Trust Fund that Senator Stevens and I will bring to the floor 
soon.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, in the past week the Republican majority in 
the Senate finally has begun to show signs of understanding that 
Americans want reasonable gun control policies in this country. We have 
made some progress by passing a ban on juvenile possession of 
semiautomatic assault weapons and a ban on the importation of high-
capacity ammunition clips. We saw most Republicans join all Democrats 
in voting to require that child safety devices be sold with all 
handguns. And finally, this morning, with a tie-breaking vote by the 
Vice President, we passed the Lautenberg amendment to firmly close the 
gun show loophole.
  These are the kinds of measures that Democrats in Congress have been 
advocating for years, and it is unfortunate that it took a tragedy like 
Littleton to bring our colleagues in the majority around to our way of 
thinking, but we welcome even these small steps in the right direction.
  But small steps they are, Mr. President, and we need to do much more. 
We should reinstate the Brady waiting period, which expired last 
November, to provide a cooling off period before the purchase of a 
handgun. We should pass a child access prevention law to hold adults 
responsible if they allow a child to gain access to a firearm and that 
child then uses the firearm to harm another person. And we should 
firmly close the Internet gun sales loophole, something the Senate 
failed to do last week.
  I also believe that we should apply the same consumer product 
regulations which apply to virtually every other industry and product 
in this country to guns. If toy guns, teddy bears, lawn mowers and hair 
dryers are subject to regulation to ensure that they include features 
to minimize the danger to children, why not firearms? I plan to 
introduce legislation to allow the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
to

[[Page 10431]]

regulate firearms to protect children and adults against unreasonable 
risk of injury. I know my friend Senator Torricelli has introduced a 
bill to allow the Treasury Department to regulate firearms. Whichever 
agency ultimately has oversight, the important thing is that guns 
should no longer be the only consumer product exempt from basic safety 
regulations.
  Mr. President, the NRA's own estimate is that there are over 200 
million guns in this country. That's nearly one for every American. But 
let's remember that most Americans don't own guns. For most Americans, 
especially in urban areas, a gun in a public place in the possession of 
anyone other than a law enforcement officer usually brings on a sense 
of fear, not a sense of protection.
  As the President said a few weeks ago, this fundamental difference in 
perspective is at the heart of this gun debate. If we are to solve the 
problem of gun violence in this country, we have to come to a meeting 
of the minds between gun owners and non-gun owners, between rural and 
urban America.
  Americans who live in urban and suburban communities need to 
understand the legitimate use of firearms for hunting and sports 
activities. But at the same time, members of Congress from mostly rural 
states must recognize the immense pain and suffering that guns cause in 
our nation's urban areas, and they should work with us to convince 
their constituents that reasonable, targeted gun restrictions can make 
a world of difference by saving lives in America's cities and suburbs.
  I would also add that this is not simply an eastern vs. western 
states issue. For example, the Washington Post recently reported that 
in Florida, six of the state's most urban counties have adopted 
measures to require a waiting period and background checks on all 
firearm sales at guns shows, while the rest of the state has not. Every 
senator, from every region of the country, has some constituents who 
legally use firearms, and others who want nothing to do with them and 
see them as a deadly threat. My state is no different, and I recognize 
that many of my constituents are decent people who hunt or sport-shoot 
safely.
  While much more needs to be done, and while we are still far from 
passing comprehensive gun safety legislation, we have seen in the past 
week at least a few limited examples of how, working together, we can 
bridge the gap and approve reasonable, targeted restrictions on gun 
access without taking away a law-abiding, adult citizen's ability to 
own a gun.
  I also believe that gun dealers should be held responsible if they 
violate federal law by selling a firearm to a minor, convicted felon, 
or others prohibited from buying firearms. Currently, there are over 
104,000 federally licensed firearms dealers in the United States. While 
most of these dealers are responsible small business people, recent 
tracing of crime-related guns by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms (ATF) has found substantial evidence that some dealers are 
selling guns to juveniles and convicted felons. This direct diversion 
of weapons from retail to illegal markets is taking place both through 
off-the-book sales by corrupt dealers and through so-called straw 
purchases, when an ineligible buyer has a friend or relative buy a 
firearm for him or her.
  To remedy this situation, I have introduced legislation, the Gun 
Dealer Responsibility Act, that would provide a statutory cause of 
action for victims of gun violence against dealers whose illegal sale 
of a gun directly contributes to the victim's injury. I believe this 
legislation will make unscrupulous gun dealers think twice about who 
they are selling weapons to, particularly minors, convicted felons, or 
any other ineligible buyer, either directly or through straw purchases.
  Our nation's federal juvenile justice programs establish four core 
principles that have served as the foundation of federal juvenile 
justice policy for years. States are required to uphold these 
principles in order to receive federal grant funds for juvenile justice 
activities. These four core principles include:
  (1) Juveniles may not be within sight or sound of adult inmates in 
secure facilities. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear that youth held 
in adult prisons are frequently preyed upon by adult inmates. Compared 
to juveniles in juvenile facilities, they are 8 times more likely to 
commit suicide, 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted, and 50% 
more likely to be attacked by a weapon.
  (2) States should not confine juveniles for so-called ``status'' 
offenses, such as truancy, that would not be punishable if committed by 
an adult.
  (3) States should remove juveniles from adult jails and lockups: For 
the same reasons I just mentioned, juveniles should not be held in 
adult jails and lockups, with very narrow exceptions and even then for 
very limited periods of time. And,
  (4) States should address the problem of disproportionate minority 
confinement.
  This last issue is one I want to talk briefly about today, because it 
is the area where I believe the bill before us most dramatically 
changes federal policy and clearly fails to uphold the longstanding 
principles of our juvenile justice system. Nearly seven out of ten 
juveniles held in secure facilities in this country are members of 
minority groups.
  African-American juveniles are twice as likely to be arrested as 
white youth. There is, without question, a continuing need to address 
minority over-representation in the juvenile justice system. We should 
keep the incentives in current law that encourage states to do so. 
Unfortunately, the bill before us would replace those incentives with 
language that encourages states to reduce disproportionate 
representation of, quote, ``segments of the population,'' an ambiguous 
and unlimited phrase that could be interpreted to mean men, urban 
groups, or virtually any ``segment'' of the population. The effective 
result is that over-representation of minorities would no longer be the 
focus of our efforts, and one of the pillars of our federal juvenile 
justice policy would therefore be undermined. I was disappointed that 
the Senate yesterday failed to pass the Wellstone amendment to ensure 
that states continue to address disproportionate minority confinement 
issues. We have been making some progress in this area, and we need to 
continue that effort.
  Another area where I think we can do much more is in the provision of 
mental health services for young people who come into contact with the 
juvenile justice system. My friend and fellow member of the Health, 
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Senator Wellstone, spoke 
eloquently on this subject earlier this week. As he and I have 
discussed many times, you cannot have a meaningful discussion about 
juvenile justice without talking about mental health. The two are 
intimately intertwined.
  Studies find that the rate of mental disorder is two to three times 
higher among the juvenile offender population than among youth in the 
general population. According to a 1994 Department of Justice study, 
73% of juveniles in the juvenile justice system reported mental health 
problems, and 57% reported past treatment for those problems. In 
addition, over 60% of youth in the juvenile justice system may have 
substance abuse disorders, compared to 22% in the general population.
  I have prepared legislation to authorize the Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), in cooperation with the 
Department of Justice, to award grants to state or local juvenile 
justice agencies to provide mental health services for youth offenders 
with serious emotional disturbances who have been discharged from the 
juvenile justice system. I believe it is critical that we help local 
organizations to do several things to assist young offenders: (1) 
develop a plan of services for each youth offender; (2) provide a 
network of core or aftercare services for each youth offender, 
including mental health and substance abuse treatment, respite care, 
and foster care; and (3) provide planning and transition services to 
youth offenders while these youngsters are still incarcerated or 
detained. I hope that in the

[[Page 10432]]

context of this bill or the SAMHSA reauthorization we can find room for 
this important program.
  I believe that a community-based network of mental health services 
will reduce the likelihood that troubled youth will end up back in the 
juvenile justice system. By combining this innovative grant program 
with strong prevention programs to reach out to at-risk youth before 
they come into contact with the juvenile justice system in the first 
place, we can attack the problem of juvenile delinquency from both 
directions.
  In closing, let me say that we all recognize that the problem of gun 
violence among our young people is caused by many factors, some of 
which we may not fully understand. We need more resources for 
prevention programs to reach at-risk youth before they come into 
contact with the juvenile justice system in the first place, and we 
have seen an increased willingness on the other side of aisle to 
provide those resources; we need a greater focus on mentoring and 
counseling for troubled youth, and we've seen some movement on that 
front as well; and yes, we need better enforcement of firearms laws and 
more effective prosecution of gun criminals, and there is no question 
that we will see more resources provided to make that happen.
  But anyone who honestly considers the tragic events in Littleton one 
month ago, and the thirteen children who die every day in this country 
from gun violence, must concede that one of the biggest problems of all 
is that our young people have far too easy and unlimited access to 
guns. We must do more to keep guns away from kids and criminals by 
making sure that Brady Law background checks are applied across the 
board, by reinstating the Brady waiting period, by passing a child 
access prevention law, by firmly closing the Internet gun sales 
loophole, by holding dealers responsible for illegal sales, and by 
applying to firearms the same consumer product safety regulations that 
apply to virtually every other product in this country.
  Let's do the right thing and pass a juvenile justice bill that 
includes every means possible to protect our children and all of our 
citizens from youth violence.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, prior to being elected to the Senate, I 
served the people of Ohio for two terms as governor. Before that, I 
served for 10 years as the mayor of Cleveland. I have also been 
Lieutenant Governor, a County Commissioner, a County Auditor and a 
State Legislator.
  I have 33 years of experience at every level of government, which I 
believe gives me wonderful insight into the relationship of the federal 
government with respect to state and local government.
  It is the main reason why, over the length of my service to the 
people of Ohio, I have developed a passion for the issue of 
federalism--that is, assigning the appropriate role of the federal 
government in relation to state and local government.
  That passion remains with me to this day, and I vowed when I got to 
the Senate that I would work to sort out the appropriate roles of the 
federal, state and local governments.
  I have committed myself to find ways in which the federal government 
can be a better partner with our nation's state and local governments.
  One of my concerns has been the overreaching nature of the federal 
government into areas I have always felt properly belong under the 
purview of state and local government. Another of my concerns has been 
the propensity of the federal government to pre-empt our state and 
local governments. In many cases, the federal government mandated 
responsibilities to state and local governments and forced them to pay 
for the mandates themselves.
  In regard to unfunded mandates, I, and a number of other state and 
local elected officials finally got fed up enough to lobby Congress to 
do something about it, and in 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act. I was pleased to be at the Rose Garden 
representing our state and local governments at the signing ceremony by 
the President.
  And while we now know the cost of what the federal government is 
imposing on the state and local governments, Congress has still got to 
do more to reverse the tide of ``command and control'' policies in 
areas intrusive which are the proper responsibility of state and local 
governments.
  Indeed, as syndicated columnist David Broder pointed out in a January 
11, 1995 article, ``the unfunded mandate bill is a worthy effort. But 
in the end, the real solution lies in sorting out more clearly what 
responsibilities should be financed and run by each level of 
government.''
  I wholeheartedly agree.
  It is imperative that we delineate the proper role of government at 
the federal, state and local level.
  Our forefathers referred to this differentiation as federalism, and 
outlined this relationship in the 10th Amendment:

       The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
     Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are 
     reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

  The importance of the 10th Amendment was inherent to the framers of 
the Constitution, who sought to preserve for the states their ability 
to pass and uphold laws that were specific to each individual state. In 
this way, states would keep their sovereignty over what we consider the 
``day to day'' running of society, reserving the more comprehensive 
functions of the nation to the federal government.
  This was envisioned by James Madison, who defined the various roles 
of government in Federalist Paper #45. He wrote:

       The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the 
     federal government are few and defined. Those which are to 
     remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. 
     The former will be exercised principally on external objects, 
     as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce . . . The 
     powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the 
     objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the 
     lives, liberties, and property of the people and the internal 
     order, improvement and prosperity of the state.

  In a speech before the Volunteers of the National Archives in 1986 
regarding the relationship of the Constitution with America's cities 
and the evolution of federalism, I raised a concern about the trend in 
American government that I had witnessed since the 1960's. I said:

       We have seen the expansion of the federal government into 
     new, non-traditional domestic policy areas. We have 
     experienced a tremendous increase in the proclivity of 
     Washington both to pre-empt state and local authority and to 
     mandate actions on state and local governments. The 
     cumulative effect of a series of actions by the Congress, the 
     Executive Branch and the U.S. Supreme Court have caused some 
     legal scholars to observe that while constitutional 
     federalism is alive in scholarly treatises, it has expired as 
     a practical political reality.

  Mr. President, we have made progress since I spoke those words 13 
years ago. Not to the level sought by Madison, but progress just the 
same. As I mentioned earlier, Congress has passed the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act. We've also passed Safe Drinking Water Act reforms in 1996. 
In addition, states are making the difference in Medicaid reform and 
because of the efforts of state leaders working with Congress, we now 
have comprehensive welfare reform.
  Also, just this year, we've seen the passage and signing into law of 
the ``Ed-Flex'' bill, which gives our states and school districts the 
freedom to use their federal funds for identified education priorities 
and today we passed legislation preventing the federal government from 
recouping the tobacco settlement funds back from the states.
  But we must still do more.
  Today, we are voting on juvenile justice legislation that would 
impose certain new federal laws on what is now and has traditionally 
been a jurisdiction of our state and local governments.
  I have great respect for the managers of this legislation; they have 
worked incredibly hard to put together this bill which contains a 
number of good provisions meant to fight juvenile crime and a 
smorgasbord of other things that on the surface look very appealing.
  Unfortunately most of them deal with things that are the proper 
responsibility of state and local government

[[Page 10433]]

and violate in spirit and in substance my interpretation of the 10th 
Amendment and frankly, the interpretation of Alexander Hamilton.
  Hamilton, who was the greatest proponent in his day of a strong 
national government, saw law enforcement as a state and local concern. 
If Hamilton were alive today, he would be appalled at the use of the 
police power by federal agencies.
  And to emphasize Hamilton's view, we need only look at Federalist 
Paper #17:

       There is one transcendent advantage belonging to the 
     province of the state governments, which alone suffices to 
     place the matter in a clear and satisfactory light. I mean 
     the ordinary administration of criminal and civil justice.

  Crime control is a primary responsibility of local and state 
officials. They are on the front lines and they are best suited to 
tackle the specific problems in their jurisdictions.
  Juvenile crime control measures are being enacted and carried out in 
the various states across the country. And sometimes it does take a 
tragedy such as the one that occurred in Littleton, Colorado or the 
shooting this morning in Atlanta to spur states on, but they fully 
recognize their responsibility to provide for the safety of their 
citizens.
  The states understand their role and the need to prevent any further 
increase in juvenile crime. They are responding to that need.
  Involvement by the federal government in this matter often duplicates 
the efforts of our state and local governments.
  I'll never forget, in 1996, when I was Governor and I went to a crime 
control conference in Pennsylvania with then-Majority Leader Bob Dole. 
He was running for President at the time. The head of the conference 
suggested 5 things the federal government should do to reduce juvenile 
crime. It made sense to me, but when I looked at the recommendations, I 
realized that in Ohio, we were already doing the things that were 
recommended.
  In 1994, we instituted a program called ``RECLAIM Ohio'' which is an 
innovative approach to juvenile corrections. This program stresses 
local decision-making and the creation of more effective, less costly 
community-based correction alternatives to state incarceration.
  Under ``RECLAIM Ohio,'' local juvenile court judges are given the 
flexibility to provide the most appropriate rehabilitation option. 
Since 1992, the population of juvenile offenders in Ohio's youth 
correction facilities has dropped 20% as a result of this and other 
innovative local and state programs.
  Mr. President, the success we have had in Ohio might never have come 
about if we had to divert our resources towards a federally mandated 
program. We have seen results with ``RECLAIM Ohio;'' it is best suited 
for us.
  In fact, our ``RECLAIM Ohio'' program was selected as one of the top 
ten innovative programs in government by the JFK School of Government 
at Harvard University--worthy of replicating elsewhere in the United 
States.
  In 1995, Ohio crafted its own comprehensive juvenile crime bill. This 
bill imposed mandatory bind-over provisions for the most heinous crimes 
and longer minimum sentences.
  I believe we should heed the words of Senator Fred Thompson, who gave 
an eloquent speech about this bill last Wednesday. He said ``Among 
other things, [this bill] makes it easier to prosecute juveniles in 
Federal criminal court. We have about 100 to 200 prosecutions a year of 
juveniles in Federal court. It is a minuscule part of our criminal 
justice system.'' To put that in perspective, Senator Thompson pointed 
out that in 1998, there were ``58,000 Federal criminal cases filed 
involving 79,000 defendants.''
  Think about what Senator Thompson says--58,000 total federal criminal 
cases filed; some 200 prosecutions a year of juveniles in Federal 
court. Do we honestly think that we'll have an extraordinarily dramatic 
increase in juvenile prosecutions under this bill? I have to ask: why 
on earth are we doing this?
  He further stated, ``[This bill] would allow juveniles as young as 14 
years of age to be tried as an adult for violent crimes and drug 
offenses--drug offenses, again, that are of the street crime category, 
where we have laws on the books in every State of the Union.''
  In a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary 
Committee, the leaders of the National Governors' Association said 
``the nation's governors are concerned that attempts to expand federal 
criminal law. . .into traditional state functions would have little 
effect in eliminating crime but could undermine state and local anti-
crime efforts.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the American Bar Association's Task 
Force on the Federalization of Criminal Law in its report issued at the 
end of last year stated that ``more than 40% of the federal criminal 
provisions enacted since the Civil War have been enacted since 1970.'' 
As a footnote, the report indicates that more than a quarter of the 
federal criminal provisions were enacted over the sixteen year period 
of 1980-1996.
  Some change in the responsibility is legitimate, based upon the scope 
of particular offenses. However, many changes have simply evolved from 
current state and local laws that the federal government has either co-
opted or the Congress has directed federal agencies to carry-out.
  As we continue to assign a greater involvement for the federal 
government in law enforcement, the impact on other resources is also 
strained, primarily the federal court system.
  And for those who understand the traditional role of state and local 
law enforcement, it becomes increasingly frustrating to see the shift 
in prosecuted crimes.
  Earlier this month in testimony before the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, Federal Appeals Court Judge Gilbert S. Merritt said that his 
Court's docket and the case load of the U.S. Attorney's office for his 
jurisdiction consists of ``mainly drug and illegal possession of 
firearms cases and other cases that duplicate state crimes'' and that 
``federal prosecution of drug and firearms crime is having a minimal 
effect on the distribution of drugs and illegal firearms.''
  Most compelling, Judge Merritt said ``our law enforcement efforts 
would be much more effective if Congress repealed most duplicate 
federal crimes and tried to help local and state street police, 
detectives, prosecutors and judges do a more effective job.''
  Judge Merritt suggested that before we federalize crime enforcement, 
we should ``concentrate federal criminal law enforcement in only the 
following core areas:
  (1) Offenses against the United States itself;
  (2) Multi-State or international criminal activity that is impossible 
for a single state or its courts to handle;
  (3) Crimes that involve a matter of overriding federal interest, such 
as violation of civil rights by state actors;
  (4) Widespread corruption at the state and local levels; and
  (5) Crimes of such magnitude or complexity that federal resources are 
required.''
  Mr. President, based on what I can see, this legislation does not 
meet these criteria.
  So, if we are truly concerned about lowering the incidences of 
violent crime in America, I believe our focus should be not only on the 
symptoms of juvenile crime, but on the root causes as well. We have to 
act first, and not react later, if we wish to benefit our kids.
  To be sure, there are just plain, bad juveniles who need to be locked 
up. And, we need better information about juvenile offenders, profiles 
that will help our courts deal with rough kids and get them off the 
streets.
  But, I think part of the problem is youngsters aren't getting the 
moral and family and religious training at home, responsibilities that 
are falling more and more on our schools.
  In Ohio, we established a mediation and dispute resolution program in 
our

[[Page 10434]]

kindergartens and first grades to get kids to talk out their problems 
so they don't resort to violence.
  We did this because I am concerned, Mr. President, about how we can 
reach our kids, to help make them become decent, productive members of 
society.
  What we need to do is draw a line in the sand, and proclaim that we 
are not going to allow another generation of children to fall by the 
wayside. We have to say ``This is where it stops.''
  We need to become a better partner with state and local government 
and invest in our children at the most critical juncture of their 
lives--pre-natal to three--the time when parents and young children are 
forming life-long attachments and when parents and other care-givers 
have an opportunity to construct lasting values.
  I believe putting our efforts towards creating this powerful, 
enduring impact on a young child's physical, intellectual, emotional 
and social development will do more to end the cycle of crime and 
violence in America than anything else the Senate could do.
  Mr. President, once more, I would like to congratulate the managers 
of this bill for the time and energy that they have put into this bill, 
but juvenile crime control is not the responsibility of the federal 
government.
  Again, we need only look as far as the Constitution to determine 
which crimes fall within the purview of the federal government--
  1. Article 1, Section 8--To provide for the punishment of 
counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
  2. Article 1, Section 8--To define and punish piracies and felonies 
committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; 
and
  3. Article 3, Section 3--To declare the punishment for treason.
  For the remainder of crime that impacts our nation, the 10th 
Amendment spells out quite clearly how we should deal with it:
  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, 
nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states 
respectively, or to the people.
  Mr. President, we should follow the wisdom of our forefathers.

                               Exhibit 1


                               National Governors Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 14, 1999.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.

     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator Leahy: As the Senate 
     considers juvenile crime legislation, the nation's Governors 
     believe that the federal government should improve its 
     support of states in combating youth violence. This endeavor 
     requires the development and implementation of programs and 
     policies that strive to prevent delinquency, eliminate the 
     presence of violence wherever children congregate, and ensure 
     strong punishment for those responsible for exposing young 
     people to delinquency, drugs, and violence. The first line of 
     defense against youth violence is responsible parenting. 
     Having recognized this fact, the states' priority in this 
     area should be to establish comprehensive services and 
     programs that prevent youth from committing crime. Prevention 
     programs that build self-esteem through achievement of 
     worthwhile goals and offer an alternative to violent and 
     criminal activity are critical to the successful reduction of 
     juvenile crime.
       There should be a safe environment for children to grow and 
     develop. This includes schools, parks, playgrounds, and any 
     place youth congregate. The rise in handgun violence 
     especially in and around schools is of concern to Governors. 
     There should be swift and certain punishment for individuals 
     who illegally provide a firearm to a minor, or knowingly 
     provide a firearm to a minor for illegal use. Furthermore, 
     there must be immediate seizure of guns illegally possessed 
     by minors. Also, there should be strict penalties for 
     children below the age of eighteen who illegally possess a 
     firearm.
       S. 254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender 
     Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999 will be among 
     the legislative initiatives considered regarding juvenile 
     crime. We would like to address some of the provisions in 
     this legislation.
       Federalization: The nation's Governors are concerned that 
     attempts to expand federal criminal law (Title I of S. 254) 
     into traditional state functions would have little effect in 
     eliminating crime but could undermine state and local 
     anticrime efforts. Further, the Governors are concerned that 
     federal concurrent jurisdiction in criminal justice efforts 
     can be used by the federal government as a means to impose 
     undue mandates on state and local crime control and law 
     enforcement officials.
       Another federalism issue is raised by section 1802 the 
     ``Juvenile Criminal History Grants.'' It needs language 
     clarifying what information will be contained in the national 
     data bases, who will have access to the data, how the data 
     will be used, and to affirm states' right to ultimately 
     control access to their own data under our federal system.
       Waiver: The formula in the accountability block grant of S. 
     254 (Part R--Juvenile Accountability Block Grants, Subtitle 
     B) requires states to pass-through money to local units of 
     governments handling juvenile justice functions. In many 
     states, including Utah and Vermont, the juvenile crime 
     function is administered at the state level of government, 
     working with the locals. S. 254 would allow the Attorney 
     General to waive the pass-through requirement for these 
     states. We support this provision.
       Flexibility: The current language in S. 254 offers some 
     discretion to Governors over appointments to state advisory 
     boards overseeing implementation of state programs under the 
     Juvenile Justice Act. Governors should have sole discretion 
     over creation, make-up and appointments to state advisory 
     boards. Some states have existing boards that can fulfill 
     this requirement. Furthermore, states should be given maximum 
     flexibility to implement the spirit and purposes of the 
     statute for the goals of delinquency prevention, 
     intervention, and protection of juveniles from harm. Also, S. 
     254 eases the monitoring requirements for state 
     implementation of the Juvenile Justice program.
       Program participation with core requirements: Governors 
     believe that rules, regulations, definitions, 
     responsibilities, and reporting requirements authorized in 
     the legislation should be reasonable and not impede states' 
     ability to effectively administer the programs promoted in 
     the legislation. Further, the statute should be designed to 
     encourage full participation in the program by all the 
     states, but not penalize states that choose not to 
     participate in some or all programs.
       The recent tragic events in Colorado, Oregon, Arkansas, 
     Kentucky, and Mississippi and other areas of the country have 
     focused the nation's attention on the need for juvenile 
     justice reform. We appreciate your taking our concerns under 
     consideration as you debate S. 254.
           Sincerely,
     Governor Thomas R. Carper,
       Chairman.
     Governor Michael O. Leavitt,
       Vice Chairman.
     Governor James B. Hunt, Jr.,
       Chairman, Human Resources Committee.
     Governor Mike Huckabee,
       Vice Chairman, Human Resources Committee.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to S. 254, 
the Juvenile Justice Bill. I oppose this bill because it does far more 
harm than good to the fundamental interests of our nation's children.
  The bill fails to do what the Littleton tragedy screams out loudly 
and clearly we should do: strive to prevent future schoolhouse 
tragedies and all juvenile violence. The bill is long on prosecution 
and detention but short on prevention.
  During debate on this bill, I was glad to see that some of my 
concerns were resolved. After a contentious debate, the Senate finally 
closed the gun show loophole. The Lautenberg-Kerrey amendment is a 
sensible regulation on the sale of guns at gun shows. It does not 
prevent law-abiding citizens from selling and buying guns at gun shows.
  The Senate's debate on guns in the last week had what I believe to be 
a sensible outcome. But I do want to point out one thing about the 
debate we have had on various amendments to this bill dealing with the 
topic of gun control. Obviously, there are very strong feelings about 
gun-related amendments on both sides, and the issues are complex. But 
the vast majority of campaign contributions from groups interested in 
these amendments to the Senators who are voting on them is coming from 
one side. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, gun rights 
groups, including the National Rifle Association, gave over $9 million 
to candidates, PACs, and parties from 1991 to 1998. The NRA gave $1.6 
million in PAC contributions to federal candidates last year. Handgun 
Control, Inc. gave a total of $146,000.
  With respect to Senator Lautenberg's amendment to close the gun

[[Page 10435]]

show loophole last week, the Center found that those who voted against 
that amendment had received an average of over $10,478 from gun rights 
groups, while those who voted for it averaged only $297. I say this not 
to cast aspersions on any Senator's vote, but because I think the 
public record of our debate on these issues would be incomplete without 
this information.
  There have been other improvements made in the bill as a result of 
the debate here on the floor and negotiations among Senators and the 
Managers. The final bill now reasonably protects the privacy of 
juvenile offender records. The amendment to ensure the separation of 
children from adult prisoners in mixed prison settings also was 
adopted.
  This good work, however, is not enough to undo the harm that this 
bill will do to our nation's children.
  We have strong evidence that prevention reduces crime. According to 
the Children's Defense Fund, in the first year after the Baltimore 
Police Department opened an after-school program in a high-crime area, 
crime in that neighborhood dropped 42%. Cincinnati's crime rate dropped 
24% since it instituted violence prevention, education, social and 
recreation programs. And in Fort Worth, Texas, gang-related crime 
dropped by 26% as a result of a gang reduction program.
  Now, the Hatch-Biden amendment takes us part of the way there by 
allowing 25% of funding for juvenile block grants to be allocated to 
prevention efforts. But frankly, that's not enough. We need to do more. 
Our children's future demands that we do more.
  The Juvenile Justice bill emphasizes detention and intervention after 
juveniles have already gotten into trouble. The bill, however, does not 
provide sensible, adequate funding for prevention programs. Programs 
that will help to ensure that kids will not turn to crime and violence 
and will never have to experience handcuffs slapped on their wrists or 
the inside of a detention center.
  This bill also deeply troubles me because it will put a halt to 
efforts to reduce discrimination in our juvenile justice system. The 
bill ignores reality: we are throwing African-American kids into jails 
at a higher rate than white kids who commit the exact same offense. 
This phenomenon is called disproportionate minority confinement.
  Our Nation has come a long way toward achieving racial harmony and 
equality, but we still have a long way to go. In nearly every state, 
children of minority racial and ethnic backgrounds are over-represented 
at every stage of the juvenile justice system and receive harsher 
treatment by the system. A California study has shown that black youths 
consistently receive harsher punishment and are more likely to receive 
jail time than white youths convicted of the same offenses. Current law 
requires states to identify disproportionate minority confinement in 
their states, to analyze why it exists and to develop strategies to 
address the causes of disproportionate minority confinement. The law 
does not require and has never resulted in the release of juveniles. 
Nor does the law provide for quotas. And no state's funding under the 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act has ever been reduced 
as a result of non-compliance.
  In fact, the current law has been very effective. Forty states are 
implementing or developing intervention plans to address 
disproportionate minority confinement. This bill will bring to a halt 
this good work conducted by the states. These states have just begun to 
address the disturbing reality of disproportionate minority 
confinement. But under this Juvenile Justice bill, the law enforcement 
community will no longer be required to address the problem of 
discriminatory treatment of minority juvenile offenders. This is 
outrageous.
  I am outraged, and this body should be outraged, that we are 
punishing black kids more harshly than white kids for the exact same 
offenses. The debate on this issue illustrated how much more work we 
still need to do on civil rights. Many of my colleagues would have you 
believe that there is no longer a race problem in this country. I beg 
to differ. To those colleagues, I ask you to look around this chamber 
and identify for me the Senator of African descent. You cannot because 
there is not one. I am troubled that on this and other important civil 
rights issues, we do not have a member of the African-American 
community as one of our colleagues. I cannot help but think that our 
debate would have been better informed if we had the voice of an 
African-American Senator speaking at one of our podiums. I cannot help 
but think that the vote on the Wellstone-Kennedy amendment would have 
had a different outcome if we had the vote of an African-American 
Senator cast on this floor.
  We have come a long way toward ridding our nation of discrimination 
against African Americans and other minorities. But we need to keep 
forging ahead for the good of our children and the future of our 
country. Let us not turn back the clock.
  The bill also does more harm than good by shifting the burden to the 
child to show why he or she should be tried in a juvenile court, not as 
an adult. Under current law, federal judges, not prosecutors, decide 
whether a child will be tried as an adult after a full hearing. If the 
prosecutor believes that a child should be charged as an adult, the 
prosecutor goes to court and puts on evidence to establish why the 
child should be tried as an adult. This is called a ``waiver'' hearing. 
The prosecutor must show reason for the judge to waive the child into 
adult court.
  Now, under the Juvenile Justice bill, the prosecutor would be able to 
charge children as young as 14 as adults if they have allegedly 
committed a felony. The child--not the prosecutor--would request a 
hearing to prove to the judge that he or should be treated as a child.
  There is great wisdom in the current law. The decision to prosecute a 
child as an adult is a serious one that will profoundly impact that 
child's life and the sentence that will follow conviction. It is better 
to leave that decision to an impartial judge, not the prosecutor.
  Finally, I must cast my vote against this bill because it creates yet 
another federal death penalty. The Senate unfortunately passed the 
Hatch-Feinstein amendment, which will allow imposition of the death 
penalty against persons who cause the death of another person during an 
act of animal enterprise terrorism. I have been, and continue to be, a 
strong, steadfast opponent of the death penalty. In my view, the death 
penalty is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits 
cruel and unusual punishment. And it is morally wrong for a civilized 
society to continue to impose this penalty. We should lock up offenders 
for life, but we should not take their lives.
  In sum, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to heed the advice of 
skilled professionals who work with our youth every day. Organizations 
like the Children's Defense Fund, the Youth Law Center, the National 
Network for Youth have expressed their serious opposition to the bill. 
These organizations represent the thousands of people who are 
conducting effective after-school programs, providing counseling to 
troubled youth and other necessary services to our children at risk. In 
other words, these organizations are the experts. The experts believe 
that, although the bill is much improved over last year's juvenile 
justice bill and corrects some problems in the original bill as it came 
to the floor last week, the final bill is still a regressive solution 
to juvenile crime.
  Let us put aside our partisanship for the sake of our children's and 
our Nation's future. I must oppose this juvenile justice bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, Senate bill 254 does not, in my opinion, 
warrant passage. I will vote against the bill because it is 
fundamentally fraudulent. First, it wrongly assumes that Washington, DC 
has the answers to juvenile crime and the right to impose its will over 
that of state and local communities. Second, it is fraudulent because 
it promises billions of dollars for new programs that will not be 
implemented because the money is simply not available.
  To hold out the false hope that the federal government can, through 
the

[[Page 10436]]

passage of yet another law, offer an easy solution detracts from the 
important, and admittedly difficult, work that must continue in our 
homes, schools and communities.
  As difficult as it may be for many of my colleagues to accept, the 
cure for the violence and disrespect for life that is prevalent in our 
society, particularly in our younger generations, will not be found in 
this body by passing another federal law. I wish it were that easy. The 
cure will be found after a great deal of soul-searching by our nation 
at all levels. Parents must re-engage in their children's lives. 
Schools must work harder to spot the warning signs displayed by our 
troubled youth and take action before tragedy occurs. And those who 
market gratuitous violence--whether it be through television, movies, 
video games or the Internet--must consider the responsibility they have 
to society, as well as to their bottom line. Most decisions should be 
made in our communities, not in the Congress. States should be allowed 
to experiment with a wide range of programs, not told what to do by 
Washington D.C.
  I recognize some positive elements in this bill. The relaxation, for 
example, of the strict sight and sound separation requirements between 
juvenile and adult prisoners is a common sense change consistent with 
the views expressed by law enforcement officials in my state. Although 
I support the Ashcroft Amendment that gives local educators the 
flexibility to treat equally all students who bring guns to schools, 
the law it amends is fundamentally flawed and requires more thorough 
debate. I intend to have this debate later this year.
  The positive elements in S. 254, however, are outweighed by the 
negative: the bill usurps state, local, and private sector authority, 
both in spirit and in practice. For example, although S. 254 makes 
federal juvenile adjudication and conviction records available to 
schools in certain circumstances, thus permitting school officials 
knowledge of the conceivable monstrous acts of a prospective student, 
it then prohibits all schools, once privy to that information, from 
using it in admissions decisions.
  The bill makes promises we cannot keep and creates expectations we 
cannot meet.
  S. 254 authorizes prodigious amounts of federal funds for numerous 
programs, and the promise of these monies has led to considerable 
fighting over their allocation, particularly over earmarking funds for 
crime prevention programs. While the debate between prevention and 
punishment is an important one, it is, unfortunately, also hollow in 
this case: it is extremely unlikely that many of the programs 
authorized in S. 254 will be funded at anywhere near the levels 
authorized, if at all.
  Much to my dismay and those of other appropriators, it is unclear 
whether we will be able this year to meet current commitments to 
juvenile justice and law enforcement. In the budget he sent to 
Congress, the President eliminated numerous federal grant programs and 
gutted others. The Byrne Grants that have been put to such good use in 
Washington state to, among other things establish multi-jurisdictional 
drug task forces, were reduced by more than 20% in the President's 
budget. Local law enforcement block grants, for which $523 million was 
appropriated in 1999, and which are used for a range of law enforcement 
needs, from putting more officers on the streets to improving law 
enforcement communications systems, were eliminated entirely. Grants to 
states for prison construction, a $720 million program in 1999, was 
reduced to $75 million in the President's FY2000 budget. Put another 
way: our first priority ought to be funding our current crime 
prevention programs, rather than adding a passel of new ones we frankly 
cannot afford.
  Regrettably, many of the philosophical and practical concerns I have 
with this legislation simply were not addressed during the many long 
days it has been on the floor because we have spent so much time 
debating gun amendments. I firmly believe in common sense gun safety 
procedures as long as they do not infringe on the Second Amendment 
freedoms of law abiding adults. Several times this week I voted for 
amendments that would help to promote gun safety or keep guns out of 
the hands of criminals, and just as often I voted against amendments 
that infringed on second amendment rights that would not effectively do 
this. Never, however, did I vote on an amendment that I thought would 
have prevented the recent tragedies in Georgia and Colorado.
  And so, with regret, I cannot join my colleagues in misleading the 
American people in promising that through this, or any other, bill, we 
will make their communities and schools safe again.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased that my amendment to the 
pending Juvenile Justice bill was included in a package of amendments 
cleared by the managers. I would like to talk briefly about why this 
provision is crucial to combatting school violence.
  As I am sure many of my colleagues are aware, the Holland Woods 
Middle School in Port Huron, Michigan, made national news this past 
week. Four children, the youngest of them 12 years old, were arrested 
for plotting to do ``something worse'' than the tragedy that occurred 
in Littleton, Colorado. Police in Port Huron believe that the plot was 
more than a prank. They believe the students planned to rob a gun store 
for the weapons needed to carry out their plan.
  Here we have yet another sign, Mr. President, of the epidemic in this 
country of violence and fear in our schools.
  All across the country, schools are experiencing bomb threats and 
students and teachers are beginning to fear entering the classroom. The 
Detroit News front page headline from yesterday summed it up: ``Fear, 
threats invade Metro classrooms.'' The News went on to report that one-
third of the 560 students at Holland Woods Middle School stayed home 
Monday, the first day of classes since police discovered the plot to 
massacre students there.
  Mr. President, students should not fear for their lives when they 
enter the school building. Indeed, they have a right not to be put in 
this kind of fear, particularly on school grounds.
  I believe we must do more to help schools deal with threats of 
violence. We must give schools more options to prevent the type of 
tragedy that occurred in Littleton and that also might have occurred in 
Port Huron.
  Following the incident in Holland Woods Middle School, Assistant 
Superintendent Thomas Miller outlined the school system's response to 
increasing security at their schools. The school system's plan would 
include 24-hour security guard surveillance at all schools and a bomb-
sniffing dog. Other proposed security measures could include metal 
detectors, the elimination of coats in classrooms and photo 
identification badges for pupils and teachers.
  Mr. President, my provision would allow schools facing these serious 
security problems to access Safe and Drug Free School money to address 
their security needs and to truly keep their schools ``safe.''
  In light of the growing number of violence in our schools and an 
increase in the number of threats, we must provide local school 
districts with further, effective options in combatting the 
proliferation of guns, explosives, and other weapons in our schools.
  My provision will also help schools deal with the scourge of drugs, a 
scourge which not only ruins individual lives but also breeds the kinds 
of isolation, maladjustment and violence we have seen so often in 
recent years.
  Currently, school districts may use funds allocated under the Safe 
and Drug Free Schools Act for a variety of programs aimed at reducing 
drug use and school violence. School districts need additional options. 
My amendment would allow local school districts to access funding under 
the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act for use in conducting locker 
searches for guns, explosives, other weapons, or drugs and for the drug 
testing of students.
  Drug use constitutes a full-fledged epidemic in our schools, Mr. 
President. In a recent Luntz survey, three fourths of high school 
students said that their schools are not drug free. 41 percent reported 
seeing drugs sold on school

[[Page 10437]]

grounds. And now the drug menace is moving into our middle schools. 46 
percent, almost half of our middle school kids, go to schools that are 
not drug free.
  With the explosion in drug use we also have seen a massive 
proliferation of guns in our schools. The Departments of Education and 
Justice report that 6,093 students were expelled for bringing guns to 
school during the 1996-97 school year alone.
  This is the situation supposedly addressed by the Safe and Drug Free 
Schools Act. So, what is this act, written into law in 1986 and with 
current funding levels at $566 million, accomplishing? Tragically 
little, Mr. President.
  Congress passed the Safe and Drug Free School Act allocating funds to 
fight drug use and the violence it breeds. But that money is not being 
spent wisely, on programs that actually succeed in reducing drug use 
and gun violence in our schools.
  Instead, Mr. President, a report in the Los Angeles Times has found 
that grant money is being used to pay for questionable activities like 
motivational speakers, puppet shows, tickets to Disneyland, dunking 
booths and magic shows. Surely we can use this law for something more 
than what President Clinton's own drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey, 
calls a program to ``mail out checks.''
  Our children and their teachers deserve better. Indeed, Mr. 
President, they are demanding better. For three years running, teens in 
the Luntz survey have deemed drugs the most important problem they 
face. Most teens favor random locker searches and drug testing of all 
students.
  And their teachers agree. Four out of five teachers favor locker 
searches and a zero tolerance policy on drugs. Two thirds favor at 
least some form of drug testing.
  Mr. President, our teachers and our children have recognized the 
obvious: we must find those who are bringing guns and explosives into 
our schools if we are to stop gun and other forms of violence affecting 
our kids
  By the same token, Mr. President, you must find those who are using 
and dealing drugs before you can effectively deal with the drug problem 
in our schools.
  My amendment accepts the common sense logic expressed by our teachers 
and students.
  My amendment does nothing to alter the availability of funds for 
other options in the fight against drugs and gun violence in our 
schools. It merely adds to the list the option of using these funds for 
locker searches and drug testing. It, rightly in my view, leaves the 
final decision on these issues to those who know the needs of their 
schools best--local authorities. But it adds an important option to the 
list from which they can choose.
  I am pleased that this common sense proposal has been cleared by the 
managers.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, with the passage of the Juvenile Justice 
bill today the Senate took a positive step forward in addressing the 
youth violence that we have sadly seen far too much of in recent weeks.
  One month ago today, we watched in horror as children turned violent 
against other children, and we asked ourselves why? Today, again, we've 
seen the horror of a high school student firing a weapon at his 
schoolmates. There is no one cause of this youth violence, the causes 
are many but the common denominator in all of these school shootings 
cannot be ignored or denied: the easy access our young people have to 
guns.
  If there is one silver lining in what happened at Littleton it's that 
this event has become a catalyst for the Senate to finally begin to 
overcome the disproportionate influence of the gun lobby and to close a 
few of the gaping loopholes in our federal gun laws which give our 
youth such easy access to guns.
  Over the last few weeks, with the Juvenile Justice bill on the floor 
of the Senate, we have taken important steps to strengthen our current 
laws. We have passed legislation to prohibit juveniles from owning 
semiautomatic weapons and large capacity ammunition devices. We have 
banned the importation of big ammunition clips, which have been 
flooding into the United States by the millions. The Senate passed an 
amendment requiring that handguns be sold with trigger locking devices 
to protect children. And just this morning, the Senate, by one vote, 
the deciding vote cast by Vice President Gore, passed legislation to 
regulate the sale of firearms at guns shows, ensuring juveniles and 
others cannot use these shows as a convenient way to circumvent the 
safeguards applied to normal sales through licensed gun dealers.
  Mr. President, I believe it's clear that the American people support 
the actions we have taken. In fact, I am hopeful that we will build on 
these first steps, for example, to ban semiautomatic assault weapons 
and handguns for persons under 21 years of age. This may be one of our 
most important tasks yet. According the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms' Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, the two most 
frequent ages at which crimes are committed with gun possession are 18 
and 19. In 1997, 22% of those arrested for murder were 18, 19 or 20 
years old.
  This legislation clearly falls short of closing all of the loopholes 
which allow our youth easy access to deadly weapons. However, in the 
wake of the tragedy at Littleton, the Senate has taken critical steps 
forward. This is a victory for the good sense of the American people 
over the entrenched interests of NRA lobbyists in Washington.
  Mr. President, in addition to preventing our youth from having access 
to deadly weapons, we must also ensure that schools have access to 
proven violence prevention programs designed to meet the particular 
needs of the students. The bill provides $250 million in grants for 
projects that allow schools to partner with the U.S. Department of 
Justice and police officers in crime prevention; $113 million for 
creative on-site school violence prevention programs and alcohol nd 
drug counseling; and amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
to make funds available for training in school safety and violence 
prevention, crisis preparedness, mentoring and anti-violence programs.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the passage of this Juvenile Justice Bill 
represents an important step forward for those of us who have expressed 
concern for the safety and well-being of America's young people. I am 
pleased that in spite of the tensions and the controversies that have 
marked these past weeks in the United States Senate, we are, in the 
final analysis, able to come together as a Senate in support of certain 
principles that we know are absolutely essential if we are to reform 
our nation's juvenile justice policy to reflect modern life and the 
needs of all our children in this nation.
  The aftermath of the tragic school shootings in Littleton and even 
the violence today in Atlanta underscored for all of us the importance 
of getting serious about juvenile justice. In this debate here in the 
Senate about juvenile justice, we heard a great deal about efforts to 
keep guns out of the hands of violent students, we heard about efforts 
to try juvenile offenders as adults, about stiffer sentences, about so 
many answers to the problem of kids who have run out of second and 
third chances--kids who are violent, kids who are committing crimes, 
children who are a danger to themselves and a danger to those around 
him. I was a prosecutor in Massachusetts before I entered elected 
office. I have seen these violent teenagers and young people come to 
court, and let me tell you, there is nothing more tragic than seeing 
these children who--in too many cases --have a jail cell in their 
future not far down the road, children who have done what is, at times, 
irreparable harm to their communities.
  I am pleased we are passing a bill today which demonstrates we don't 
only begin to care about these kids at that point --after the violence, 
after the arrest, after the damage has been done, when it may be too 
late--when we could have started intervening in our kids' lives early 
on, before it was too late. We can say that we have had

[[Page 10438]]

a real debate about juvenile justice because we are passing a bill that 
makes some critical investments in vital early childhood development 
efforts, but a great deal of work remains undone.
  The truth is that early intervention can have a powerful effect on 
reducing government welfare, health, criminal justice, and education 
expenditures in the long run. By taking steps now we can reduce later 
destructive behavior such as dropping out of school, drug use, and 
criminal acts like the ones we have seen in Littleton and Jonesboro. We 
are doing that in this bill--but we should be doing far more.
  A study of the High/Scope Foundation's Perry Preschool found that at-
risk toddlers who received pre-schooling and a weekly home visit 
reduced the risk that these children would grow up to become chronic 
law breakers by a startling 80 percent. The Syracuse University Family 
Development Study showed that providing quality early-childhood 
programs to families until children reached age five reduces the 
children's risk of delinquency 10 years later by 90 percent. It is no 
wonder that a recent survey of police chiefs found that nine out of ten 
said that ``America could sharply reduce crime if government invested 
more'' in these early intervention programs.
  I know it can work. I visited an incredible center, the Castle Square 
Early Childhood Development Center in Boston, and I saw kids getting 
the attention they need during the day while their parents work, 
children being held and read to, and cared for, children who aren't 
raising themselves, parents who come in and volunteer in the evening 
and take classes there so they can better take care of their kids when 
they're sick or when they need special attention. But you know what, 
for the sixty kids in that program, there are six hundred on a waiting 
list.
  There is the Early Childhood Initiative in Allegheny County, PA--one 
of the first pilot programs in this country which gave life to the kind 
of legislation we're passing here today--an innovative program which 
helps low-income children from birth to age five become successful, 
productive adults by enrolling them in high quality, neighborhood-based 
early care and education programs ranging from Head Start, center-based 
child care, home-based child care, and school readiness programs. ECI 
draws on everything that's right about Allegheny County--the strengths 
of its communities-- neighborhood decision-making, parent involvement, 
and quality measurement. Parents and community groups decide if they 
want to participate and they come together and develop a proposal 
tailored for the community. Regular review programs ensure quality 
programming and cost-effectiveness. We're talking about local control 
getting results locally: 19,000 pre-school aged children from low-
income families, 10,000 of which were not enrolled in any child care or 
education program. By the year 2000, through funding supplied by ECI, 
approximately 75% of these under-served pre-schoolers will be reached. 
Early evaluations show that enrolled children are achieving at rates 
equivalent to their middle income peers. And as we know, without this 
leveling of the playing field, low- income children are at a greater 
risk of encountering the juvenile justice system. That's a real 
difference.
  These kinds of programs are successful because children's experiences 
during their early years of life lay the foundation for their future 
development. But in too many places in this country our failure to 
provide young children what they need during these crucial early years 
has long-term consequences and costs for America.
  Recent Scientific evidence conclusively demonstrates that enhancing 
children's physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development 
will result in tremendous benefits for children, families, and our 
nation. The electrical activity of brain cells actually changes the 
physical structure of the brain itself. Without a stimulating 
environment, the baby's brain suffers. At birth, a baby's brain 
contains 100 billion neurons, roughly as many nerve cells as there are 
stars in the Milky Way. But the wiring pattern between these neurons 
develops over time. Children who play very little or are rarely touched 
develop brains 20 to 30 percent smaller than normal for their age.
  Reversing these problems later in life is far more difficult and 
costly. We know that--if it wasn't so much harder, we wouldn't be 
having this difficult debate in the Senate.
  I think it is time we talked about giving our kids the right start in 
their lives they need to be healthy, to be successful, to mature in a 
way that doesn't lead to at-risk and disruptive behavior and violence 
down the road.
  We should stop and consider what is really at stake here. Poverty 
seriously impairs young children's language development, math skills, 
IQ scores, and their later school completion. Poor young children also 
are at heightened risk of infant mortality, anemia, and stunted growth. 
Of the 12 million children under the age of 3 in the United States 
today, 3 million--25 percent--live in poverty. Three out of five 
mothers with children under three work, but one study found that 40 
percent of the facilities at child care centers serving infants 
provided care of such poor quality as to actually jeopardize children's 
health, safety, or development. In more than half of the states, one 
out of every four children between 19 months and three years of age is 
not fully immunized against common childhood diseases. Children who are 
not immunized are more likely to contract preventable diseases, which 
can cause long-term harm. Children younger than three make up 27 
percent of the one million children who are determined to be abused or 
neglected each year. Of the 1,200 children who died from abuse and 
neglect in 1995, 85 percent were younger than five and 45 percent were 
younger than one.
  Unfortunately, our Government expenditure patterns have been inverse 
to the most important early development period for human beings. 
Although we know that early investment can dramatically reduce later 
remedial and social costs, our nation has spent no more than $35 
billion over five years on federal programs for at-risk or delinquent 
youth and child welfare programs.
  That is a course we are taking some steps to change today. We are 
starting to talk in a serious and a thoughtful way--through a 
bipartisan approach--about making a difference in the lives of our 
children before they're put at risk. We are starting to accept the 
truth that we can do a lot more to help our kids grow up healthy with 
promising futures in an early childhood development center, in a 
classroom, and in a doctor's office than we can in a courtroom or in a 
jail cell. But we could be doing much more.
  These issues are now a part of this juvenile justice debate. But they 
need to be a bigger part of every debate we have about our kids' 
future. My colleague Kit Bond and I reintroduced yesterday our Early 
Childhood Development Act which we had previously introduced in the 
last Congress, and which had passed as part of the tobacco legislation 
last summer. That bill moves us forward in a bipartisan way towards a 
different kind of discussion about juvenile justice--and towards 
actions we can take to provide meaningful intervention in the lives of 
all of our children. I am appreciative of the deep support we've found 
for our approach in this legislation by Senator Stevens, Senator 
Jeffords, Senator Dodd, Senator Kennedy and all of the cosponsors of 
the original Kerry Bond bill: Senator Hollings, Senator Johnson, 
Senator Landrieu, Senator Levin, Senator Moynihan, Senator Wellstone, 
and my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Bob Torricelli. I am pleased 
to join Senators Stevens and Kennedy in supporting parenting, but as we 
expressed in our sense-of-the-Senate amendment there is much more we 
need to be doing in terms of broader early childhood development 
efforts--we need a more comprehensive approach.
  In this legislation we have taken an important step towards 
recognizing the importance of early childhood development programs for 
our children, as well as the responsibility of the Congress to make 
early childhood investments a priority in our budget process.

[[Page 10439]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was 
read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Hollings), is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 25, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 140 Leg.]

                                YEAS--73

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Grams
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--25

     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hollings
     McCain
       
  The bill (S. 254) was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. HATCH. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 5 minutes be given 
to myself and Senator Leahy, in that order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in the past, time seemed to roll past 
school shootings and similar tragedies. The public was quickly 
distracted. Yet, Littleton was different. The need to do something 
about the serious problem of youth violence has always been apparent. 
The tragedy of a month ago gave us the ingenuity and dedication to 
follow through.
  I have said since the outset of this debate that this issue is a 
complex problem and one which requires dedication and a spirit of 
cooperation. I felt that we needed to examine this and other acts of 
school violence and not single-out one politically attractive interest 
as a cause. In doing what's right for our children and in doing what's 
right for the public at large, our personal interests had to take a 
back seat. While I believe the cooperative spirit was lacking on 
occasion, I believe that the Senate has crafted a consensus product and 
one which I intend to support.
  At the start of this debate, I along with several of my colleagues 
announced a comprehensive plan to respond to the problem of violent 
juvenile crime. Our Youth Violence Plan contains four main components:
  1. Prevention and Enforcement Assistance to State and Local 
Government;
  2. Parental Empowerment and Stemming the Influence of Cultural 
Violence;
  3. Getting Tough on Violent Juveniles and Those Who Commit Violent 
Crimes with a Firearm; and
  4. Providing for Safe and Secure Schools.
  Each element of this plan--all of it--is included in S. 254 as 
amended.
  I. Prevention & Enforcement Assistance to State and Local Government: 
The first tier of this plan involved passage of the underlying bill--S. 
254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender and Accountability Act. 
We have provided a targeted infusion of funds to State and local 
authorities to combat juvenile crime. S. 254 provides over $1 billion a 
year to the States to fight juvenile crime and prevent juvenile 
delinquency. We need to reach out to young children early in life, 
insure that parents are empowered to do what they believe is best for 
their children, and take meaningful steps to give local education and 
enforcement officials the tools they need to hold violent juveniles 
accountable. S. 254 accomplishes this goal.
  II. Parental Empowerment and Stemming the Influence of Cultural 
Violence: The second tier of our plan involved Congress taking steps to 
empower parents, educators and the entertainment industry to do more to 
limit the exposure of America's children to violence in our popular 
culture. We offered several amendments to the underlying bill which 
furthered this leg of our plan and all of them passed the Senate. For 
example, this bill gives parents the power to screen undesirable 
material from entering their homes over the Internet. We have given the 
entertainment industry the tools it needs to develop and enforce pre-
existing ratings systems so that children are not exposed to material 
that the industry itself has deemed unsuitable for children. And we 
have established a National Commission on Youth Violence. It is time 
for us to hold Hollywood--and the rest of the entertainment industry--a 
bit more accountable.
  III. Getting Tough on Violent Juveniles and Enforce Existing Law: A 
third tier of our plan insured that violent juveniles--teenagers who 
commit violent crimes--will be held accountable. Part of the solution 
is to insure that when a teenager brings a gun to school, he or she is 
held accountable by school authorities and the criminal justice system. 
We take care of this in the bill. We also extend the Youth Handgun 
Safety Act to semi-automatic assault rifles. The bill before the Senate 
contains reforms like the juvenile Brady provision--a measure which 
will prohibit firearms possession by violent juvenile offenders. We 
increase penalties for transferring a gun to a minor and other 
corrupting acts.
  Most importantly, we respond to the biggest of gun law loopholes--the 
Clinton Administration's failure to enforce the gun laws already on the 
books. We insure that the Department of Justice will fulfill its 
obligation to enforce the law. Prosecuting violent gun offenders will 
be made a priority for this Administration whether they like it or not.
  IV. Safe and Secure Schools: The fourth element of our plan revolves 
around the basic right that all students share--the right to receive 
the quality education they deserve. Our teachers and students need to 
know that their school is safe and that, should they take action to 
deal with a violent student, the teacher will be protected. Our bill 
promotes safe and secure schools, free of undue disruption and 
violence, so that our teachers can teach and our children can learn. We 
provide greater flexibility to local communities in how they use 
federal education funds. We also provide teachers with limited civil 
liability protection should they take action to remove a problem child 
from school.
  These are just some of the many, many reforms contained in this bill. 
There has been a sense among many Americans that we are powerless to 
reverse the trend of violence. People believe we are powerless to deal 
with violent juvenile crime and that we are powerless to change our 
culture. It is this feeling of powerlessness which threatened our 
collective ambition for meaningful, penetrating solutions in the wake 
of the Littleton tragedy. I believe the Senate has taken a meaningful 
step towards shedding this defeatism.
  Do I agree with everything in this bill? No. For example, I oppose to 
the gun show regulatory and taxing

[[Page 10440]]

amendment. But addressing this gun show issue has been evolutionary. 
Both sides have moved on this and--perhaps--we can find common ground 
as the bill moves through the House and conference.
  Given the seriousness of our youth violence problem--and the number 
of warning signs that tragedies will continue unless all of us come 
together--we must move forward. We should join together and pass this 
bill.
  Finally, in closing I want to end this debate with a reminder. We 
have been on this bill for two weeks talking about violent juvenile 
crime, about the events in Littleton, about kids who use guns, and 
about kids influenced by violence in the media. Unfortunately, all of 
that is very true.
  But let us not lose sight of the fact that there are millions of kids 
in this country, hundreds of thousands in Utah, who are really good 
young people. We give a lot of attention and this bill focuses even 
more of it on young people who get into trouble with the law. Let's not 
forget that about the kids who fly straight. As we wrap up 
consideration of this bill, let's thank the millions of young people 
across this land that work hard, study long hours, respect and love 
their parents and friends, and care for others around them.
  Mr. President, I would like added as cosponsors of this bill and have 
their names appear as cosponsors immediately following my name: Senator 
Leahy, Senator Sessions, Senator Biden and Senator Feinstein. I am very 
proud to be able to be the prime sponsor with these wonderful 
cosponsors.
  Senator Biden was one of the first cosponsors on this bill. I am more 
than pleased that my ranking member, Senator Leahy is a cosponsor and a 
prime cosponsor.
  S. 254 is a testament to those who worked on it and a product which, 
on the whole, will help our young people and do something significant 
about the problems of juvenile crime.
  I want to thank a few of the people who have worked on this bill. Let 
me first acknowledge the Majority Leader who worked with me to keep 
this bill alive. Given the demanding Senate schedule, it would have 
been easier for him to have refused to take up the bill or pull it 
down. We have a bill passing the Senate because he wanted to do what's 
right.
  Let me also acknowledge Ranking Member, Senator Leahy. He and I 
reached agreement on this important bill after much discussion and he 
ably managed the bill for his side of the aisle.
  I also want to commend Senator Sessions--the Chairman of the Youth 
Violence Subcommittee. S. 254 became the vehicle for quite of bit of 
politically charged legislation but it was Senator Sessions who stayed 
on me for more than two years and who never lost sight of the need to 
make the juvenile justice reforms we make in the underlying bill.
  Also, let me commend Senator Biden who came on this bill as a 
cosponsor when others were unwilling. A leader on crime control issues, 
he was instrumental in setting a cooperative tone which helped get this 
bill moving.
  Senator Allard, Senator Craig, Senator Brownback, and Senator 
Ashcroft are to be commended for their leadership and counsel. Senator 
Feinstein should be applauded for her cooperation. There are many 
others but I will end it there.
  At the staff level, I want to commend several people.
  First, on the Judiciary Committee staff, let me acknowledge a few 
people who have worked very hard on this bill. Committee Counsels Rhett 
Dehart and Mike Kennedy are to be commended for their lead work on this 
important bill. When others were skeptical about its prospects they 
were there to make the substantive case for moving this bill. They 
worked very hard, for several years, to get this bill introduced, 
reported, and passed. This bill's passage is a testament to their 
tireless efforts.
  In addition, I want to acknowledge and thank Kristi Lee, the Chief 
Counsel of the Youth Violence subcommittee for her work.
  I also want to commend a few others on the Committee Staff: Sharon 
Prost, Anna Cabral, Ed Haden, Craig Wolf, Catherine Campbell, David 
Muhl- 
hausen, Leah Belaire, Makan Delrahim, Jeanne Lopatto, Alison Vinson, 
Joelle Scott, Elle Parker, Krista Redd, and Luke Austin. They all 
worked around the clock on this bill. The amount of preparation that 
goes into these bills is significant and they were given little time to 
prepare for the floor. They are a great staff and I thank them for 
their efforts. Thanks as well should be given to the Committee's Chief 
Counsel and Staff Director, Manus Cooney. He is one of the finest staff 
directors in the committee's history.
  On Senator Leahy's committee staff I want to acknowledge the Minority 
Chief Counsel--Bruce Cohen for his cooperative efforts and leadership. 
Beryl Howell, Senator Leahy's General Counsel should also be commended 
for her substantive work on the underlying Hatch-Leahy substitute and 
managers' package. Ed Barron is a true gentleman and an able lawyer.
  Let me also acknowledge the Youth Violence Subcommittee's Minority 
Chief Counsel, Sheryl Walter and Glen Shor with the Criminal Justice 
Overight Subcommittee.
  Others I would be remiss in not mentioning include:
  Dave Hoppe, Robert Wilkie, and Jim Hecht of the Majority Leader's 
staff;
  Stewart Verdery and Eric Euland of the Whip's office;
  Ken Foss, Candi Wolff, and Jade West of the Policy Committee;
  Mike Bennett, Karen Knutson, Kris Ardizzone, David Crane, and Paul 
Clement.
  Let me acknowledge the hard work of Mary Kay MacMillan, Tony Coe, 
Bill Jensen, and Tim Trushel of the Senate Legislative Counsel's 
office, who all put in extraordinary effort in preparing this bill and 
many amendments.
  And finally, I would be remiss if I did not express thanks to our 
wonderful floor and cloakroom staff: Elizabeth Letchworth, Dave 
Schiappa, Tripp Baird, Malloy McDaniel, Marshall Hiton, Dan Dukes, 
Laura Martin, and Myra Baron. These folks keep things running during 
our hectic debates, and we appreciate them.
  I am very grateful to finally have this ordeal over. It has been a 
very, very difficult bill, as all of these crime bills usually are. I 
think if anybody tries to make this just a gun bill, they have missed 
the point of what we have accomplished here.
  Sure, there have been some amendments on guns that are very crucial 
and very important in the eyes of many people on the floor, but this 
bill is so much more--ranging from accountability, calling on youth to 
be responsible for their actions, to prevention moneys. For the first 
time in years, we have balanced prevention and accountability and law 
enforcement. The law enforcement aspect will help bring the law down on 
violent juveniles and others who aid them in committing these crimes. 
We have made real inroads and we have taken a number of very important 
steps with regard to changing the culture of violence in our society. 
That is important. Yes, we faced some tough amendments on guns. I don't 
like all of the results on this bill. But the fact of the matter is, 
they were votes, they were voted up and down, the Senate has spoken, 
and we need to recognize that for what it is.
  At this point I again express my appreciation to my friend, Senator 
Leahy, for the patience he has had with me, the patience he has had on 
the floor, the assistance he has been. It has been a real privilege to 
work for him. I respect and admire him and hope to do a lot of 
constructive things with him in the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator 
from Utah for his kind remarks. We have worked very closely together on 
this. We have seen a bill go through a major evolution on the floor. 
Frankly, that is what the Senate should do in working its will through 
a bill. But I must say to my friend from Utah, I do not think that 
would have been possible if he and I had not been able to work 
together, if

[[Page 10441]]

we had not been in constant contact, day by day, hour by hour and, 
perhaps to his regret at times, minute by minute.
  I once said Senators are merely constitutional impediments to their 
staff--maybe I said it more than once. If we had not had superb staffs 
working on this, I do not know what we could have done.
  We had Senators who came together, even though they normally seem 
politically far apart. The distinguished Senator from Alabama, Senator 
Sessions, an original cosponsor of this bill; the distinguished Senator 
from Delaware, Senator Biden; myself and Senator Hatch--coming 
together, bringing so many other Senators together.
  One need only look at the major managers' package we passed. I say to 
my friend from Utah, I think when we introduced our managers' amendment 
that, as much as anything, broke the logjam and made passage of this 
bill possible. We tried to accommodate many Senators on both sides of 
the aisle who had legitimate matter of concern. In that process we came 
together to shape a bill. The managers' amendment agreement was more 
than just saying what is good for one Senator or another Senator. This 
is a juvenile justice bill and the managers' amendment helped shape the 
contours of that collective product.
  As a parent, I think back to the time when my children were going to 
school. I thought what a happy and wonderful time in their life it was. 
I knew it was one place where they were safe. We did not have to worry 
about anything more than, did they study enough for their geometry test 
or history test or did they get their English assignment in on time? 
The worst injury you might worry about was if somebody in the 
playground was to slip and fall and bruise an arm or a leg.
  Parents should not have to worry about their children going to 
school. But even today as we debated this--as we talked about 
Columbine, where the President and the First Lady were traveling 
today--we saw, again, on the TV, pictures of another school shooting by 
another juvenile in Georgia, leaving children injured and being flown 
to a hospital. Every parent in this country is reminded, again, that 
often today our children are not safe, even when we send them off to a 
place where they should be. That is not the way it should be.
  We have worked tirelessly on this bill. I think it is a better bill 
than when it began. The intentions were always the same: To make sure 
our juveniles are safe, our people are safe, that we choose the right 
course for juveniles when they do commit crimes.
  The Senate has improved this bill. It is more comprehensive and more 
respectful of the core protections in the Federal juvenile legislation 
that served us well in past decades. It is more respectful of the 
primary role of the States in prosecuting these matters. We do 
recognize that no legislation is perfect, legislation alone is not 
enough to stop youth violence.
  I hope parents, teachers, and juveniles themselves will stop and say: 
Can we not do better? Can we not have time together? Can we not love 
our children as we should? Can we not love each other as we should? Can 
we not look at some of the principles I knew so well when I was growing 
up, given to me by my parents, principles I hope my wife and I passed 
on to our children?
  Can we not go to those basic principles and understand, even in a 
country of a quarter of a billion people, that we do not need the 
violence we see in this country?
  It is not just a question of gun control. It is not just a question 
of more courts or more police. It is not just a question of more laws. 
But it is a question of, what do we want to be as a nation? We are 
blessed in this nation. We are the most powerful, wealthiest nation 
history has ever known. We live better than anybody ever could have 
imagined. We have so much going for us. Should not we stop and say, 
when it comes to our children, the most precious resource we have, that 
we must do all that we can to protect them and nurture them and teach 
them to be responsible?
  Since we began consideration of this important legislation last week, 
we have gotten both good news and bad news on the crime front. We got 
the good news at the beginning of this week when the FBI released the 
latest crime rate statistics showing a decline in serious crime for the 
seventh consecutive year. Preliminary reports indicate that the rate of 
serious violent and property crime in this country went down another 7 
percent in 1998, with robbery down 11 percent, murders down 8 percent, 
car thefts down 10 percent, and declines in other crime categories as 
well.
  But we are all acutely aware that we also got bad news today. Yet 
another school shooting by a juvenile--this time in Georgia--with 
children injured and being flown to hospitals. Every parent in this 
country is reminded again that our children are not safe, even when we 
send them off to a place where they should be. The only thing parents 
should have to worry about when they wave good-bye to their children in 
the morning is whether their child remembered his or her homework and 
lunch money. They should not have to worry about whether they will get 
shot.
  The growing list of schoolyard shootings by children in Arkansas, 
Washington, Oregon, Tennessee, California, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, 
Mississippi, last month in Littleton, Colorado, and today in Georgia, 
is simply unacceptable and intolerable.
  Each one of us wants to do something to stop this violence. We have 
before us a bill that reflects hard work and committed effort on both 
sides of the aisle to address the juvenile crime problem. Senator Hatch 
and Senator Sessions have worked tirelessly for several years now to 
make a difference. While we have strongly disagreed in the past on the 
right approach to juvenile crime, I have always respected their good 
intentions. I am glad that this year we have continued the progress we 
made in the last Congress to find common ground on this important 
legislation.
  In light of the significant improvements we have been able to make to 
the bill here on the Senate floor over the last eight days, the bill is 
a better, stronger and better balanced bill. It is more comprehensive 
and more respectful of the core protections in federal juvenile justice 
legislation that have served us so well over the last three decades. At 
the same time it is more respectful of the primary role of the states 
in prosecuting these matters. I greatly appreciate the Chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee adding me as a principal cosponsor of our bill.
  I recognize, as we all do, that no legislation is perfect and that 
legislation alone is not enough to stop youth violence. We can pass an 
assortment of new laws and still turn on the news to find out that some 
child somewhere in the country has turned violent and turned on other 
children and teachers, with a gun or other weapon, with terrible 
results.
  All of us--whether we are parents, grandparents, teachers, 
psychologists, or policy-makers--are puzzling over the causes of kids 
turning violent in our country. The root causes are likely multi-
faceted. We can all point to inadequate parental involvement or 
supervision, over-crowded classrooms and over-sized schools that add to 
students' alienation, the easy accessibility of guns, the violence 
depicted on television, in movies and video games, or inappropriate 
content available on the Internet. 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. Nevertheless, this legislation is a firm 
and significant step in the right direction.
  I have said before that a good proposal that works should get the 
support of all of us. Our first question should be whether a program or 
proposal will help our children effectively, not whether it is a 
Democratic or Republican proposal. The Managers' amendment and package 
of amendments that the Chairman and I were able to put together for 
adoption yesterday reflects that philosophy. It shows that when this 
body rolls up its sleeves and gets to work, we can make significant 
progress. I commend the Chairman for his leadership in this effort and 
I am glad we were able to

[[Page 10442]]

work together constructively to improve this bill.
  This bill, S. 254, started out as a much-improved bill from the one 
reported by the Judiciary Committee in the last Congress. In fact, as I 
looked through this bill I was pleasantly surprised to see that 
proposals that the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee specifically 
voted down in 1997 were incorporated at the outset into this bill. 
These are changes that I and other Democrats have been urging on our 
Republican colleagues for the past few years, and that they have 
resisted until they quietly incorporated them into this bill.
  Federalism. For example, I tried in July 1997 to amend S. 10 to 
protect the State's traditional prerogative in handling juvenile 
offenders and avoid the unnecessary federalization of juvenile crime 
that so concerns the Chief Justice and the Federal judiciary. 
Specifically, my 1997 amendment would have limited the federal trial as 
an adult of juveniles charged with nonviolent felonies to circumstances 
when the State is unwilling or unable to exercise jurisdiction. This 
amendment was defeated, with all the Republicans voting against it.
  This bill, S. 254, contained a new provision designed to address 
these federalism concerns that would direct federal prosecutors to 
``exercise a presumption in favor of referral'' of juvenile cases to 
the appropriate State or tribal authorities, where there is 
``concurrent jurisdiction,'' unless the State declines jurisdiction and 
there is a substantial federal interest in the case. Yet, concerns 
remained that this bill would undermine a State's traditionally 
prerogative to handle juvenile offenders.
  The changes we make to the underlying bill in the Hatch-Leahy 
Managers' amendment satisfy my concerns. For example, S. 254 as 
introduced would repeal the very first section of the Federal Criminal 
Code dealing with ``Correction of Youthful Offenders.'' This is the 
section that establishes a clear presumption that the States--not the 
federal government--should handle most juvenile offenders [18 U.S.C. 
section 5001]. While the original S. 254 would repeal that provision, 
the Managers' amendment retains it in slightly modified form.
  In addition, the original S. 254 would require Federal prosecutors to 
refer most juvenile cases to the State in cases of ``concurrent 
jurisdiction . . . over both the offense and the juvenile.'' This 
language created a recipe for sharp lawyering. Federal prosecutors 
could avoid referral by simply claiming there was no ``concurrent'' 
jurisdiction over the ``offense'' due to linguistic or other 
differences between the federal and state crimes. Even if the 
juvenile's conduct violated both Federal and State law, any difference 
in how those criminal laws were written could be used to argue they 
were different offenses altogether. This was a huge loophole that could 
have allowed federal prosecutors to end-run the presumption of referral 
to the State.
  We fix this in the Managers' Amendment, and clarify that whenever the 
federal government or the State have criminal laws that punish the same 
conduct and both have jurisdiction over the juvenile, federal 
prosecutors should refer the juvenile to the State in most instances.
  Finally, I was concerned that, contrary to current law, a federal 
prosecutor's decision to proceed against a juvenile in federal court 
would not be subject to any judicial review. The Managers' Amendment 
would permit such judicial review, except in cases involving serious 
violent or serious drug offenses.
  Federal Trial of Juveniles as Adults. Another area of concern has 
been the ease with which S. 254 would allow federal prosecutors to 
prosecute juveniles 14 years and older as adults for any felony. While 
I have long favored simplifying and streamlining current federal 
procedures for trying juveniles, I believe that judicial review is an 
important check in the system, particularly when you are dealing with 
children.
  This bill, S. 254, included a ``reverse waiver'' proposal allowing 
for judicial review of most cases in which a juvenile is charged as an 
adult in federal court. I had suggested a similar proposal in July 
1997, when I tried to amend S. 10 before the Judiciary Committee to 
permit limited judicial review of a federal prosecutor's decision to 
try certain juveniles as adults. S. 10 granted sole, non-reviewable 
authority to federal prosecutors to try juveniles as adults for any 
federal felony, removing federal judges from that decision altogether. 
My 1997 amendment would have granted federal judges authority in 
appropriate cases to review a prosecutor's decision and to handle the 
juvenile case in a delinquency proceeding rather than try the juvenile 
as an adult.
  Only three States in the country granted prosecutors the 
extraordinary authority over juvenile cases that S. 10 proposed, 
including Florida. Earlier this year, we saw the consequences of that 
kind of authority, when a local prosecutor in that State charged as an 
adult a 15-year-old mildly retarded boy with no prior record who stole 
$2 from a school classmate to buy lunch. The local prosecutor charged 
him as an adult and locked him up in an adult jail for weeks before 
national press coverage forced a review of the charging decision in the 
case.
  This was not the kind of incident I wanted happening on the federal 
level. Unfortunately, my proposal for a ``reverse waiver'' procedure 
providing judicial review of a prosecutor's decision was voted down in 
Committee, with no Republican on the Committee voting for it.
  I was pleased that S. 254 contained a ``reverse waiver'' provision, 
despite the Committee's rejection of this proposal two years ago. 
Though made belated, this was a welcome change in the bill. The 
Managers' amendment makes important improvements to that provision.
  First, S. 254 gives a juvenile defendant only 20 days to file a 
reverse waiver motion after the date of the juvenile's first 
appearance. This time is too short, and could lapse before the juvenile 
is indicted and is aware of the actual charges. The Managers' amendment 
extends the time to make a reverse waiver motion to 30 days, which 
begins at the time the juvenile defendant appears to answer an 
indictment.
  Second, S. 254 requires the juvenile defendant to show by ``clear and 
convincing'' evidence that he or she should be tried as a juvenile 
rather than an adult. This is a very difficult standard to meet, 
particularly under strict time limits. Thus, the Managers' amendment 
changes this standard to a ``preponderance'' of the evidence.
  Juvenile Records. As initially introduced, S. 254 would require 
juvenile criminal records for any federal offense, no matter how petty, 
to be sent to the FBI. This criminal record would haunt the juvenile as 
he grew into an adult, with no possibility of expungement from the 
FBI's database.
  The Managers' amendment makes important changes to this record 
requirement. The juvenile records sent to the FBI will be limited to 
acts that would be felonies if committed by an adult. In addition, 
under the Managers' amendment, a juvenile would be able after 5 years 
to petition the court to have the criminal record removed from the FBI 
database, if the juvenile can show by clear and convincing evidence 
that he or she is no longer a danger to the community. Expungement of 
records from the FBI's database does not apply to juveniles convicted 
of rape, murder or certain other serious felonies.
  Increasing Witness Tampering Penalties. This bill, S. 254, also 
contains a provision to increase penalties for witness tampering that I 
first suggested and included in the ``Youth Violence, Crime and Drug 
Abuse Control Act of 1997,'' S. 15, which was introduced in the first 
weeks of the 105th Congress, at the end of the last Congress in the 
``Safe Schools, Safe Streets and Secure Borders Act of 1998,'' S. 2484, 
and again in S. 9, the comprehensive package of crime proposals 
introduced with Senator Daschle at the beginning of this Congress. This 
provision would increase the penalty for using or threatening physical 
force against any person with intent to tamper with a witness, victim 
or informant from a maximum

[[Page 10443]]

of ten to twenty years' imprisonment. In addition, the provision adds a 
conspiracy penalty for obstruction of justice offenses involving 
witnesses, victims and informants.
  I have long been concerned about the undermining of our criminal 
justice system by criminal efforts to threaten or harm witnesses, 
victims and informants, to stop them from cooperating with and 
providing assistance to law enforcement. I tried to include this 
provision, along with several other law enforcement initiatives, by 
amendment to S. 10 during Committee mark-up on July 11, 1997, but this 
amendment was voted down by all the Republicans on the Committee. At 
the end of the mark-up, however, this witness tampering provision was 
quietly accepted to S. 10 and I am pleased that it is also included in 
S. 254.
  Eligibility Requirements for Accountability Block Grant. This bill, 
S. 254, substantially relaxes the eligibility requirements for the new 
juvenile accountability block grant. By contrast, S. 10 in the last 
Congress would have required States to comply with a host of new 
federal mandates to qualify for the first cent of grant money, such as 
permitting juveniles 14 years and older to be prosecuted as adults for 
violent felonies, establishing graduated sanctions for juvenile 
offenders, implementing drug testing programs for juveniles upon 
arrest, and nine new juvenile record-keeping requirements. These 
record-keeping mandates would have required, for example, that States 
fingerprint and photograph juveniles arrested for any felony act and 
send those records to the FBI, plus make all juvenile delinquency 
records available to law enforcement agencies and to schools, including 
colleges and universities. We could find no State that would have 
qualified for this grant money without agreeing to change their laws in 
some fashion to satisfy the twelve new mandates.
  In 1997, I tried to get the Judiciary Committee to relax the new 
juvenile record-keeping mandates under the accountability grant program 
during the mark-up of S. 10. My 1997 amendment would have limited the 
record-keeping requirements to crimes of violence or felony acts 
committed by juveniles, rather than to all juvenile offenses no matter 
how petty. But my amendment was voted down on July 23, 1997, by the 
Republicans on the Committee. Finally, two years later, S. 254 reflects 
the criticism I and others Democrats on the Judiciary Committee leveled 
at the strict eligibility and record-keeping requirements in S. 10.
  Indeed, the Senate decisively rejected this approach when it defeated 
an amendment by a Republican Senator that would have revived those 
straight-jacket eligibility requirements. Specifically, his amendment 
would have required States to try as adults juveniles 14 years or older 
who committed certain crimes. As I pointed out during floor debate on 
this amendment, only two States would have qualified for grant funds 
unless they agreed to change their laws.
  Moreover, the current bill removes the record-keeping requirements 
altogether from the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant. Instead, S. 
254 sets up an entirely new Juvenile Criminal History Block Grant, 
funded at $75 million per year. To qualify for a criminal history 
grant, States would have to promise within three years to keep 
fingerprint supported records of delinquency adjudications of juveniles 
who committed a felony act. No more photographs required. No more 
records of mere arrests required. No more dissemination of petty 
juvenile offense records to schools required. Instead, only juvenile 
delinquency adjudications for murder, armed robbery, rape or sexual 
molestation must be disseminated in the same manner as adult records; 
other juvenile delinquency adjudications records may only be used for 
criminal justice purposes. These limitations are welcome changes to the 
burdensome, over-broad record-keeping requirements in the prior version 
of the Republican juvenile crime bill.
  The eligibility requirements for the Juvenile Accountability Block 
Grant now number only three, including that the State have in place a 
policy of drug testing for appropriate categories of juveniles upon 
arrest.
  Core Protections for Children. Much of the debate over reforming our 
juvenile justice system has focused on how we treat juvenile offenders 
who are held in State custody. Republican efforts to roll back 
protections for children in custody failed in the last Congress. These 
protections were originally put in place when Congress enacted the 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 to create a 
formula grant program for States to improve their juvenile justice 
systems. This Act addressed the horrific conditions in which children 
were being detained by State authorities in close proximity to adult 
inmates--conditions that too often resulted in tragic assaults, rapes 
and suicides of children.
  As the JJDPA has evolved, four core protections have been adopted--
and are working--to protect children from adult inmates and to ensure 
development of alternative placements to adult jails. These four core 
protections for juvenile delinquents are:
  Separation of juvenile offenders from adult inmates in custody (known 
as sight and sound separation);
  Removal of juveniles from adult jails or lockups, with a 24-hour 
exception in rural areas and other exceptions for travel and weather 
related conditions;
  Deinstitutionalizaton of status offenders; and to study and direct 
prevention efforts toward reducing the disproportionate confinement of 
minority youth in the juvenile justice system.
  Over strong objection by most of the Democrats on the Judiciary 
Committee in the last Congress, S. 10 eliminated three of the four core 
protections and substantially weakened the ``sight and sound'' 
separation standard for juveniles in State custody. At the same time 
the Committee appeared to acknowledge the wisdom and necessity of such 
requirements when it adopted an amendment requiring separation of 
juveniles and adult inmates in Federal custody.
  This bill, S. 254, as introduced was an improvement over S. 10 in its 
retention of modified versions of three out of the four core 
protections. Specifically, S. 254 included the sight and sound standard 
for juveniles in Federal custody reflected in a 1997 amendment to S. 
10. The same standard is used to apply to juveniles delinquents in 
State custody.
  Legitimate concerns were raised that the prohibition on physical 
contact in S. 254 would still allow supervised proximity between 
juveniles and adult inmates that is ``brief and incidental or 
accidental,'' since this could be interpreted to allow routine and 
regular--though brief--exposure of children to adult inmates. For 
example, guards could routinely escort children past open adult cells 
multiple times a day on their way to a dining area.
  The Hatch-Leahy Managers' amendment makes significant progress on the 
``sight and sound separation'' protection and the ``jail removal'' 
protection. Specifically, our Managers' amendment makes clear that when 
parents in rural areas give their consent to have their children 
detained in adult jails after an arrest, the parents may revoke their 
consent at any time. In addition, the judge who approves the juvenile's 
detention must determine it is in the best interests of the juvenile, 
and may review that detention--as the judge must periodically--in the 
presence of the juvenile.
  The Managers' amendment also clarifies that juvenile offenders in 
rural areas may be detained in an adult jail for up to 48 hours while 
awaiting a court appearance, but only when no alternative facilities 
are available and appropriate juvenile facilities are too far away to 
make the court appearance or travel is unsafe to undertake.
  The Hatch-Leahy Managers' amendment also significantly improves the 
sight and sound separation requirement for juvenile offenders in both 
Federal and State custody. The amendment incorporates the guidance in 
current regulations for keeping juveniles separated from adult 
prisoners. Specifically, the Managers' amendment would require 
separation of juveniles and adult inmates and excuse only ``brief and 
inadvertent or accidental'' proximity in non-residential areas, which

[[Page 10444]]

may include dining, recreational, educational, vocational, health care, 
entry areas, and passageways.
  I am pleased we were able to make this progress. I appreciate that a 
number of Members remain seriously concerned, as do I, about how S. 254 
changes the disproportionate minority confinement protection in current 
law. This bill, S. 254, removes any reference to minorities and 
requires only that efforts be made to reduce over-representation of any 
segment of the population. I am disappointed that Senators Wellstone 
and Kennedy's amendment to restore this protection did not succeed 
yesterday, but will continue to fight in conference to restore this 
protection.
  Prevention. S. 254 includes a $200 million per year Juvenile 
Delinquency Prevention Challenge Grant to fund both primary prevention 
and intervention uses after juveniles have had contact with the 
juvenile justice system. I and a number of other members were concerned 
that in the competition for grant dollars, the primary prevention uses 
would lose out to intervention uses in crucial decisions on how this 
grant money would be spent. With the help of Senator Kohl, we have 
included in the Hatch-Leahy Managers' amendment a clear earmark that 
eighty percent of the money, or $160 million per year if the program is 
fully funded, is to be used for primary prevention uses and the other 
twenty percent is to be used for intervention uses. Together with the 
25 percent earmark, or about $112 million per year if that program is 
fully funded, for primary prevention in the Juvenile Accountability 
Block Grant that was passed by the Senate in the Hatch-Biden-Sessions 
amendment, this bill now reflects a substantial amount of solid funding 
for primary prevention uses.
  Prosecutors' Grants. I expressed some concern when the Senate passed 
the Hatch-Biden-Sessions amendment authorizing $50 million per year for 
prosecutors and different kinds of assistance to prosecutors to speed 
up prosecution of juvenile offenders. I pointed out that this amendment 
did not authorize any additional money for judges, public defenders, 
counselors, or corrections officers. The consequence would be to only 
exacerbate the backlog in juvenile justice systems rather than helping 
it.
  The Managers' amendment fixes that by authorizing $50 million per 
year in grants to State juvenile court systems to be used for increased 
resources to State juvenile court judges, juvenile prosecutors, 
juvenile public defenders, and other juvenile court system personnel.
  Sense of Senate. I mentioned before that S. 254 includes a Sense of 
the Senate resolution urging States to try juveniles 10 to 14 years old 
as adults for crimes, such as murder, that would carry the death 
penalty if committed by an adult--the resolution does not urge the 
death penalty for such children. While Vermont is probably one of the 
few States that expressly allows for the trial of juveniles 10 years 
and older as adults for certain crimes, I do not believe that this is a 
matter on which the Senate must or should opine. The Managers' 
amendment correctly deletes that Sense of the Senate from the bill.
  State Advisory Groups. S. 254 incorporates changes I recommended to 
S. 10 in the last Congress to ensure the continued existence and role 
of State Advisory Groups, or SAGs, in the development of State plans 
for addressing juvenile crime and delinquency, and the use of grant 
funds under the JJDPA. As originally introduced, S. 10 had abolished 
the role of SAGs. The Judiciary Committee in 1997 adopted my amendment 
to preserve SAGs and require representation from a broad range of 
juvenile justice experts from both the public and private sectors.
  While, as introduced, S. 254 preserved SAGs, it eliminated the 
requirement in current law that gives SAGs the opportunity to review 
and comment on a grant award to allow these experts to provide input on 
how best to spend the money. In addition, while the bill authorizes the 
use of grant funds to support the SAG, the bill does require States to 
commit any funds to ensure these groups can function effectively. I am 
pleased that the Chairman and I were able to accept an amendment 
sponsored by Senators Kerrey, Roberts, and others, to ensure 
appropriate funding of SAGs at the State level and to support their 
annual meetings.
  Protecting Children From Guns. Significantly, we have amended this 
bill with important gun control measures that we all hope will help 
make this country safer for our children. The bill as now been amended: 
bans the transfer to and possession by juveniles of assault weapons and 
high capacity ammunition clips; increases criminal penalties for 
transfers of handguns, assault weapons, and high capacity ammunition 
clips to juveniles; bans prospective gun sales to juveniles with 
violent crime records; expands the youth crime gun interdiction 
initiative to up to 250 cities by 2003 for tracing of guns used in 
youth crime; and increases federal resources dedicated to enforcement 
of firearms laws by $50 million a year. These common-sense initiatives 
were first included in the comprehensive Leahy law enforcement 
amendment that was tabled by the majority, but were later included in 
successful amendments sponsored by Republican Senators. No matter how 
these provisions were finally included in the bill, they will help keep 
guns out of hands of children and criminals, while protecting the 
rights of law abiding adults to use firearms.
  In addition, through the efforts of Senators Lautenberg, Schumer, 
Kerrey and others, we were able to require background checks for all 
firearm purchases at all gun shows. After three Republican amendments 
failed to close the gun show loophole in the Brady law, and, in fact, 
created many new loopholes in the law, we finally prevailed. With the 
help of Vice President Gore's tie-breaking vote, a majority in the U.S. 
Senate stood up to the gun lobby and did the right thing. This is real 
progress. Conclusion.
  I said at the outset of the debate on this bill that I would like 
nothing better than to pass responsible and effective juvenile justice 
legislation. I want to pass juvenile justice legislation that will be 
helpful to the youngest citizens in this country--not harm them. I want 
to pass juvenile justice legislation that assists States and local 
governments in handling juvenile offenders--not impose a ``one-size-
fits-all'' Washington solution on them. I want to prevent juveniles 
from committing crimes, and not just narrowly focus on punishing 
children. I want to keep children who may harm others away from guns. 
This bill would make important contributions in each of these areas, 
and I am pleased to support its passage.
  I thank the Republican manager of this important measure for his work 
and dedication to this effort. I commend the Minority Leader and the 
Minority Whip for their assistance and attention to this debate. There 
would not be a juvenile justice bill without them. I thank Senator 
Kennedy, Senator Schumer, Senator Kohl and all the Democratic Members 
of the Judiciary Committee for helping manage this effort. Senators 
Bingaman, Robb, Boxer, Wellstone and Lautenberg should also be singled 
out for their consistent efforts to improve this bill. And I would like 
to thank the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican and 
Democrat, including Manus Cooney, Sharon Prost, Rhett DeHart, Michael 
Kennedy and Anna Cabral from Chairman Hatch's staff and Bruce Cohen, 
Beryl Howell, Ed Pagano, Ed Barron, J.P. Dowd, Julie Katzman and 
Michael Carrasco from my own. In addition Michael Myers, Stephaine 
Robinson, Melody Barnes and Angela Williams from Senator Kennedy's 
staff and Sheryl Walter, Jon Leibowitz, Brian Lee, Neil Quinter, David 
Hantman, Bob Schiff, Jennifer Leach and Glen Shor, Sander Lurie and 
Tony Orza were exceptional in staffing these matters. I thank them all 
for their dedication and public service.
  I thank Senators on both side of the aisle who worked with us, but I 
want to congratulate the distinguished chairman and thank him for his 
help.
  Mr. HATCH. I likewise congratulate the ranking member.
  Mr. President, I ask 5 minutes be accorded to the subcommittee 
chairman

[[Page 10445]]

of the Judiciary Committee who did more than any other single person to 
bring the good parts of this bill to the floor. He deserves a lot of 
recognition. This is his first term in the Senate. To have such a 
significant role on a bill of this magnitude I think is a great star in 
Senator Sessions' crown. I certainly recognize that and tell him what a 
pleasure it has been to work with him and with his staff in doing this.
  Let me just add one last thing. The Senator is right, the Senator 
from Vermont. We are here trying to save our children. We are here 
trying to make this a better world for them. We are here trying to make 
it clear to people in this country there is such a thing as discipline 
and we have to abide by certain rules in society. This bill will help a 
lot of young kids out there to realize there are rules and they are 
worthy rules; if they will abide by them, we will continue to have a 
great society for the next 200-plus years. To the extent this bill has 
come through, as extensive and good as it is, we owe a lot to the 
Senator from Georgia.
  I want to end this debate with a reminder. We have been on this bill 
for 2 weeks talking about violent juvenile crime, about the events in 
Littleton, about kids who use guns and about kids influenced by 
violence in the media. Unfortunately for all of us, that is true. But 
let us not lose sight of the millions of kids in this country, hundreds 
of thousands in Utah, who are really good young people.
  We give a lot of attention, and the bill focuses even more, on young 
people who get into trouble with the law. Let us not forget that about 
the kids who fly straight. As we wrap up consideration of this bill, 
let's thank the millions of young people across this land who work 
hard, study long hours, respect and love their parents and friends, and 
care for others around them. There are millions and millions of good 
kids in this country. What we are trying to make sure is the kids who 
were led astray, the kids who we think may not be so good, they are 
going to get a break--or at least they are going to understand what the 
law is with regard to violence. This bill, I think, will go a long way 
to solving these problems.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah, who is a 
master legislator, who took this bill through storms none of us 
expected would occur. This was an emotional time in America. It has 
generated an awful lot of amendments and ideas, some of which are good 
and some of which I frankly think are not healthy.
  I believe we need to focus on prosecuting criminals who use guns. It 
always galled me as a former Federal prosecutor myself that here this 
administration blamed the Congress for not passing more laws when their 
own Department of Justice had allowed prosecutions of gun cases to drop 
40 percent. You wonder why we are passing laws if they are not using 
them.
  Those were some of the matters that came up. My vision for this bill 
from the beginning was to create a Federal program to assist the local 
juvenile justice systems in America. We put money where these judges 
and prosecutors and probation officers are overwhelmed by the huge 
crush of juvenile cases. We have increased funding dramatically for 
adult programs for crimefighting but we have not done the same for 
juveniles. Those juveniles, then, come on and become adult criminals.
  I hope everybody in America who cares about what is happening will 
ask how their juvenile court system is doing. Does the judge in their 
town have an option when a child is arrested to send them to prison, 
detention, boot camp, alternative schools, drug treatment, mental 
health, family counseling? Can the judge impose that? Can he impose a 
probation order and then have the resources to make sure that youngster 
is at home at night at 7 like he ordered, or do we do like most courts 
in America, because they do not have enough resources, so orders are 
written but nobody enforces them?
  If we love these children, if we care about these children, when they 
are arrested, we will drug test them, because if they are using drugs, 
they are going to continue in the life of crime. Sixty-seven to 70 
percent of the people in America who are arrested for a felony test 
positive for an illegal drug. It is an accelerant to crime. This 
legislation does that kind of thing.
  It provides money for drug testing. It provides money for 
recordkeeping. We hope every juvenile court system in America will 
input criminal history records into the Federal NCIC, National Crime 
Information Center, that the FBI manages. They want these records 
because these children move around and some of them are very violent. 
Those records need to be maintained. This bill provides for that.
  It provides for research on which programs are working. Many of them 
are not successful, according to the Department of Justice, and we need 
to make sure these prevention programs are working well. It provides 
for research for that.
  I am of a belief that this legislation--and it can use some work in 
conference, and I know Senator Hatch and others will try to improve 
it--can help us create a better juvenile justice system so we can 
intervene effectively at the first arrest. We can make that youngster's 
first brush with the law their last because we deal with them seriously 
and not as a revolving door.
  Sometimes we have to use some form of detention because some of these 
kids just will not mind otherwise. We know that. They have multiple 
arrests.
  I believe we have made some progress. I am honored to have worked 
with Senator Leahy, Senator Biden, and certainly Senator Hatch, the 
chairman of our committee. He is an outstanding legislator, a man of 
integrity and principle, and an outstanding constitutional lawyer who 
cares about his country and serves it well every day.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________