[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9035-9054]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



VIOLENT AND REPEAT JUVENILE OFFENDER ACCOUNTABILITY AND REHABILITATION 
                              ACT OF 1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, under a previous unanimous consent order, I 
am to be recognized to speak on an amendment which I plan to offer to 
the pending legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I had appeared on two previous occasions 
today believing that would be the time at which amendments would be 
accepted only to find that that had changed. Because I, like the Chair, 
have responsibilities with the defense authorization committee and 
subcommittee markups, I may be absent when that time eventually arises.
  I rise now to discuss, rather than offer, an amendment, which I will 
offer as soon as we are permitted to do so, that I hope will add an 
essential component to the larger debate we have begun about school 
violence and juvenile justice.
  Given the last year of school tragedies in Arkansas, Kentucky, 
Mississippi, Oregon, and now Colorado, discussions about seemingly 
random acts of school violence have moved from the school board meeting 
rooms to the kitchen tables of America. Our dialog has encompassed 
everything from Internet use and video games to gun control. If 
anything positive has resulted from these tragedies, it is that we, as 
a nation, have finally started to focus on school violence by 
acknowledging that this is a multifaceted problem demanding 
multifaceted solutions.
  Unfortunately, the issue of violence in our schools is not new. Six 
years ago, I stood in this Chamber to talk about school violence and 
offered an amendment to create a 2-year commission to study school 
violence. I acted in response to shootings that involved students and 
took place in the Norfolk area of Virginia.
  When I spoke in 1993 about school violence, I mentioned that we had 
experienced a cultural change. In fact, I brought this very chart to 
the floor to illustrate that point.
  In 1940, public schoolteachers were asked to cite the top 
disciplinary problems they dealt with on a routine basis. The list 
included: Talking out of turn, chewing gum, students making noise, 
running in the halls, cutting in line, dress code violations, and 
littering. The same list of routine disciplinary problems in 1990 
looked like this: Drug abuse, alcohol abuse, pregnancy, suicide, rape, 
robbery, and assault.
  That was 1990. If the same survey were done today, I suspect assault 
would rank even higher on the list. In the 1996-1997 school year, 43 
percent of our Nation's schools had no incidents of crime at all. For 
those that did, the vast majority of crime involved theft and 
vandalism. But despite these facts, in the last year alone, 40 people 
have died as a direct result of school shootings. The most serious of 
them, of course, occurred 3 weeks ago today at Columbine High School in 
Littleton, CO.
  The most common questions asked following incidents of school 
violence are: Why? and, What could have been done to spot the warning 
signs and intervene before it was tragically too late?
  In an effort to better educate school districts across the country 
about how to develop violence prevention and intervention strategies, 
the Secretary of Education and the Attorney General last August issued 
a comprehensive guide entitled ``Early Warning, Timely Response.'' The 
guide was developed with the help of experts from law enforcement, 
education, juvenile justice, mental health, and other social services 
and was based upon extensive research about violence prevention plans. 
The emphasis of this guide is communitywide involvement.
  Our children come into contact every day not only with us as parents, 
but also with teachers, administrators, pastors, bus drivers, coaches, 
counselors, and so many others. We all have a responsibility to help 
parent and guide our Nation's children.
  Furthermore, we all know that recognizing the warning signs of 
stress, depression, substance abuse, and violent behavior starts at 
home and extends well into our communities. We, as public officials, 
have a responsibility to work with States and communities to ensure 
that we are doing all we can to keep our schools safe.
  That is the thrust of the amendment I plan to offer. It is about the 
Federal Government becoming a better, more responsible partner with 
States and localities to combat school violence in America. I use the 
word ``partner'' because there is not a single requirement that States 
or localities participate at all.
  Instead, this proposal is about providing the sources and expert 
advice to States and communities and schools who worry today about 
school violence and want to renew their efforts to fight it. For those 
of us on both sides of the aisle who care deeply about education, this 
amendment is a recognition that good schools are safe schools.
  In this spirit, the amendment I will offer, hopefully later today, 
establishes a national resource center for school safety and youth 
violence prevention and authorizes additional funding to communities to 
develop violence prevention and intervention plans and to expand mental 
health services and treatment programs.
  First, the national center that we envision will serve as an 
``education FEMA,'' if you will. In the event of an incident of school 
violence, the center's experts would be dispatched directly to the 
school involved to provide emergency response services. The center's 
team of experts would provide crisis counseling, additional school 
security personnel, and long-term counseling for students and families 
who chose to take advantage of these services.
  Second, the center will establish a toll-free, anonymous student 
hotline so that students may report, without fear of retaliation, 
criminal activity or

[[Page 9036]]

threats of criminal activity and other high-risk student behavior they 
witness or of which they become aware. For example, a student could 
call such a hotline to report another student's substance abuse or gang 
affiliation. The center would work with the Attorney General to develop 
guidelines about how to coordinate with law enforcement agencies to 
both relay the information and protect student privacy.
  The importance of this hotline became apparent to me during my own 
research on this bill, as well as during the visit I made with 
President Clinton to T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, VA, just 
2 days after the shooting in Littleton. It is clear to me that there 
has been a void in our legislative approach to promoting school safety.
  While we have substantially increased the funding of school safety 
plans under the COPS program over the last 2 years, we need to do a 
better job of encouraging and teaching our children that students 
themselves also have a responsibility to report high-risk or 
threatening behavior of which they are aware in themselves or other 
students. But to effectively encourage this, we have to provide 
students with safe channels through which to report this information. A 
student who is aware of a plan to build bombs or knows that another 
student is suicidal should have a confidential way to report that 
knowledge.
  In the long run, an investment in prevention is an investment not 
just in the child who may be on the brink of pulling the trigger or 
throwing the bomb, but an investment in the safety of all our children 
who can all too quickly become tragic victims.
  Third, the center will provide training and technical assistance to 
teachers, administrators, parents, law enforcement personnel, and 
others in communities about ways to develop effective school safety 
strategies. Components include helping schools effectively utilize tip 
hotlines, assisting with threat assessment, helping create partnerships 
among police, schools, parents, and social service agencies, developing 
media and police protocols to handle emergencies and, very important, 
working with the Departments of Justice, Education, and HHS to help 
train teachers to learn to identify students at risk of bringing 
violent behavior into their schools.
  Fourth, the center will serve as a clearinghouse of information about 
model school safety plans across the country, with the center's staff 
available to offer a wide array of plans to a community seeking 
assistance, from increased use of surveillance equipment to a community 
case management process to deal with troubled youths. This includes the 
operation of a nonemergency, toll-free number for the public to obtain 
information about school safety.
  Finally, the center would conduct research about school violence 
prevention and the extent to which smaller learning communities help 
reduce incidents of violence in our schools. We can do all this for 
less than $100 million. That is the center's authorization in the 
legislation that we plan to offer.
  From emergency response teams, to the student hotline, to the teacher 
training to identify violent behavior in school, this small investment 
in an education FEMA is well worth the expense.
  In truth, however, nothing can ever compensate a family for the loss 
of a child. But we ought to be able to say to all communities 
throughout this country that we are doing everything we can to prevent 
these tragedies from happening in the first place.
  The second part of this amendment provides direct support to 
communities as they look for resources to develop or enhance their own 
school safety and youth violence prevention services. I believe 
communities will benefit tremendously from this amendment, because it 
authorizes more funding for comprehensive community-wide school safety 
plans under the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Program, an existing 
program that was enacted in response to the tragic incident in 
Jonesboro, AR.
  I will not go into detail about this part of the amendment because I 
know Senator Kennedy has been working on these issues for some time now 
and has particular expertise about the combined work that the 
Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services 
have done with communities that have come together to improve or 
establish mental health services for violence-related stress and other 
types of community efforts. I certainly applaud the Senator for all he 
has done in this regard. He has been an outstanding advocate for 
children and families over the years.
  Let me conclude by saying as a public official and as a former 
marine, I have long believed that the first responsibility of the 
Federal Government is to keep our citizenry safe--safe from enemies 
both foreign and domestic. Americans have a right to be safe in their 
homes, on their streets, and in their workplaces. And our children have 
a right to be safe in their schools.
  Fear of violence should not threaten our children's learning 
environment. The bottom line is this: We cannot have good schools 
unless we have safe schools. As I said at the outset, there are many 
components of this debate about school violence and juvenile justice. 
We need to talk about parenting and values and teaching our children 
about respecting their lives and the lives of those around them.
  We need to talk about how we hold accountable those who endanger or 
harm our children. We need to talk about guns and the extent to which 
there are loopholes in existing laws that can be changed to better 
protect our children. But there is absolutely no question that we need 
to talk about prevention, and this amendment builds upon the work 
Congress has already done in the area of prevention.
  This amendment will be just one component of a debate that I hope we 
will all support to help our kids and their families, America's 
teachers and counselors, our law enforcement officials, and entire 
communities across our Nation who have one goal in common--to stop 
school violence before it starts.
  Here in Washington we can do our constructive share. We can provide 
expertise. We can provide resources directly to communities. We can 
empower communities to better protect America's children. We can, and 
we should.
  As I said on the floor last week, simply going to school should not 
in and of itself be an act of courage.
  With that, Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 322

  (Purpose: To make amendments with respect to grants to prosecutors' 
       offices to combat gang crime and youth violence, juvenile 
    accountability block grants, and the extension of Violent Crime 
             Reduction Trust Fund, and for other purposes)

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

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself, Mr. Biden, 
     Mr. Sessions, and Mr. DeWine, proposes an amendment numbered 
     322.

  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that 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 Vermont.


                 Amendment No. 323 to Amendment No. 322

 (Purpose: To provide resources and services to enhance school safety 
                       and reduce youth violence)

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send an amendment in the second degree on 
behalf of Mr. Robb and Mr. Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for Mr. Robb, for 
     himself and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 323 
     to amendment No. 322.

  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.

[[Page 9037]]


  Mr. HATCH. I have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')


                      Amendment No. 322 Withdrawn

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 322) was withdrawn.
  Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. It is my understanding the distinguished Senator from New 
York just wants to speak on the bill.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Correct. I have no intention of offering anything today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the Senators from 
Utah and Vermont for yielding me time on the floor as we begin to 
discuss juvenile violence.
  First, let me say I appreciate the majority leader making this time 
available, and at this crucial time, because some say, well, maybe we 
should wait for the dust to settle in the aftermath of the tragedy in 
Littleton, CO. But I have found in years that sometimes when a terrible 
tragedy occurs people are focused on issues that might prevent future 
terrible tragedies; but if we wait several months, nothing much 
happens. So I am grateful for the opportunity. I think it is correct 
legislatively.
  This is not a new issue. We have, unfortunately, seen other 
tragedies--in Springfield, OR, and Arkansas and throughout the country. 
Most of us have given lots of thought to the issue of how do we deal 
with violence among juveniles? How do we deal with violence in the 
schools? I agree with all of those who have said there is no one road 
to Rome, that there are many, many different approaches. In fact, to 
me, an argument where one says, well, do A, which means don't do B, C, 
and D, is wrong. We have to examine all the causes of violence. We have 
to look at them. To advocate one particular course doesn't gainsay that 
another course might help as well.
  It is obviously a very complicated issue. The question I guess all of 
America is asking itself is a simple one: Why now? Why all of a sudden 
have we seen such a rash of violence in our schools?
  I have given this a great deal of thought, first in my 18 years in 
the House where, as a member of Judiciary, I focused on crime issues, 
and now in the last several months as a new Member of this body. In 
addition to thinking and reading about this, I also went out and talked 
to many young people. In fact, I have had conversations, been in 
classrooms, either directly or by video, with schools across my State--
East High School in Rochester; Nottingham in Syracuse; Colony High 
School in Albany; Rockville Center in West Chester; New Rochelle High 
School; and two schools in New York City, Tottenville and Hunter High 
School. In each I sat down with a group of 30 to 50 young men and women 
and asked them their views, because I think it doesn't make much sense 
to talk about juvenile violence without talking to the juveniles.
  Basically, what I found was quite interesting. I found that they, 
too, agreed that there were a number of causes, and many were perplexed 
as to why this happened. But I found some interesting thoughts. In 
every school, the students talked about two things more than any other 
that they thought led to this violence. In each school I went to--and 
these schools were quite varied; one was in an upper-income 
neighborhood, one in a poor neighborhood, and the rest were in rather 
middle-class neighborhoods--there were two common themes:
  First, students did stress isolation, that young people do feel 
isolated and alone. They realized that the adolescent condition 
sometimes was such that when someone was isolated and alone, instead of 
reaching out, the inclination was to pick on them. A number of schools 
had suggestions as to how to deal with this problem. One school had an 
ombudsman, a young teacher whom the students loved. If someone was in 
trouble or feeling isolated or lonely, they could go to that ombudsman, 
and many did. Just as importantly, if it seemed to other students in 
the school that a young person or a group of young people was headed 
towards trouble, they could go to the ombudsman and the ombudsman would 
do what was necessary to try to bring that group of young people into 
the fold.
  In another school up in Albany they had a human relations club. The 
heads of all the various student activities and the heads of different 
cliques or groups would get together once a month and discuss things 
and discuss their differences. It proved a good way of bridging gaps in 
that high school. Finally, another school, one on Long Island, had a 
club. It was sort of an elite club; it was hard to get into. I think it 
was called Smiles. One of the ideas of Smiles was to reach out to 
others and be inclusive. It was sort of taking the credo of 
inclusiveness and bringing people together and making it a thing that 
everyone aspired to do. I thought those ideas were pretty good and 
pretty interesting. Maybe we should look at some of them this week.
  One idea that every classroom I went to seemed to laugh at was the 
idea that seems to have gained some currency here in Washington, and 
that is the culture of violence. I, for instance, myself, having seen 
the video games and seen some of the movies that came out, when I 
started this process, thought this should be a reason young people 
would be more violent.
  The kids seemed not to feel that way. They laughed at the idea that a 
video game, a movie, a television show would push somebody to do 
something awful like at Littleton. I said to them, well, it may not 
push you, but it might push people who were isolated and alone. They 
said, no, it would take a lot more than that.
  One youngster raised his hand and said to me: When did you grow up? I 
said in the 1950s. He said: You saw a lot of westerns. I said that, 
yes, I did. He said: Did that move you to be more violent? I said not 
at all.
  We may disagree with it, but I thought it was interesting that from 
one end of my State to the other, young people of all economic 
backgrounds and races and creeds and ethnicities rejected that idea. 
And again, of course, I come from New York State, but these schools 
were spread throughout the State, many in quite conservative areas.
  I found the one thing that was virtually universal is kids thought 
that guns were too available for them. I asked each high school class, 
if you really wanted to get a gun, would you know where to go or who to 
ask? And 60 to 100 percent said yes.
  My point here today is this: Certainly we should consider other 
causes of violence among young people. We should look at isolation. 
Certainly we should look at parental responsibility. I am the father of 
a 4-year-old. It seems a lot of times she doesn't want to have her 
parents around her. But most of them wanted parental guidelines, wanted 
parental responsibility, wanted parental authority. There was no 
disagreement about that.
  If you looked at the one consistent thing that almost everyone agreed 
with, it was that guns, the availability of guns, was too great; the 
availability of knowledge of how to make bombs and how to buy guns 
encouraged and created more violence. And it made me think of a useful 
parallel, which I just heard Senator Levin mention earlier today about 
his community in Detroit, MI, and I have mentioned in mine in Buffalo 
and western New York. Both those communities are right across the 
border from Canada. In both those

[[Page 9038]]

communities, there is something startling. There is the same culture, 
same video games, same movies, and they get the same TV stations. 
People in Windsor, ON, watch the same TV as people in Detroit. People 
across the Niagara River in Canada, in Fort Erie, watch the same TV as 
the people in Buffalo and Niagara Falls.
  Why are we so much more violent? It is not culture or violence. It is 
the same in each. It is not really the idea that we have two parents 
working and single moms and single dads, fewer parents around, less 
parental responsibility. That is the same in each. It is not the 
isolation that young adolescents often feel. That is the same in each. 
What is the difference between the situation in Canada and the 
situation in America?
  The one difference is the gun laws, where Canada's are much tougher 
than ours.
  It seems to me that if we go through this package--and we certainly 
should consider other issues--but we ignore or short circuit, truncate, 
a debate on gun violence, we will be making a serious mistake.
  I heard one of my friends say this is political. Well, it is no more 
political to me than talking about Hollywood might be to some others in 
this. I believe this would make a huge difference.
  I thank the Senator from Vermont. He has put together a package of 
gun amendments that just about everybody in our caucus could support. I 
am glad he did. I think they will make a difference. A group of us have 
been meeting, those of us who believe in tougher laws on guns, although 
we tried to be very mindful of the law-abiding rights of citizens, of 
gun-owning citizens. We have put together a package of 10 amendments. 
Each of them meets two criteria: One, that they would do some good; 
two, that they have a chance of passing, that they are not going to get 
25 or 30 votes from people who agree with my position but, rather, that 
they would be able to garner much greater support.
  I say to the majority leader and to my chairman, the Senator from 
Utah, we do not want to speak on these amendments forever. We do want 
the opportunity to debate them and to discuss them and to vote on them, 
because we think some of them have a real chance of passage.
  I say to my colleagues that I am appreciative of this opportunity. I 
know the issue of guns is not the only answer, but it seems to me, 
because there is a culture of violence, because parents are working, 
and because adolescents are young and often feel isolated, that none of 
those gainsay the need for better laws on guns.
  As I say, our package is moderate. It is careful. We have not put 
everything on the floor. Many times I would like to, because I would go 
further than this body would.
  But I welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues. I believe we 
will do it in a careful, respectful and bipartisan way. Our goal is not 
to have a Democratic v. Republican division. Our goal is to pass 
legislation, and if we can do that in a bipartisan and nonrancorous 
way, I think we will have served America well.
  I thank the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Vermont for 
yielding their time. I look forward to their debate.
  I simply ask the majority leader to make sure, provided we are 
willing to live within the time limits, that we have the time to 
discuss these 10 amendments--there may be others--and to discuss them, 
perhaps pass them, and finally do something real about the Littletons 
that have plagued our Nation over the last year.
  I thank the President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as I understand it, the Senator from 
Massachusetts would like to make a statement for debate only. Am I 
correct, the senior Senator from Massachusetts would like to make a 
statement for debate only, and also the distinguished Senator from 
California would like to make a statement for debate purposes only?
  I ask unanimous consent they be permitted to proceed at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I could ask the Chair--I appreciate 
the opportunity to address the Senate--what is the pending matter?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending matter is S. 254.
  Mr. KENNEDY. It is open for amendment; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill has no amendments pending on it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The bill has no amendments pending at the moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we were hopeful that we could call up the 
Hatch-Biden-Sessions amendment and get a vote on that. We would like to 
cooperate with fellow Senators and be able to do that. We hope the 
Senator from Massachusetts will defer any amendments until we finish 
with that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe that the Robb amendment is 
before the Senate, and I intend to speak on behalf of this amendment. I 
will be glad to follow leadership as to how we should proceed. I do not 
intend to delay the proceedings.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, we are looking at the Robb 
amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am having difficulty hearing my colleague and friend.
  Mr. HATCH. We are looking at the Robb amendment and studying it to 
determine when and if it is to be brought up. If the Senator wants to 
speak, it is not before the Senate.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with all respect to my friend and 
colleague, I do not believe that the Senator from Utah can decide if 
Senator Robb's amendment can be brought up. It is my understanding that 
Senator Robb is perfectly entitled to bring it up.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. The Senator from Utah understands that. We chatted with 
Senator Robb and said we would look at the amendment to see if it is 
something we can accept. If not, he can bring it up any time he wants 
to in the regular course of business. He had to go to another meeting, 
and we will discuss the amendment as soon as he returns.
  Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator will yield, I will explain it. The Senator 
from Virginia, Mr. Robb, brought up his amendment in the second degree 
to the Hatch-Biden-Sessions amendment. The distinguished Senator from 
Utah is one of the sponsors of Hatch-Biden-Sessions. He withdrew it, 
thus withdrawing the second-degree amendment by Senator Robb. The 
distinguished Senator from Virginia is thus waiting for time to bring 
his amendment back up for consideration.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will speak briefly in support of the 
Robb amendment. Later, I intend to participate in the debate on the 
Robb amendment and other provisions underlying the legislation.
  Over the next few days, we will have the opportunity to consider how 
we can best respond to the anxieties and concerns of families and 
children across this country. In the wake of the tragedies that have 
affected a number of our schools over the past few years, it is 
appropriate that the Senate consider violence and its impact on 
children and families.
  As we begin this debate and discussion in the Senate, we should 
understand that, in just a few days, we cannot develop a silver bullet 
capable of responding to all of the complex issues raised by the 
tragedies that have occurred in Colorado, Paducah, and other 
communities and other schools across this country.
  But even having noted that these are complex issues, we have to ask 
ourselves: Can we at least evaluate some things that have been done in 
the fairly recent past that have been helpful to students, that have 
been helpful to parents, that have been helpful to schools, and that 
have been helpful to communities? Quite clearly the answer to this is 
yes.
  I am not one of those who says that we don't have all the answers 
and, therefore, we don't have any of the answers. No one could say 
that, coming

[[Page 9039]]

from the City of Boston where we have seen dramatic reduction in youth 
homicide and youth violence in the country. It has been within the last 
probably 4 years. Boston has approximately 128 schools. We had only one 
youth homicide involving a firearm during a 2.5 year period.
  As we look at the underlying bill in terms of youth violence, it is 
appropriate that we also look at the current record to see if there are 
some ideas that might be of some value and some use.
  I think issues dealing with the media--perhaps the various 
excessively violent video games and others are going to take some time, 
but these are issues that we must consider. We have a chance to see 
what has been working out there, and to see whether those efforts 
should be supported, perhaps enhanced, and if they can be shared in 
other parts of the country. That is what we are trying to do with the 
Robb amendment.
  There are two important parts to this amendment. One is to establish 
a resource center that will be a place where either parents or schools 
or school districts or communities are able to go to find out what is 
working in other communities around the country. It will be an 
evaluation of information. It will have a collection of what is working 
in urban areas and what is working in rural communities, and what the 
results have been and how communities utilize these efforts.
  There have been a number of efforts. Some might be particularly 
appropriate to Boston. Others might be different and better suited in 
terms of dealing with the problems in Pocatello. There may be some 
development of efforts that have involved law enforcement, some that 
have involved the schools, some that have involved the parents, some 
that have involved the students in terms of mentoring, programs of 
reconciliation. A number of different initiatives that are out there 
may just have some application in terms of different schools across the 
country, and those communities might be interested.
  In the Robb amendment, we have a proposal for this clearinghouse that 
will be a resource available to schools, a resource available to 
communities, a resource available to parents, a resource that will be 
available to students who have responsibility in their schools, a 
resource that will be available to the law enforcement officials. It 
will have other functions such as having available individuals who 
might be able to respond if there is an immediate danger of violence. 
This all makes a good deal of sense.
  A second provision of the Robb amendment deals with the resources 
that are out there within the community, within the Department of 
Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the 
Department of Education. It is called the Safe Schools/Healthy Students 
initiative. This was developed in a nonpartisan effort to try to bring 
together a number of different programs that have a positive impact on 
reducing youth violence which the schools will be able to draw upon. 
This program includes aspects to develop a safe school environment, 
including partnerships with the local law enforcement; it includes 
aspects to enhance security measures for those schools where it is 
necessary; it includes aspects to redesign school facilities to get 
into smaller school units where teachers know the names of every 
student in the school, and every student knows the name of every 
teacher.
  We have this program being implemented in a number of different 
communities. In Boston it is being developed in a number of different 
schools. It has been tried and is being utilized in a number of 
different communities. It is very interesting and exciting, and we have 
seen positive results.
  Prevention programs and early intervention, in terms of alcohol and 
drugs--bringing in the mental health, preventive treatment and 
intervention services that exist in the SAMHSA program which deals with 
mental health and assistance and targeting help and assistance for 
children--have been particularly effective.
  We know almost a third of all the children who go to the schools in 
the inner city of Boston, for example, come from completely 
dysfunctional homes--either with substance abuse or violence, and these 
children are facing the most extraordinary set of circumstances. We 
have to understand being young, being a child, and being at school 
today is no picnic. They are faced with enormous challenges. We don't 
have, generally, health care centers in these schools; a few of them 
do, but not many. The importance of mental health counselors, 
psychologists and nurses working with the early childhood 
psychological, social and emotional development services have been 
included in the second phase of this program. This was basically the 
result of a very extensive review done by the Department of Justice 
working with HHS, and the Department of Education, and the resulting 
recommendations.
  This evaluation shows that this kind of approach, with law 
enforcement and the preventive aspect, has provided some very important 
help and assistance to the schools.
  I look forward to working with a number of our colleagues--Senator 
Boxer, Senator Schumer, Senator Durbin, Senator Lautenberg, Senator 
Feinstein and others--in terms of responsible ownership regarding 
weapons. I think that is certainly very important. We ought to expect 
responsibility in terms of manufacturers making safe guns. We ought to 
expect dealers are not going to sell to adolescents. We have to expect 
responsibility of parents in storing their guns separate from the 
ammunition. We will keep rapid automatic weapons out of the hands of 
children, extend the Brady bill, and include the background checks at 
the gun shows. We will have a chance to debate all of those.
  We can reduce the occasions when these violent impulses reflect 
themselves in the use of weapons. One of the most disturbing factors is 
the continued growth and explosion of youth suicides. Handguns are too 
easily accessible and available. We will have a chance to debate some 
of those issues.
  It comes back to the recognition that the first responsibility for 
all of these matters rests in the home and with the parents, or with a 
single parent, working to provide the guidance to children who need 
guidance.
  What we see in this chart is very disturbing, a gradual decline of 
the time mothers are spending with their children. This is the 
percentage of time parents eat dinner with their children from ages 5 
to 17 every day. We see the gradual decline in terms of the time 
mothers are spending with their children; and also the time fathers are 
spending. The fact is, generally speaking, in the last 15 years there 
is a third less quality time being spent with parents. Some of that is 
the result of people working harder and working longer in order to 
maintain their own income, a tragic reality for those at the lower 
economic line that have to work one, two, or even three jobs--receiving 
minimum wage--in order to keep the family together. It is very 
difficult to see how those people are able to spend any time at all 
with their family. Some of that is the result of choice, some of that 
is out of necessity.
  On this chart is the percentage of parents in the home who have 
private talks with their children ages 5-17 almost every day. The 
number has been cut in half by fathers, and there is an important 
reduction in terms of the mothers. Again, we are talking about parental 
responsibilities.
  This is a blowup of ``A Guide To Safe Schools''. Every school in 
America has a copy of this particular publication. It was sent out by 
Secretary Riley and Secretary Reno. It contains a variety of early 
warning tips for the parents. It has a whole page of action steps for 
the students. It has suggestions for parents. It has suggestions for 
teachers. It has suggestions for school boards. It has a series of 
ideas: what to look for, what to do, early warning signs--it is 
enormously comprehensive.
  It is the result of the work of a number of different organizations 
that came together and spent weeks and months in developing this 
publication. If anyone would take the time to go

[[Page 9040]]

through it, it has an enormous wealth of information from which those 
involved in schools across the country can benefit. It is a very, very 
instructive and positive document. It is a guide for schools, students, 
parents, about some of the concerns they might have.
  We may never fully understand the complex factors that led Eric 
Harris and Dylan Klebold to kill 13 members of the Columbine High 
School community, but there is one thing we do know--we must do more to 
prevent future tragedies. The deaths that have occurred at the hands of 
young people in Littleton, Colorado, Jonesboro, Arkansas, Pearl, 
Mississippi, and other communities, are national tragedies. They are 
also a call to action--a call that America must answer.
  We have a responsibility to listen to our constituents, to answer the 
calls for help by our children, and do more to protect the health and 
welfare of the nation's youth. Children may make up one-eighth of the 
population, but they are 100 percent of our nation's future.
  We know that there is no single, simple solution to this complex 
problem. The mindless, heartless cruelty in Littleton is symptomatic of 
the problems that exist in communities throughout America, and we need 
to find more effective ways to deal with them.
  This latest tragedy is another wakeup call to the nation. We have an 
opportunity to work together to prevent youth violence, and reduce the 
likelihood of future tragedies like Littleton. We can do more to make 
schools safer.
  We know that school violence is a continuing festering problem. In 
1996, 5 percent of all 12th graders reported being injured with a 
weapon during the previous 12 months while they were at school. Another 
12 percent reported that they had been injured at school in an incident 
that did not involve a weapon. An increasing number of students report 
feeling unsafe at school, and avoid one or more places at school for 
fear of their own safety. Clearly, children cannot learn in this kind 
of environment.
  We need to ask difficult questions about our society, the media, 
parenting, peer pressure, and other social forces. We have a shared 
responsibility as parents, teachers, role models, and concerned, caring 
adults, Fifty million school children are now in their formative years. 
We need to think about what kind of society we want these children to 
grow up in.
  In too many cases, television is raising far too many of the nation's 
children. On a daily basis, close to 20 percent of 9-year-olds watch 6 
or more hours of television. Much of what they see is a steady stream 
of violence and aggression that is presented as legitimate and 
justified entertainment. By the time children leave elementary school, 
they will have seen 8,000 murders and more than 100,000 other acts of 
televised violence. Violent video games which glorify killing are 
increasingly popular.
  The negative influences of violent programming and violent video 
games are growing stronger, because positive influences--families, 
schools, churches, synagogues, and communities--are becoming weaker. 
Parents are the most important influence in their children's lives, but 
they are being stretched to the limit. We know the importance of strong 
parental guidance and support for healthy development. Spending time 
together is a basic ingredient for building strong parent-child 
relationships. Yet time together is increasingly scarce.
  Research indicates that parents are eating fewer meals and having 
fewer conversations with their children. Between 1988 and 1995, a 
significant drop took place in parent-child activities. Sixty-two 
percent of mothers reported eating dinner with their child on a daily 
basis in 1988, but only 55 percent reported doing so in 1995. Fifty 
percent of fathers ate a daily dinner with their child in 1988, but 
this rate dropped to 42 percent in 1995.
  Parents and families want to spend more time together, but there 
simply aren't enough hours in the day. We must pursue initiatives to 
give parents the opportunity to spend more time with their children, 
and ensure that all parents have the skills they need to be strong 
mentors, role models, and caregivers for their children. We should 
support family-friendly work policies and flexible work hours, so that 
parents can eat dinner with their children, and talk to their children.
  Yesterday, I spent time in Boston talking to students about youth 
violence and the tragedy in Colorado to try and get some insight into 
what is going on with our youth. I asked them for a show of hands of 
how many of them feel that their parents are too busy to talk to them--
over \3/4\ths of the students raised their hands.
  This is lack of communication is unacceptable and the American people 
agree. A recent Newsweek poll asked ``How important is it for the 
country to pay more attention to teenagers and their problems.'' 89 
percent of those polled replied that it is very important. If we as 
parents are not raising our children, then we must worry about who is.
  In the coming days, we will have a unique opportunity to begin to 
reverse the culture of youth violence. There are no quick fixes to this 
problem--no easy solutions. We need a long-term strategy, and we must 
work together to find appropriate remedies. To meet this challenge, we 
must consider provisions that (1) promote healthy children and youth in 
safe communities; (2) help parents with parenting skills from birth 
through adolescence; (3) equip teachers and school officials with tools 
to intervene before violence occurs; (4) give law enforcement the tools 
needed to keep guns away from children; and (5) promote responsible 
media programming for children and youth.
  There are also immediate steps that we can take. Congress has a 
responsibility to act, to stop allowing the NRA to dictate what is 
right and what is wrong on guns. Surely, without threatening the 
activities of honest sports men and women, we can agree on ways to make 
it virtually impossible for angry children to get their hands on guns. 
We can give schools the resources and expertise they need to protect 
themselves, without turning classrooms into fortresses. We can make gun 
dealers responsible for selling guns to adolescents, and make gun 
owners responsible for locking up firearms in their homes. We can 
insist that gun manufacturers be smart enough to develop ``smart'' guns 
with effective child safety locks. We can do more to dry up the 
interstate black market in guns. We can crack down harder on assault 
weapons.
  Surely, we can take sensible steps like these to reduce the tragedy 
of gun violence. America does more today to regulate the safety of toy 
guns than real guns--and it is a national disgrace. When we see and 
hear what gun violence has done to the victims in Pearl, MS--West 
Paducah, KY--Jonesboro, AR--Edinboro, PA--Fayetteville, TN--
Springfield, OR--and now Littleton, CO, we know that action is urgently 
needed.
  Practical steps can clearly be taken to protect children more 
effectively from guns, and to achieve greater responsibility by gun 
owners, gun dealers and gun manufacturers. The greatest tragedy of the 
Columbine High School killings is that these earlier tragedies did not 
shock us enough into doing everything we can to prevent them. By 
refusing to learn from such tragedies, we have condemned ourselves to 
repeat them. How many wake-up calls will Congress and the nation 
continue to ignore?
  We can act now to provide communities and schools with more 
information and resources to prevent these tragedies. We can provide 
the training needed to recognize the daily warning signs, long before 
actual violence occurs. Last year the Departments of Education and 
Justice jointly created a ``Guide to Safe Schools--Early Warning: 
Timely Response.'' This guide has extensive helpful information to 
assist parents, children, schools, and communities in keeping children 
and young people safer. The guide tells what to look for, and what to 
do. It lists Characteristics of Schools that are Safe and Responsive 
for all children. It has Tips to Schools, Tips to Parents, and Tips to 
Children.

[[Page 9041]]

  This guide is part of an overall effort to make sure that every 
school in the nation has a violence prevention plan in place. This 
guide is available to every school, every parent, and every community 
leader. You can download it from the Internet if you go to 
www.usdoj.gov, and click on to ``early warning, timely response''
  We also need to invest in services that ensure Safe Schools and 
Healthy Students. That means quality after-school programs, accessible 
mental health services for youth, and grassroots models that 
successfully target youth violence. Results occur when there is a 
cooperative effort.
  Boston has a remarkable program that has enabled the city to go from 
July 1995 to December 1997 with only one juvenile death that involved a 
firearm. This program works because it involves the entire community--
police and probation officers, community leaders, mental health 
providers, and even gang members themselves. The strategy is based on 
three components: (1) tough law enforcement; (2) heavy emphasis on 
crime prevention (including drug treatment); and (3) effective gun 
control.
  The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative can make such 
initiatives a reality in many more communities. This cooperative effort 
by the Departments of Education, Justice, and Health and Human Services 
draws on the best practices of the education, law enforcement, social 
service, and mental health communities to achieve a realistic framework 
for communities to prevent youth violence.
  We must answer the call that children across the nation are so 
desperately making. We have the knowledge, the skill, and the resources 
to make a difference.
  The nation's children need us. And they need us now. We cannot afford 
to let them down. If we are to remain the strongest and fairest nation 
on earth, we must deal with these festering problems. We cannot afford 
to abandon children to despair and depression. We can no longer allow 
children to have virtually unrestricted access to guns. We must reduce 
the tide of violent images washing over children on a daily basis. We 
must lead this nation into the next century by providing a safe, 
secure, and gun free environment for children to grow and learn and 
thrive.
  Our mission is clear. Let us work together to save our children, and 
by so doing, we will save our nation too.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Heather Bullock, Connie 
Garner, Kathleen Curran, David Goldberg, David Pollack, and Angela 
Williams, fellows in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor 
during the course of the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, before the Senator from California speaks, 
I ask unanimous consent that immediately following her speech I be 
given recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah and the 
Senator from Vermont for their kindness in allowing me to take the 
floor at this time. I hope to be succinct in my comments. I feel so 
strongly about this bill and the opportunity we have to do something 
good for the American people.
  I wanted to have the chance to make some general comments on what I 
hope a good bill will do. I think a good juvenile justice bill would 
have a good piece for prevention, a good piece for tougher penalties, 
and a good piece for strong enforcement. If we come out with that 
balance we will have done a good job.
  I really think this is a chance to make life better for our children 
and our families. I am glad it looks like we will have an open debate 
in order to put forward our ideas.
  I think we have an emergency on our hands when the majority of 
parents are worried about the safety of their children at school. I 
think those of us here, thinking back to the years that we went to 
elementary school and either junior high or high school, do not have 
any memory of being fearful. Yet that is the circumstance today, where 
the majority of parents are now saying they are fearful for their 
children.
  I think we have an emergency on our hands when many children tell us 
they see the kind of hostility and isolation that evidenced itself in 
Columbine--they see that in their schools.
  We have an emergency on our hands when 31 percent of teenagers know 
someone their age who carries a weapon--who carries a weapon, not who 
just owns a weapon, but who carries a weapon. An article appeared last 
weekend in the San Diego Union Tribune which reported that 138 out of 
150 of the brightest students in this country said they had seen guns 
at their high school.
  We have an emergency on our hands when teachers say they do not feel 
safe. We have an emergency when a million kids are looking for 
afterschool programs and they cannot get in because there is no room.
  Let's take a look at when juvenile crime occurs. This is a juvenile 
justice bill. Let's look at when juvenile crime occurs. This chart 
shows it very clearly. Juvenile crime spikes up at 3 p.m., and it 
starts going down after 6 p.m. So you do not need a degree in 
criminology or child psychology or sociology or any ``ology'' to know 
that juvenile crime occurs after school lets out. One million of our 
children are waiting in line for afterschool programs. I will be 
offering an amendment similar to the one I offered during the budget 
debate to allow those 1 million children to get into afterschool 
programs.
  Again, I want to bring us back. This is a juvenile justice bill. It 
is no secret juvenile crime occurs after school. I think the first 
thing we ought to be looking at, what ought to be included in this 
bill, is a piece on afterschool. I want to give some credit to Senators 
Biden, Leahy, and Hatch, because in their amendment they will be 
offering soon they do a little bit for afterschool. In essence, they 
take the block grant and they set aside 25 percent of it; that is about 
$115 million. One of the uses local districts can avail themselves of, 
one of the uses, is afterschool programs. But it is not specifically an 
afterschool program. So we will be offering that and giving our 
colleagues a chance to really act on the information we have had for so 
many years.
  I know the Senator from Utah understands this very clearly. After 
school the kids get in trouble. We need to help them. I would like to 
do even a little more than he has done in his amendment.
  We have an emergency when schools cannot afford metal detectors. Some 
of them have them and they are broken. Or they cannot afford community 
police on their campuses. We have an amendment, of which I am very 
proud, on this side of the aisle, which will allow us to put more 
community police in the schools. I think it is about 25,000 additional 
police would be added to community policing and we would waive the 
match, the local required match, if people put these community police 
on school campuses. We know we do not have enough school counselors. We 
know we do not.
  By the way, there was a little press conference today with some 
schoolchildren and one of them had done this cartoon. This is a cartoon 
of a youngster from an elementary school. It shows a little boy and he 
has a gun in his hand--very crudely drawn by this young girl--and he is 
thinking out loud. The little cartoon says, ``I'm going after So-and-So 
because she tortured me all year, verbally.'' And the little girl is 
thinking, ``Don't do that. Go to your counselor and talk it out. Go to 
an adult.''
  That is good advice from this youngster. But, unfortunately, in many 
of our schools we are seeing one counselor for 500 kids, for 1,000 
kids, for 1,500 kids. So we ought to do something to change this and 
change the culture of violence by giving our kids grownups who care 
about them during the school hours to whom they can take their 
problems.
  I agree with the President, there is not one particular thing we can 
point out and say this is the problem. There are a number of problems 
in our society. We have to deal with all of them, and every one of us 
is responsible. Anytime someone stands up, wherever that

[[Page 9042]]

person is from, whatever industry, and says, oh, it's not my problem, 
it's somebody else's problem, I simply lose respect for that person who 
is saying that. I don't care whether he is from the gun lobby or makes 
videos; if that person says, I have nothing to do with the problem, I 
don't give him any credibility, because every one of us has 
responsibility, including every one of us in this Chamber, in our 
private lives, as parents, as grandparents, and in our public lives as 
Senators.
  Too many children are not getting enough support, love, and guidance 
from their parents, or from their community. Too many are using drugs 
and alcohol, too many are seeing violent images on computer and TV and 
in the culture. A lot of those images affect certain children more than 
others. We know that. But it has an impact just as everything has an 
impact, a cumulative impact on our children.
  Let me be very clear. If those two boys at Columbine High School had 
knives instead of guns, we would not have seen such devastating 
results. In Jonesboro, AR, if those two boys had used baseball bats 
instead of guns, that number of people certainly would not have died.
  I do not want us to tiptoe around the gun issue. I know it is hard. I 
know it steps on powerful toes, but we cannot tiptoe around the gun 
issue. It is not the only cause of the problem; it is one of the causes 
of the problem. Angry kids and guns add up to death. As a matter of 
fact, angry people with guns add up to death.
  I want to show you this chart which gives this issue a sense of 
reality. Many of us came into politics after the Vietnam war, and we 
saw this country fall to its knees over that war. It was such a 
difficult time. We lost 58,168 Americans in the Vietnam war, every one 
of them a grievous loss, a tragic loss, a loss that can never be 
replaced for so many families; their potential gone on the battlefield.
  In an 11-year period, 396,572 Americans have been shot down by guns, 
every one of those a horrible, deep, tragic loss to a family, to a 
mother, to a father, to a grandmother, to children. As a matter of 
fact, every single day in America there is a Columbine High School. 
Thirteen children are killed every day, an ordinary day. Yet, we tiptoe 
around the gun issue.
  We have to deal with it, I say to my colleagues, in a fair way, not 
saying this is the only problem, but it is one of the problems.
  People say, oh, in Columbine, there were laws; they just didn't work.
  Not true. The young woman who transferred two guns to juveniles can 
stand behind the law. That was legal. I say it should not be legal to 
give juveniles guns. That is one example of a gun law we ought to pass.
  Let's look at our laws concerning 18-year-olds in this country. If 
you are under 18 in this country, you cannot buy cigarettes, you cannot 
buy beer or wine. If you are under 18, you cannot buy whiskey and you 
cannot buy a handgun. But if you are under 18, you can buy any one of 
these long guns--a shotgun, a rifle, an assault weapon. You can.
  That should not be the case. Oh, if a grandma or a grandpa or a mom 
or dad wants to give you a hunting rifle, that is OK. But they should 
have to buy it and supervise you. They should not be able to say: 
Here's some money, go to the gun show and pick up a long gun, if you 
are 15 or you are 14 or you are 13 or even 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7. I 
cannot believe people say we do not need any more gun laws when a 
juvenile can walk in and buy a deadly weapon when they cannot buy 
cigarettes, beer, whiskey or a handgun, but they can buy these long 
guns.
  You say to me, oh, Senator Boxer, there's no interest in youth owning 
guns and the gun manufacturers don't peddle to the youth.
  Let me show you an ad. We took this off the Internet. This is a 
Beretta, a painted gun which is part of their youth collection. I want 
to tell you what they say in the catalog about their painted gun in 
their youth collection. Think about what I am saying and what it 
invokes in your mind. This is what they say in their catalog:

       An exciting, bold designer look that's sure to make you 
     stand out in a crowd.

  ``An exciting, bold designer look that's sure to make you stand out 
in a crowd.'' What crowd are they talking about? It is surely not you 
and your grandma and your grandpa going out on a family hunting trip. 
That is not what it means. You decide what it means.
  Anyone who tells you that the gun manufacturers are not looking at 
the youth, just take a look at this Internet page, the Beretta youth 
collection, and read what they say about standing out in a crowd. They 
are playing to the psychology of a young person: How can they be seen 
as different, special, more important.
  There are some things we can do to address this. I want to reiterate 
a point. In our bill, we say, yes, if a parent--I say this to the 
Senator from Vermont--if a parent or a grandparent wants to give their 
child a rifle for hunting, in our amendment we say fine. But we do not 
want that 15-year-old or 14-year-old walking in and buying these guns 
or, for that matter, buying a used gun which would be more affordable 
on the street.
  We have an opportunity to do something that is relevant to the lives 
of our people. Our people are looking to us. Yes, I think the Robb-
Kennedy amendment is good. I am glad Senator Hatch is looking at it. 
There are good, important things in there: a national center for school 
safety and youth violence that will help our children, because it will 
provide a rapid response to violent shootings. It will establish 
anonymous tiplines for kids to call in if there is some trouble spotted 
by a youth but he or she is afraid to come forward and go public with 
the information. All schools will have safety plans. Senator Kennedy 
talked about his contribution to that amendment which deals with 
conflict resolution and violence prevention, very important issues that 
we need to take care of.
  I hope Senator Murray will offer her amendment to put more teachers 
in the schools. If we have these huge class sizes, these kids get lost 
in the shuffle. If we have smaller class sizes, we can pick out those 
kids who cause trouble.
  There are just two more points I wish to make, and then I will yield 
the floor to my friends.
  Senator Durbin is leading an effort in the Appropriations Committee 
to add some emergency funding for our children: more cops in schools, 
more metal detectors, more afterschool programs, et cetera. I hope he 
will be successful. We have billions going for the military. We have 
billions for other purposes. What is more important than the safety of 
our children, or certainly as important as these other important needs. 
I hope we will do some of that. But if we do not, this bill becomes 
even more important, because it is our only hope for the future.
  So what we will be seeing is a series of amendments, I assume from 
both sides of the aisle--I will be working on some of those-- on the 
gun issue. I have talked about 18-year-olds. Also, I will be working 
with Senator Kohl on locks, child safety locks that would have to be 
sold with handguns. We need to reestablish the 3-day Brady waiting 
period. We need to increase the age at which you can buy an assault 
weapon to 21.
  I close on this point. The majority in the Senate has shown a lot of 
compassion for business. They brought up the Y2K bill. Who will that 
help? Big business. They showed a lot of compassion for business when 
they brought the Financial Modernization Act to the floor. Who does 
that help? Big business--the big banks, the big securities companies, 
the insurance companies. They want to bring the bankruptcy bill to the 
floor. Who does that help? The big credit card companies.
  That is fine. I do not have any problem with that as long as we in 
the process take care of the consumers, the people who use these 
services. But the other side has shown tremendous compassion for big 
business. I am asking them to show equal compassion for our children.
  This is our chance. We just celebrated Mother's Day, and Father's Day 
is coming. What a perfect moment for us to seize this time--after the 
Columbine tragedy, after the Arkansas

[[Page 9043]]

tragedy--and say enough is enough, and to vote out a well balanced bill 
that gives us the prevention, gives us the treatment, gives us the 
enforcement, gives us the tougher penalties, addresses the gun issue in 
a sensible way, and we can all come out of here in a bipartisan way 
feeling that we have done something for our children and our families.
  Once again, I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am going to propound a unanimous consent 
request in just a minute.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 322

  (Purpose: To make amendments with respect to grants to prosecutors' 
       offices to combat gang crime and youth violence, juvenile 
    accountability block grants, and the extension of Violent Crime 
             Reduction Trust Fund, and for other purposes)

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] for himself, Mr. Biden, 
     Mr. Sessions and Mr. DeWine, proposes an amendment numbered 
     322.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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.'')
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized. The yeas 
and nays----
  Mr. HATCH. I have another amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                 Amendment No. 324 To Amendment No. 322

(Purpose: To maximize local flexibility in responding to the threat of 
   juvenile violence through the implementation of effective school 
                violence prevention and safety programs)

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

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] for Mr. Gregg, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 324 to amendment No. 322.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SAFE STUDENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Safe 
     Students Act.''
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to maximize 
     local flexibility in responding to the threat of juvenile 
     violence through the implementation of effective school 
     violence prevention and safety programs.
       (c) Program Authorized.--The Attorney General shall, 
     subject to the availability of appropriations, award grants 
     to local education agencies and to law enforcement agencies 
     to assist in the planning, establishing, operating, 
     coordinating and evaluating of school violence prevention and 
     school safety programs.
       (d) Application Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     subsection (c), an entity shall--
       (A) be a local education agency or a law enforcement 
     agency; and
       (B) prepare and submit to the Attorney General an 
     application at such time, in such manner and containing such 
     information as the Attorney General may require, including--
       (i) a detailed explanation of the intended uses of funds 
     provided under the grant; and
       (ii) a written assurance that the schools to be served 
     under the grant will have a zero tolerance policy in effect 
     for drugs, alcohol, weapons, truancy and juvenile crime on 
     school campuses.
       (2) Priority.--The Attorney General shall give priority in 
     awarding grants under this section to applications that have 
     been submitted jointly by a local education agency and a law 
     enforcement agency.
       (e) Allowable Uses of Funds.--Amounts received under a 
     grant under this section shall be used for innovative, local 
     responses, consistent with the purposes of this Act, which 
     may include--
       (1) training, including in-service training, for school 
     personnel, custodians and bus drivers in--
       (A) the identification of potential threats (such as 
     illegal weapons and explosive devices);
       (B) crisis preparedness and intervention procedures; and
       (C) emergency response;
       (2) training of interested parents, teachers and other 
     school and law enforcement personnel in the identification 
     and responses to early warning signs of troubled and violent 
     youth;
       (3) innovative research-based delinquency and violence 
     prevention programs, including mentoring programs;
       (4) comprehensive school security assessments;
       (5) the purchase of school security equipment and 
     technologies such as metal detectors, electronic locks, 
     surveillance cameras;
       (6) collaborative efforts with law enforcement agencies, 
     community-based organizations (including faith-based 
     organizations) that have demonstrated expertise in providing 
     effective, research-based violence prevention and 
     intervention programs to school age children;
       (7) providing assistance to families in need for the 
     purpose of purchasing required school uniforms;
       (8) school resource officers, including community police 
     officers; and
       (9) community policing in and around schools.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $200,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2000, and such sums as may be necessary for 
     each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004.
       (g) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this section, and every 2 years 
     thereafter, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to 
     the appropriate committees of Congress a report concerning 
     the manner in which grantees have used amounts received under 
     a grant under this section.

  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I assume, 
unless the rules have been changed, there would be an equal amount of 
time on this side. Is that all right?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 30 
minutes of debate on my amendment, 15 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. Is 
there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the amendment, which has been offered 
graciously by the Senator from Utah on my behalf, is an amendment which 
reflects action which this Senate has already taken which has been 
extremely positive in the area of dealing with the issue of how we 
protect our schools and our children who are in school.

[[Page 9044]]

  Last year, this Senate, with great foresight, in the appropriations 
bill from the committee which I chair passed a funding proposal which I 
called the safe school proposal, which was bipartisanly agreed to and 
which was worked out through our subcommittee. Senator Hollings, my 
ranking member, worked very hard on this. Senator Campbell had a 
special role in this. Senator Kohl from Wisconsin had a special role in 
this.
  We produced this piece of legislation, which is a step in the right 
direction, funded at the level of $210 million, for the purposes of 
setting up a grant program to allow schools to apply to the Justice 
Department for grants in order to address the issue of safety in 
schools.
  Basically the grants were broken into three main goals. The first was 
for allowing police officers to work with schools as resource officers 
or as actual security officers within the school systems so there could 
be a merger of the law enforcement atmosphere and the teaching 
community in a way that was constructive and reinforced the positive 
nature of law enforcement within the school community.
  The second function of this language was to fund technology basically 
to allow schools to put in place technology in order to identify 
hazardous things that might come into the schools such as weapons.
  The third was to initiate prevention programs, which schools might 
come up with, which they felt would positively respond to the needs of 
the school community. This program, which a fair amount of work went 
into, was part of a larger program which our subcommittee has been 
undertaking to try to address the issue of safety and children. In 
fact, our subcommittee has been aggressively funding the National 
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Innocent Image Program 
the FBI has been running to catch child predators, Boys and Girls Clubs 
of America, Parents Anonymous, violence against women programs, safe 
school programs, Big Brother, Big Sister.
  We have been funding a large number of initiatives. Programs which we 
found were working well we have tried to put money into, rather than 
reinventing the wheel.
  The amendment I have offered today basically takes the ideas that we 
put into last year's appropriation bills, codifies them, authorizes 
them, and expands them to some degree, but basically works on the same 
framework, the initiative here, the Safe Schools Initiative. The 
concept of it is not for us at the Federal Government level to tell the 
local communities how they should protect their schools and how they 
should do a better job of addressing the issue of safety in schools. 
Rather, we wanted the local communities to come to us, the Federal 
Government, and say here is an idea we have. This is a creative, 
imaginative idea. We need some money to run it. Can you help us out 
with it?
  Basically, it is a philosophy of giving flexibility to the local 
school districts in applying for these grants. We anticipated that 
these grants will be used for a lot of different things. There will be 
a lot of different ideas that come forward. We expect there will be 
proposals where money will be used to assist in training of parents, 
teachers, and law enforcement personnel in order to recognize early 
warning signs relative to the children who may have violent 
dispositions. We expect there will be funding that will be used for the 
basis of innovative research-based initiatives relative to delinquency 
and violence prevention in school programs. We expect there will be 
programs to assist schools, for example, if they decide to put in a 
uniform code. That is a local school district's decision. Where this 
grant will be of assistance is if a local school decides to go to a 
uniform code and it needs money in order to help folks in the school 
system who can't afford those uniforms, they can apply for these 
grants.
  It will also support collaborations between community-based 
organizations, including faith-based organizations, which are doing a 
good job and have a demonstrated success rate of dealing with troubled 
youth. This is an area where we think there is tremendous fertile 
ground. We, of course, already are funding aggressively the Girls and 
Boys Clubs and Parents Anonymous and Violence Against Women and 
initiatives such as Big Brothers and Big Sisters, but there are a lot 
of other great ideas out there. There are people in Boston who have 
good ideas. There are people in New York who have good ideas, people 
out in California and the Midwest who have good ideas. These local 
community initiatives --grants have to come in through a school 
system--are tied into the school systems and are going to be assisting 
the school systems.
  Those are proposals which we think will be very, very positive, and 
here is a place where they can get some funding to make them 
successful.
  We actually, in this proposal, also give preference to proposals that 
come forward that are a joint effort between the law enforcement 
community in the town and the school system in the town. I think it is 
very important when we can join those two mainstays of the community 
together in a joint effort to try to address the issue of violence in 
our schools and especially how we deal with troubled children. Those 
types of programs we would expect to be funded and, in fact, get 
preference.
  We also would expect that you will see funding for training people, 
people who work in the school systems, like teachers, bus drivers, 
janitors, to identify potential threats they might come across in the 
school system. We would expect that money might be used here for the 
purposes of hiring officers who would be resource individuals, police 
officers, resource individuals within the schools in order to help out 
and in order to bring safety into the classroom and into the hallways.
  We also expect that money would be used for assessing security needs 
or for the cost of making improvements within school systems in order 
to address their security needs.
  There are a lot of different initiatives which can result from this 
proposal. The point is that we already have the money in place. This is 
not a pie-in-the-sky, theoretical proposal. This is not something that 
is going to be authorized and not be funded. We have already funded 
this program to the tune of $210 million.
  I regret, quite honestly, that the administration so far has not been 
able to get that money out to the communities. In fact, at last check, 
none of the $210 million which was appropriated last year and which was 
specifically addressed to safe school issues, such as putting police 
officers in the classroom, getting equipment to make sure schools are 
more secure, helping out with prevention programs, has actually been 
distributed. This is too bad. It reflects maybe a lack of attention to 
this issue by the administration. However, with the horrendous events 
that occurred in Littleton, we are now seeing that a lot of 
applications are forthcoming. Maybe there will be a higher level of 
awareness of this problem.
  Basically, this is a proposal which I think obviously makes a lot of 
sense. This Senate actually already thought it made a lot of sense, 
because we voted for the money to be spent on this type of proposal. 
This authorizing language now makes the money that is already in the 
pipeline more specifically directed and puts in place authorization 
which properly accounts for how we proceed relative to the 
appropriations process.
  It is obviously, in my opinion, a good step, an appropriate step, and 
something that should not be at all controversial.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have a question for my colleague. Would the Senator be 
willing to add this Senator from California as a cosponsor of his 
amendment?

[[Page 9045]]


  Mr. GREGG. I would be honored to have the Senator from California as 
a cosponsor.
  Mrs. BOXER. It is a good amendment, because I think it takes from 
some wonderful ideas that a lot of us around here have. I appreciate 
the Senator's offer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is very similar to what the Senator from 
New Hampshire and I worked on in the Appropriations Committee. This 
incorporates a number of things in an amendment I have planned for this 
bill.
  I also ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much, as the 
ranking member of the committee, for cosponsoring the amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
debate on amendment No. 324, the Gregg amendment, that amendment be set 
aside, and Senator Robb or his designee be immediately recognized to 
offer an amendment, the text of which is amendment No. 323, and that 
there be up to 30 minutes of debate. I also ask unanimous consent that 
at the conclusion or yielding of time, the Senate resume the Hatch-
Biden-Sessions amendment No. 322 and the time be limited to 30 minutes 
equally divided; following that debate, the Senate proceed to vote on 
or in relation to the Gregg amendment, to be followed by a vote on or 
in relation to the Robb amendment, to be followed by a vote on or in 
relation to the Hatch amendment; and no other amendments or motions be 
in order prior to the three votes just identified.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following those votes, Senator 
DeWine be recognized for up to 20 minutes, and then Senator Leahy be 
recognized to offer an amendment, and no amendments be in order prior 
to a motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my understanding is that the distinguished 
Senator from Ohio is not seeking recognition to offer an amendment but 
simply to speak.
  Is that correct?
  Mr. HATCH. That is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. That was the basis of the unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HATCH. That is my understanding. That is right.
  Will the Senator yield back the time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the time on this side in relation 
to the Gregg-Boxer-Leahy, et al, amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as I understand it, we will now proceed to 
the Robb amendment.


                 Amendment No. 325 to Amendment No. 322

 (Purpose: To provide resources and services to enhance school safety 
                       and reduce youth violence)

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of Mr. Robb and Mr. Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for Mr. Robb and Mr. 
     Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 325 to amendment No. 
     322.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
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.'')
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, what 
is the situation now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is one-half hour equally divided.
  Mr. LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Does the distinguished Senator from Virginia wish to yield any of his 
time at this point?
  I yield the control of time on this side of the aisle to the 
distinguished Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. I thank the Senator from Vermont. I had an opportunity 
prior to the offering of this amendment to make a statement about the 
amendment. I will give the other side an opportunity to speak.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we have $1.1 billion a year in this bill, 
for law enforcement, for prevention, for safe schools, for parental 
empowerment. The distinguished Senator from Virginia wants to add each 
year an additional $1.4 billion on top of that. This is another 
marathon Federal bureaucratic solution to a local problem.
  The first title creates a so-called National Resource Center for 
School Safety to the tune of $100 million. The director of this center 
is appointed by the head of the Department of Education, the Attorney 
General, and the head of Health and Human Services. This sounds to me 
very much like we are creating another Federal agency in a way that is 
duplicative of what is going on at the State level, something we have 
been trying to avoid in the whole 2 years we debated the juvenile 
justice bill.
  For example, the funds of this center include such things as:
  No. 1, an emergency response to do such things as helping communities 
meet urgent needs such as long-term counseling for students, faculty, 
and family.
  No. 2, a national anonymous hotline. Many local areas are already 
establishing hotlines to accept calls from local students and other 
parties. Why on earth do we need a Federal hotline on top of the local 
community hotlines, a Federal hotline which is supposed to then relay 
the urgent messages to the local hotlines and officials? We are going 
to spend $100 million of taxpayer money in this bill for something 
already taken care of. Why not help the States establish their own 
hotlines, if they even need that help? This bill does that.
  No. 3, training and assistance. This proposal has this new $100 
million Federal bureaucracy helping local agencies develop a school 
safety plan--as if they can't do it themselves.
  First, most local agencies already have school safety plans and they 
know how to provide for school safety a lot better than the bureaucrats 
here in Washington or, I might add, anybody standing or sitting here in 
the Senate. Most local agencies, since they already have school safety 
plans, don't need help from us.
  Second, if a national model is needed, the Department of Education 
can identify a local education agency's particularly affected plan and 
send it out to the local jurisdictions so they can carry it out. That 
way, we have 50 State laboratories or in every school district a State 
laboratory rather than bureaucrats back in Washington telling us what 
to do. That ought to cost just a few thousand dollars compared to $100 
million provided in this particular instance.
  No. 4, the new $100 million Federal bureaucracy is supposed to act as 
a clearinghouse for research and evaluation. This information is 
readily available on the Internet. We do not need a Federal bureaucracy 
to administer this.
  The bottom of this chart lists the number of Federal programs we 
already have in each of these particular areas: Training and 
assistance, 62; counseling, 62; research and evaluation, 55; violence 
prevention, 53; parental and family intervention, 52; support service, 
51; substance abuse prevention, 47; planning and program development, 
47; self-sufficiency skills, 46; mentoring, 46; job training 
assistance, 45; tutoring, 35; substance abuse treatment, 26; 
clearinghouse, 19; and capital improvement, 10. There are similar

[[Page 9046]]

services in several department and agency programs funded in fiscal 
year 1998. The source of this information is the General Accounting 
Office as of 1999.
  Under title 2 of this amendment, as I read this, this is a marathon 
new grant program to the tune of $722 million for areas such as 
educational reform. As you can see, we are already doing that. ``The 
review and updating of school policies.'' Can you imagine that? Why 
would anybody want to do this, when the State and local school board 
directors know exactly what they are doing? Why would we spend $722 
million more on this? I might add, ``to review for the review and 
updating of school policies,'' whatever that means.
  Title 3 in this bill includes alcohol and drug abuse prevention. That 
is already part of our bill. We have worked on this for 2 solid years. 
We have made every dime count and we have added plenty of money for 
prevention. Better than half of this bill is prevention money. It makes 
you wonder; you would never be able to outspend some of these people 
around here. It doesn't make any difference what is in the best 
interests of taxpayers; it is what is in the best interests of the 
political people who push these things.
  Mental health prevention and treatment and early childhood 
development is something they want to do. This proposal includes a 
grant to address violence-related stress. Another element includes 
grants to ``the development of knowledge on best practices for treating 
disorders associated with psychological trauma.''
  Mr. President, mental health treatment is a very important area and 
one in which a lot of Members, including myself, have done a lot of 
work through the years. However, I have a concern about using this bill 
on school violence for a major new Federal mental health system at a 
cost of hundreds of millions of dollars when we have better than half 
of the bill now going for prevention purposes.
  The final title of this bill is a $600 million increase in 
afterschool programs. I am not categorically opposed to directing more 
Federal resources to promote afterschool programs. I am concerned that 
this section is overly bureaucratic. We can better help schools by 
freeing them up from regulatory hoops. I think that is what we ought to 
do instead of doing this. I have been around here for 23 years. When 
committees work 2 solid years on this matter, the way we have, and we 
work with a leader on crime issues such as Senator Biden and with 
others on the committee in a bipartisan way to come up with prevention 
moneys that actually exceed the money for law enforcement itself, and 
do so to the tune of well over a half billion dollars a year, there is 
no need for this type of amendment which is just ``let's throw money at 
it'' and call it nice things--general things at that, if you will--even 
though almost everything this amendment proposes to do we already do in 
our bill and we do it in a fiscally responsible way and in a fiscally 
restrained way.
  I am almost amazed that this amendment has been brought forth. At 
first I thought I might support it, because I thought they were talking 
about doing these things within the framework of what we have already 
done. But when I look at it and read it and understand it, it is just 
another way of throwing more money and beating our breasts, saying we 
have done something for prevention in the juvenile justice area when in 
fact we are doing plenty for prevention.
  It needs to be known there is already $4 billion in the pipeline on 
prevention now, without the bill we have brought to the floor, the 
bipartisan bill we have brought to the floor. Now they want to add 
another $1.4 billion for these generalized programs that, literally, 
the States are taking care of in most instances, and if they have not, 
we have taken care of them in the underlying bill.
  So I hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment, and at the 
appropriate time I will make a motion to table.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his 
steadfast leadership, his skill, and efforts on behalf of this 
legislation on which we have been working for 2 years. I hope now we 
are at a point where we can bring it to a conclusion. It passed last 
year out of committee with bipartisan support, 12 to 6.
  We continue to have problems getting the bill up. I believe we will 
this time. There is support across the aisle. But I know there are 
those who believe we can somehow pass out a few billion dollars and we 
can prevent all crime in America. That is an awfully broad category, 
just to say ``prevention.'' What does that mean? How do you spend that 
money wisely?
  My concept, as a prosecutor of 15 years, was to try to have the money 
where, first of all, our first focus would be to make sure the juvenile 
judges, who are seeing these kids come before them, have a full panoply 
of options with which to deal with them. They need to be able to drug 
test them. They need to be able to have them get drug treatment if need 
be. If they need to go to work camps, they ought to go to work camps or 
weekend work programs. If they need to have a boot camp, they ought to 
have that option. If they need to have detention, they should have 
that. Some do. I wish it were not so. So we have helped craft a bill to 
have the judge intervene effectively in the life of those youngsters 
when they first start getting arrested, when they first get in trouble 
with the law.
  We have had a lot of talk and created this dichotomy, saying those 
kinds of programs are not prevention. I believe they are. I believe a 
program which has a school-based boot camp, like the one in my hometown 
of Mobile, that I have visited where kids go and have physical 
exercise, they have discipline, and they have intensive schoolwork on 
their level--it is working for them. They have after-care to make sure 
they do not slide back into bad habits after they leave. So I think we 
have a lot of good things going. I believe that is prevention.
  We, in this legislation, have half the money going for what they, on 
the other side of the aisle, would say is prevention.
  I want to show this chart. It says some things that are important. It 
was done by the University of Maryland at the behest of the U.S. 
Department of Justice. They did a prevention evaluation report. We have 
billions of dollars being spent on programs for high-risk youth to try 
to keep them from heading down the road of a life of crime. A lot of 
those programs work. A lot of them are not very effective. Our bill, 
Senator Hatch's bill, has $40 million to research programs to see if 
they are working.
  They have already done some research. This is the study the 
Department of Justice, President Clinton's Department of Justice, did. 
They found most crime prevention funds are being spent where they are 
needed least. Is that not a horrible thing to say? We do not have 
unlimited budgets. I have learned that here. We talk in big numbers but 
there is a limit to how many millions of dollars we can spend on 
projects. The conclusion of their own study was, these prevention 
moneys are being spent where they are needed least. Second, they 
concluded most crime prevention programs have never been evaluated. 
Third, among the evaluated programs, some of the least effective 
receive the most money.
  That is a real indictment of us. I hope this research and evaluation 
money we have put in this legislation will help confront that problem.
  The amendment that has been offered to spend over $1 billion more on 
prevention--that effort is pretty troubling to me. There have not been 
intensive hearings on these proposals, as the Senator from Utah noted. 
We have not evaluated them carefully. In effect, it appears to me we 
would be throwing money at the problem. Our history tells us that is 
precisely what we ought not to do.
  What we have found is there are $4.4 billion now in juvenile 
prevention money from 117 different programs, according to the General 
Accounting Office study done very recently on our behalf --117 
programs. I used to be in

[[Page 9047]]

the 4-H Club. Being in the 4-H Club was probably a good thing for me. I 
got to go to Auburn one time. That was big for me. I had the award for 
the best hog in Wilcox County. But now they have 4-H Club programs in 
inner cities, for crime prevention. It may work. But the Department of 
Agriculture has programs to build 4-H Clubs in the inner cities as some 
sort of crime prevention program. I have my doubts about whether those 
are the best ways to spend that money. We need to evaluate these 
programs.
  What we found is that money actually dedicated to law enforcement 
programs for juvenile justice, a juvenile justice system which is in a 
state of collapse in America, is zero.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 2 extra minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is what we are doing today. The 
juvenile justice system in America really does need to be strengthened. 
When young people are being picked up on burglaries, small-time 
offenses, they are treated as if they are in a revolving door. The 
court systems are overwhelmed. There is no detention. There is no 
alternative to schools. There is no treatment for many of them. As a 
result, we are not intervening effectively in these young peoples' 
lives. To say money spent--as we do in about half of this bill--to 
strengthen the court system and strengthen its ability to intervene 
effectively with young people is not prevention is an error. It is 
prevention. Almost every one of these mass-murdering young people who 
has gone into these schools--not almost, I believe every single one of 
them, because I have watched it--has had some prior criminal record. 
Had they been effectively dealt with then, maybe they would not have 
gone on to these more serious offenses.
  That is where we are. I wish we could afford to spend as much as the 
Senator would like to on this panoply of prevention programs. We simply 
are not able to do that. We battled for every dollar we could as the 
bill is today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, this bill is designed to address problems 
that are not being met at this particular point. The distinguished 
Senator from Utah makes the point that there are duplicative programs. 
There are many programs in many areas of the country, some statewide, 
some local, some in jurisdictions that can afford to provide the kind 
of services that this Senator would provide, but what this bill 
attempts to do and would do, if approved, is provide a national center 
which will provide the hotline services that many school districts 
simply cannot afford.
  Many States are indeed putting hotlines together.
  In my State yesterday, the Governor announced the establishment of a 
hotline, but a number of States do not have them; many local 
jurisdictions do not have them. This will provide for the States that 
do not have the resources to meet these needs, not only with respect to 
the hotline, but with respect to providing technical assistance, 
providing any kind of help that the particular school or students who 
recognize a need for assistance might designate.
  It will not require anything. It will not compel any jurisdiction to 
take on any new responsibilities, nor use any of the facilities that 
are available. But it will provide at one place the kind of technical 
response which can respond to these emergencies when they occur so that 
we have the expertise immediately available in terms of emergency 
response, we have the type of expertise that can assist school systems 
and other districts in putting together their own plans to deal with 
problems that fall into this particular area.
  With respect to the other part of the bill, I yield now to the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, who is the author of that 
particular provision.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as the Senator from Virginia has pointed 
out, this particular proposal reflects a total of less than a billion 
dollars. It will be another $722 million. It has in it the National 
Resource Center for School Safety and it also has the Safe Schools and 
Healthy Students Program.
  There are Members of this body who think the solution to the 
challenges we are facing in our schools can be solved by putting more 
kids in prison and keeping them there. That may be the view of some 
Members of this body, but it is not the view of those law enforcement 
officials who are working in school districts across the country who 
are making meaningful progress.
  We have not heard from those people in the Judiciary Committee 
because they have not been asked to testify. We ought to at least be 
willing to look at the results of some of the cities and communities 
across this country that have reduced violence, not only in schools, 
but in the communities and ask them what has worked. That might be a 
useful test around here for a change. That is just what Senator Robb 
and I have done. We have asked what has worked, and we have tried to 
make a recommendation to this body about programs that work, that are 
supported by students, supported by parents, supported by teachers, and 
supported by law enforcement officials.
  If this body does not want to invest in those programs, if it thinks 
that we can just provide more cops and they are going to provide the 
answers to the problems in our schools, vote this amendment down. But 
if you want to look at the experiences of cities and communities like 
we have seen in our own city of Boston where there has been only one 
youth homicide with a gun in the last 2\1/2\ years in 128 schools--that 
is the record--these are the programs that are working. It is very easy 
to listen to our colleagues talk about bureaucracy, saying: we don't 
want to have programs; we don't want to deal with all these other 
issues; let's just throw them in jail and throw away the key.
  One of the most profound comments I heard yesterday in the Jeremiah 
Berg School in Boston, MA, is one of common sense and one that 
everybody in this body understands: You either pay for it early on or 
you pay for it later on. That is the question: Are we going to support 
those programs that are tried and tested and are working in our schools 
and working in our communities, or are we going to say, no, we are just 
going to dismiss them because they deal with mental health, because 
they deal with violence protection, because they deal with mediation, 
because they deal with things that are happening in schools that can 
make a difference in reducing violence.
  The proposal we have offered, with the Leahy proposal and the one 
that Senator Robb has suggested, tries to combine those programs that 
are going to be effective in law enforcement, as well as those that are 
going to be supporting children.
  I have heard a number of young people in the last several days say, 
``We are not interested in someone telling us and yelling at us. We 
want parents and we want our teachers to talk with us, to listen to us 
and to give us an opportunity to work with counselors to provide for 
some of the needs of people in our schools and in our communities.''
  This particular amendment is targeted. It is based on an evaluation 
of programs that are working. The Safe Schools and Healthy Students 
Program provides for 50 school districts. We have expanded it to 200. I 
think we can expand it further.
  One may say, why 200? Because that is the judgment we made based upon 
the quality of applications we have had in the Justice Department. That 
is how we reached these figures.
  I reject the arguments made by the Senator from Utah about this 
program. I reject the suggestion that we are going to solve all these 
problems just by law enforcement alone, because that is the 
alternative. I think that is a viewpoint that has been demonstrated to 
be a vacant attitude based upon where the progress has been made in 
recent times in the communities that have done something about youth 
violence.
  I hope we will accept the Robb amendment. I withhold the time. How 
much time do we have?

[[Page 9048]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished Senator from Virginia be given 2 extra minutes.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield 2 minutes for a 
response.
  Mr. HATCH. There were 2 extra minutes taken on our side.
  Mr. ROBB. The Senator from Minnesota would like to respond as well.
  I will say, again, to address the specific concern raised by the 
Senator from Utah with respect to the duplication, this is an effort to 
provide one-shot, one-stop assistance to States, localities, 
individuals and others who need assistance who are currently uncovered 
by any of the programs that are in effect.
  If this program is as effective as we believe it can and will be, it 
may be that some of the other programs will ultimately be folded into 
this protection. We do not need 100 or several hundred different 
hotlines. They are desirable if the local jurisdiction can afford them. 
In this case, we will have a national clearinghouse, a national 
hotline. We will have the coordination of the Department of Justice and 
the Department of Education. That is what we are trying to accomplish 
in a single bill.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on this point?
  Mr. ROBB. I am pleased to yield to the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Let me respond to my colleague from Massachusetts. Fifty-
five percent of the $1.1 billion that we already have in this bill--
keep in mind there is already $4.4 billion out there for prevention--is 
for prevention, and one of the major uses, discretionary uses, is 
mental health. What I do not want to do is create a whole bunch of new 
bureaucracies back here that are just duplicative with what is already 
going on. That is where I have my difficulty with what the Senator from 
Massachusetts does.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to, but let me make one more comment. Go 
ahead. I yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How do you think we administer SAMHSA? We are using 
existing programs. We are not creating new programs. This is the SAMHSA 
authorization, SAMHSA funding.
  Mr. HATCH. Right, and we have well over one-half billion dollars for 
these purposes now.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Under the SAMHSA program?
  Mr. HATCH. No, discretionary use.
  The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration is to be 
reauthorized this year. As I understand it, Dr. Frist, Senator Frist 
from Tennessee, and Senator Mikulski----
  Mr. KENNEDY. And Senator Kennedy had reauthorized that.
  Mr. HATCH. And I am sure Senator Kennedy will be helping, too. These 
people have been working on a bipartisan bill----
  Mr. KENNEDY. As a proud supporter of that, this is what is going to 
work.
  Mr. HATCH. S. 976, the SAMHSA reauthorization, is cosponsored not 
only by Senators Frist and Mikulski but by Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, 
Dodd, DeWine and Collins.
  Now, S. 976 is the bill to consider these changes on substance abuse 
and mental health. I do not want to see juvenile justice go down 
because we start tinkering around with it here, when we have mental 
health as one of the permissible uses of this money, by throwing 
another $1.4 billion at it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia now controls the 
time.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator 
from Minnesota be given 2 minutes, and then we will move on to the next 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Two 
minutes will be added.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, just very briefly, let me thank Senator 
Robb and Senator Kennedy and say to my colleague from Utah, I look 
forward to that reauthorization. My focus has been on mental health 
services. But I tell you, for the last 8\1/2\ years I have been in a 
school about every 2 weeks, and students talk all the time about the 
need to have more support services.
  We can no longer view mental health services as icing on the cake. It 
is part of the cake. If we are serious about juvenile justice and we 
are serious about prevention, then we need to focus on what we can do.
  When I meet with teachers and principals and education assistants, 
they all say to me, many children, in their very small lives, I say to 
Senator Kennedy, even by first grade have been through so much that 
even the smallest class size, best teachers, and best technology will 
not do the job.
  This effort, at the community level, to put a focus on mental health 
services and to have the coordination and make sure this is part of our 
approach to juvenile justice is right on target.
  My final point. I have said it a thousand times on the floor of the 
Senate, and I will shout it one more time from the mountaintop: You can 
build all the prisons you want to and physical facilities; you will 
fill them all up, and you will never stop this cycle of violence unless 
you invest in the health and skills and intellect and character of 
children.
  That is what this has to be about. That is what this amendment speaks 
to. And the vast majority of people in this country understand that 
essential truth. That is what this amendment is about. That is what 
this vote is about.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Is all time yielded back? Has the Senator from Virginia 
yielded back their time?
  Mr. ROBB. How much time remains under the control of the Senator from 
Virginia?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 3 minutes 20 
seconds.
  Mr. ROBB. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts such time as he 
may need of that 3 minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I once again thank Senator Wellstone and 
others who have spoken on this. I just want to share with the Members 
of this body what has been happening in my home community with the 
implementation of the kinds of programs we have supported here, the 
programs that have been recommended by the chiefs of police in my town 
and in towns across the country.
  Here we have the firearm homicides of people under 24 years of age in 
Boston: 51 in 1990; 38 in 1991; 27 in 1992; 35 in 1993; 33 in 1994; 32 
in 1995. Then, with the implementation of these programs in the Robb 
amendment, in 1996, down to 21; 7 in 1997; 16 in 1998; and one in 1999.
  Are we going to take what is working, what has been requested by law 
enforcement officials, what is demonstratively effective, or are we 
going to listen to the same old voices that say what we have to do is 
spend more time in locking up kids? That is the choice.
  We need to say we are going to invest in and provide the kinds of 
programs that are supported by teachers, parents, schools, and law 
enforcement officials--programs that are effective and working. That is 
what the Robb amendment has done, and that is what it will do. It 
deserves the support of the Members.
  We reserve our time.
  Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. I see the Senator from Delaware approaching. Does he desire 
to speak on this?
  In that case, I think the differences have been explored. Once again, 
I suggest to you that this is an attempt to codify and collect in one 
place the wisdom of those professional agencies and institutions which 
we look to for guidance in this particular area to address the problem 
the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has related to us and 
which all of us know in terms of our personal experience is a very 
serious problem that cannot be ignored and simply cannot be solved 
solely by locking people up, no matter how much we might think that 
actually addresses the problem.

[[Page 9049]]

  So I would again observe that this is a desire to make a collective 
opportunity available for those institutions that may not have the 
resources to take advantage of the various provisions of this bill and 
to provide additional funding for a program that has been demonstrated 
to work.
  With that, I yield back----
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ROBB. I yield whatever time remains to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I hope the Senator from Utah will refer specifically to 
what provisions in his legislation refer to mental health, because we 
have not been able to find them. If he has them there, I would like to 
hear from him on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on both sides has expired.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 322

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 30 minutes, equally divided, 
on the amendment of the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there are three of us who are going to 
speak as proponents of the Hatch-Biden-Sessions amendment: Senator 
Biden, Senator Sessions and myself.
  This amendment contains three major provisions and reflects a hard 
fought, bipartisan compromise among Senator Biden, Senator Sessions and 
myself. It demonstrates that S. 254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile 
Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act, is a bipartisan bill in 
every sense of the word.
  Before I describe the amendment, I remind the Senate of other 
provisions in S. 254 that are also the product of compromise and 
concession.
  For example, in title I of the bill we included the reverse waiver 
provision in section 5032, at Senator Leahy's request. This provision 
ensures that Federal district judges have the ultimate authority to 
decide whether a juvenile is tried as an adult in Federal cases.
  Another major compromise is the juvenile delinquency challenge grant 
in title III of the bill. This block grant provides $200 million a year 
to the States for prevention programs. This provision was included in 
S. 254 to satisfy demands from some Members for additional funds for 
prevention programs.
  Another compromise in S. 254 concerns the juvenile felony records 
provision. Last year's juvenile crime bill, S. 10, required States to 
improve and share juvenile felony records in order to qualify for the 
accountability block grant. At the urging of Senators Biden and Leahy, 
we removed the recordkeeping provision as a requirement for the 
accountability block grant. Instead, there is a separate grant for 
juvenile criminal records for States that choose to upgrade and share 
their juvenile felony records.
  The first provision of the Hatch-Biden-Sessions amendment earmarks 25 
percent of the accountability block grant in title III for drug 
treatment and crime prevention programs. These drug treatment funds 
will complement and reinforce the drug testing provisions in the 
accountability block grant.
  In addition, this earmark provides funds for additional prevention 
programs, such as afterschool activities and gang prevention programs. 
This amendment, by earmarking 25 percent of the accountability block 
grant for prevention and drug treatment, demonstrates our commitment to 
prevention funding and ensures a balanced juvenile crime bill.
  The second provision of the Hatch-Biden-Sessions amendment provides a 
$50 million grant to the States to hire prosecutors to prosecute 
juvenile offenders. The hiring of juvenile prosecutors was a 
permissible use of grant funds in S. 254 since the bill was introduced. 
Our amendment merely provides a guaranteed source of funds for State 
and local prosecutors to target juvenile crime.
  The third and last provision of the Hatch-Biden-Sessions amendment 
extends the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund until the year 2005. By 
extending the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, we will ensure that 
the Federal Government continues to provide valuable assistance to the 
States in the war against crime.
  Programs such as the truth-in-sentencing grant, the local law 
enforcement block grant, the COPS program, are funded from the Violent 
Crime Reduction Trust Fund. I am proud to propose the extension of this 
trust fund.
  I want to personally thank Senator Biden for the hard work he has 
done on this bill and in working with us in a bipartisan and good way. 
I am very proud to have him on this bill, because he has been a major 
participant in every crime bill since I have been in the Senate, as 
have I. I just want to make that clear on the record.
  I also particularly express my gratitude and appreciation to Senator 
Sessions, the Youth Violence Subcommittee chairman. He has done a great 
job on this bill, and I believe he has more than earned his spurs with 
regard to his work on anticrime matters.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes 10 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time is remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding, on my 
time, not on the time of the distinguished Senator from Utah.
  Just so the distinguished Senator from Utah can hear this, I 
appreciate the fact that he has included many of the provisions in this 
bill I had argued for in the last Congress. I compliment him on that. I 
did that earlier today when I spoke, referring to the Hatch-Biden-
Sessions amendment. I tell the distinguished chairman that as he and I 
are both people who believe in redemption, and I would say this is a 
long way from redemption, going from 1997 to 1999, but hope springs 
eternal, and he has included some of my provisions in this bill. I 
appreciate it.
  I note that the original bill provided $15 million for primary 
prevention. This amendment would earmark another $112.5 million.
  I understand the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. 
Feinstein, would like to be added as a cosponsor. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent for that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I am proud to 
have her as a cosponsor.
  Mr. LEAHY. I think this is a positive step, by earmarking the other 
$112.5 million. I commend Senators Hatch and Sessions and Biden for 
this. It shows that our efforts over the last 2 years really have made 
a difference. Let us put this in context.
  The rest of the bill also allocates over $330 million for law 
enforcement, $75 million for juvenile criminal history records, $20 
million for gang fighting, and $50 million for prosecutors. In context, 
that is a total of $482.5 million for law enforcement compared to 
$112.5 million for primary prevention. S. 254 also provides $400 
million for intervention programs after juveniles come into contact 
with the juvenile or criminal justice system. It is intervention money, 
not primary prevention money. It is important money, but it is not 
directed to primary prevention.
  There is $50 million in the prosecutors grant fund. That is a 
proposal that was accepted in 1997 by the Judiciary Committee. My only 
concern is the money goes only to prosecutors, not to anyone else in 
the juvenile system. It doesn't go to counselors. It doesn't go to 
public defenders. It doesn't go to corrections officers. It doesn't go 
to juvenile judges. We have to examine closely the effects of this new 
prosecutors grant.
  I want to make sure it doesn't exacerbate overcrowding in the 
juvenile system and the system does not break down; I pledge to now 
work with the Senator from Utah to see if there is a possibility of 
balancing the system in a fair way.
  Overall, Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah, 
as I

[[Page 9050]]

said, and the distinguished Senator from Alabama, the distinguished 
Senator from Delaware for adding the things we have requested for a 
couple years. I did want to point out, however, as I said earlier, 
anybody who has ever been in law enforcement will always tell you, if 
you can prevent the crime from happening, you are a lot better off in 
what you do after it happens. I wish there was more money for 
prevention. Money for law enforcement is well spent. I wish there was 
more money for prevention.
  Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. As I recall, I have 11 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator restate the question?
  Mr. HATCH. As I understand it, I have 11 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HATCH. Let me say, prior to sending my amendment to the desk, I 
had agreed to drop some change that was of concern to the 
Appropriations Committee. The amendment at the desk does not contain 
this technical change.


                     Amendment No. 322, As modified

  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent to amend my amendment to reflect 
the change I promised Senator Leahy and others I would make. The 
modification is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Delaware and the remaining 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I apologize. I did not. Did the Senator 
yield me a specific amount of time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, sir. He yielded you 8 minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, there are a number of revisions that have been worked 
out here in the core bill that is before us. As the ranking member, 
Senator Leahy, knows, and as the chairman knows, this began over 2\1/2\ 
years ago. We have come a long way. We have narrowed the gap between 
the position held by Senator Hatch and myself and by Senator Sessions 
and myself and many others. Primarily what the Hatch-Biden-Sessions 
amendment does, it takes the underlying bill and it does three or four, 
I think, very important things.
  No. 1, it adds prevention uses to permissible uses of the so-called 
accountability block grant. When I am home sometimes watching this on 
TV, I wonder how the people understand anything we are saying. What is 
an accountability block grant? What it means is that there is $450 
million in this bill that we give to given States to be able to use for 
various purposes. One of those chunks of money, the $450 million, prior 
to the Hatch-Biden amendment, did not allow the money to be used for 
prevention. This allows, earmarks, requires 25 percent of it to be used 
for prevention. You have about $113 million that is to be used for 
prevention out of that grant.
  In addition to that, it adds other allowable uses that we hope the 
States will do. That is, it allows them to use money for drug 
treatment, alcohol treatment, drug and alcohol treatment, school 
counseling, school-based prevention programs. Then, in addition, what 
it does is--in the Biden crime bill, which became the crime law of 
1994, what we didn't do was we did not put in money for prosecutors. We 
found out, as the former Governor of Nebraska knows, what happens in a 
lot of these courts is we add more cops and they arrest a lot more 
people. There are not enough prosecutors, there are not enough judges, 
and there are not enough facilities. So the cops do their job, but the 
process gets bottlenecked. So we have $50 million in here, which was 
initially resisted, $50 million for prosecutors at a State level, State 
prosecutors, money for the States to hire prosecutors to prosecute 
juvenile justice cases and for the States to train them to in fact 
prosecute crimes in juvenile court, because that always takes the hind 
quarter of these cases. One of the things is, there is not enough 
resources devoted to pursuing these cases.
  The prosecution of the case doesn't mean we are just putting more 
prosecutors here to send kids to jail. We are putting more prosecutors 
in here to resolve these sets of graduated sanctions the States have 
set up so there is a prosecutor following through and saying, this kid 
is going to go on a work project, this kid is going to go to the State 
reform school, this kid is going to have to pay restitution for what he 
did, this kid is going to, in fact, follow through on the sanction that 
the court is imposing on him. And we, the State, are going to be able 
to pursue this--we, the prosecutor in such-and-such a county or such-
and-such a State.
  Finally, and perhaps most important of all, I think the best thing we 
did in the crime bill we passed in 1994, the thing that people paid the 
least attention to but the thing I worked the hardest on was setting up 
a crime trust fund, a violent crime trust fund.
  I remind everybody that we made a commitment with this administration 
and when the crime bill passed we would reduce the workforce of Federal 
employees. We would reduce that workforce, but instead of taking their 
paycheck and returning it to the Treasury, we were going to put it in a 
trust fund. So we reduced the Federal workforce by 300,000 people--the 
smallest Federal workforce since John Kennedy was President of the 
United States of America. We took that money and we put it in a trust 
fund that can only be used for the purposes outlined in the crime 
bill--for prevention, for enforcement, and for incarceration. It 
stopped us from bickering over how we are going to fund the programs.
  We are not raising any new taxes to pay for this. We are not giving 
money back. We can. We could take this money that we are no longer 
paying the Federal employees in the Department of Education, or in the 
Department of Energy, or wherever--we could take their paycheck and 
give it back in terms of a tax cut, or we could take it and put it in 
this trust fund.
  That is what has kept the funding of the 100,000 cops, that is what 
has kept the funding of the prison system, and that is what has kept 
the funding of the prevention programs. That expires in the year 2000. 
This will extend that violent crime trust fund to the year 2005.
  Once we cut through all the specific things we could legislatively 
do, it is probably the single most significant thing we will do.
  I thank my colleagues for agreeing to the compromise which includes 
extending that trust fund.
  There are a number of pieces of this legislation that 
understandably--because this is a moving target--have in fact confused 
people.
  My friend from Nebraska asked me the question about whether or not 
this federalizes juvenile crime, whether or not it sets a Federal aid 
limit at which you could try a young person as an adult that preempts 
State law. No, we don't do that.
  It does say that in a Federal court, if a Federal prosecutor brings a 
case within Federal jurisdiction against a minor, they can in fact seek 
to try that minor as an adult under a certain set of circumstances. But 
it doesn't go in and say to the State of Nebraska or Delaware that you 
must in your State treat minors in terms of whether or not they can be 
tried as adults the same way the Federal system treats them. Some 
States try minors as adults at a much younger age. Some States don't 
allow minors under the age of 18 to be tried as adults unless it is 
under the most extraordinary circumstances.
  The original legislation in iteration of four or five bills ago 
probably did do that. But we are not federalizing this notion of under 
what circumstances a person under the age of 18 can be tried as an 
adult. We are not allowing for Federal preemption where there is

[[Page 9051]]

State and Federal jurisdiction. It is not an automatic preemption to 
the State by the Federal Government. We have built into this 
legislation a rational way of approaching that.
  In the interest of time, I am not going to take the time to explain 
that now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BIDEN. Let me sit down and thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has 3 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I want to say that I am excited about where we are at this point with 
this legislation. It has been a 2-year struggle. Senator Biden is a 
great advocate and strong believer in his views. I have some strong 
views about it. I believe that at this point we have made a compromise, 
an agreement that both of us can live with, which will allow us to 
effectively respond at this time to assist State and local governments, 
State and local court systems and juvenile systems, and educational 
systems to better focus and better prevent and deter crime by young 
people.
  I firmly believe we have seen over the last 20 years an extraordinary 
increase in the amount of juvenile crime in America. Hopefully, it will 
plateau out a bit. But between 1993 and 1997, juvenile crime was up 
another 14 percent and has been increasing even more rapidly than prior 
thereto. What we have is a piece of legislation which I believe will 
allow us to effectively deal with that.
  Prevention: What is prevention?
  A good, consistent court system that has credibility and respect 
among young people helps prevent crime. A court system that is known 
for not being credible does not prevent crime. Police officers tell me: 
They are laughing at us. They know we can't do anything to them. We 
have no place to put these kids. We have no detention, no punishment 
that we can impose. Nothing happens to them. We arrest them and they 
are let go.
  That is what is happening too often in America. This bill will begin 
to turn the tide on that.
  We will spend more money also on trying to prevent crime. I think we 
are making a good step forward. The House passed this bill. We passed 
it with bipartisan support last year in committee. I believe we will 
have a strong vote this time.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I again congratulate Senator Hatch for the outstanding leadership he 
has given as chairman of the Judiciary Committee and for his efforts to 
make this bill a reality. I thank him for his leadership.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 20 seconds.
  Mr. HATCH. How much time in the opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes 38 seconds.
  Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am not aware of anybody on this side who 
wishes to speak further. I am willing to yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: As I understand it, 
you have the yeas and nays on the Gregg amendment and on the Hatch-
Biden-Sessions amendment but you do not have it on the Robb amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HATCH. When we get the yeas and nays on the Robb amendment, the 
amendments will be voted on, first the Gregg amendment, then Robb, and 
then Hatch-Biden-Sessions?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to table the Robb amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table will then be the second 
vote.
  The first vote is on the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 324

  The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New 
Hampshire. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered and 
the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 106 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--5

     Inhofe
     Nickles
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Moynihan
       
  The amendment (No. 324) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. 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.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, so everybody will know, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remaining votes in this series be limited to 10 
minutes each in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. There will be 10 minutes per vote.
  Mr. HATCH. Also, so everybody will know, immediately after the ending 
of the votes, Senator Leahy will call up his amendment. That will be 
the pending amendment we will start on tomorrow.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 325

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The question is on agreeing to the 
motion to table amendment No. 325. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 107 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins

[[Page 9052]]


     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Moynihan
       
  The motion was agreed to.


                 Vote on Amendment No. 322, as modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 322, as modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 108 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Kyl
     Thompson
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Moynihan
       
  The amendment (No. 322), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 327

            (Purpose: To promote effective law enforcement)

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of myself, Mr. Daschle and Mr. Robb.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), for himself, Mr. 
     Daschle, and Mr. Robb, proposes an amendment numbered 327.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments 
Submitted.'')
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand that under the previous 
unanimous consent request, when we come in tomorrow morning this will 
be the pending amendment. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now the pending question.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand that when the Senate 
reconvenes in the morning, the Leahy amendment be the pending amendment 
with 1 hour equally divided with no other amendments in order. Mr. 
President, I understand this will be agreed to by unanimous consent in 
closing tonight.
  I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment now be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Pete Levitas, 
a fellow assigned to the Antitrust Subcommittee from the Justice 
Department, be granted the privilege of the floor during the Senate's 
consideration of S. 254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender 
Accountability and Rehabilitation Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this evening in strong support of 
the bill before us. This juvenile justice legislation is a product of 
bipartisan work and bipartisan compromise. I believe it is a very 
valuable and long overdue measure that will tackle a major national 
problem.
  Last week I spoke on the Senate floor on the need to find ways to 
reach out to young people and to hopefully save young lives. I said at 
that time that youth violence presents us with very difficult issues, 
really, for a public official to talk about because people, once you 
start talking about this issue, may think you, as the person who is 
talking, believe that you have ``the'' answer. So let me say again, 
right up front, I do not claim to have the answer. Evil is a mystery 
that exists deep in the human heart.
  But if we do not have all the answers for the problems we see--what 
we saw happening in Littleton, for example--that should not stop us 
from trying to do something. I believe the juvenile justice bill we 
have before us, as well as many of the amendments which will be 
offered, will in fact save lives. The fact, the brutal fact of human 
existence, that we cannot come up with the answer does not excuse us 
from our moral responsibilities--our moral responsibilities, as 
legislators, as parents, as citizens. In fact, it increases our 
responsibilities. If we do not have ``the'' answer, we have to work 
harder to find answers, things we can do to make a difference, child by 
child by child.
  This juvenile justice bill provides the Senate the opportunity to 
find some of these answers. Some of the things in the bill before us 
are certainly not glamorous, but I believe they will all be helpful. I 
believe they will save lives. In essence, the bill before us is 
designed to make sure our juvenile justice system and those who make 
decisions in that system have the tools they need to meet the challenge 
of a juvenile population that, tragically, is becoming more violent. I 
will focus briefly on some of the provisions I have been most involved 
in in putting together this bill and highlight how I believe they will 
make a real difference, addressing real problems facing juvenile 
justice systems across this country.
  First, Senator Sessions and I have worked long and hard, along with 
the chairman, to provide $75 million to help States upgrade their 
juvenile felony record systems. I believe this is an especially 
important provision. As a former county prosecuting attorney, I can 
tell you, the decisions made by judges in our juvenile courts on 
juvenile offenders are only as good as the information on which they 
are based. The same is certainly true for judges in

[[Page 9053]]

our adult criminal system. The problem is, the information that is 
available is not as complete, many times, as it should be. In fact, 
many times the information about the offender, about what the offender 
has done in the past, is simply nonexistent.
  What am I talking about? We have had a tradition in this country that 
juvenile courts would all operate behind closed doors and the records 
of those courts would never be available. The reason, the rationale, 
was we wanted to protect young people; that young people could change 
and they should have a second chance, sometimes a third chance. All 
that makes sense and there is nothing wrong, even today, 1999, with 
that basic philosophy.
  That philosophy, though, does not work when we are dealing with a 17-
year-old, who is still a juvenile, who has committed a violent crime--
let's say a rape--or a 16-year-old who has committed an aggravated 
robbery. It makes no sense to say that information about that 
individual will always be hidden.
  Let me give Members of the Senate, my colleagues, a specific example. 
Let's say a 15-year-old in Xenia, OH, commits a serious offense. Let's 
say it is a violent offense. That 15-year-old is dealt with by the 
court and later moves, at the age of 17, to Adams County, Ohio. That 
juvenile then commits another offense. Under our current system, there 
is really no effective central depository of that information. There is 
one, but there is very little information in it. So the arresting 
officials in Adams County might not know that individual, several years 
before, had committed a serious offense in Greene County.
  Let's take another example. Let's say the juvenile is 16 and commits 
an offense in Cincinnati, OH; several years later moves to Indiana and, 
as an adult, commits another violent offense in Indiana. The Indiana 
authorities may not necessarily know that juvenile--the person who was 
a juvenile, who is now 18, an adult--committed a violent crime several 
years before across the State line in bordering Ohio.
  What this bill does is commit $75 million to local law enforcement 
agencies, to States to help them develop their criminal record system 
for juveniles.
  We are not, by this provision, saying what a State should do. What we 
are saying, though, is that the State, by putting that information into 
a central computer system, will enable another State where that 
juvenile shows up, 2, 3, 5, or 10 years later, to be on notice as to 
what type individual this is, or at least they will know what crime, 
what serious crime, what violent crime this juvenile has committed. It 
simply makes sense.
  It has been my experience that when we read about what I call horror 
stories in the newspapers, where we see someone who has been picked up 
by the police, and he is let out on bond, or she is let out on bond, 
and that person commits another offense or has been charged with an 
offense and has been convicted and gets a light sentence, and they 
commit another offense, most of those horror stories come from the fact 
that the police or the judge or the probation officer or the parole 
officer did not have the available information, didn't know what they 
were dealing with, didn't know what the criminal record was of that 
individual. Our bill goes a long way to address this problem. It gives 
local law enforcement the tools, it gives the judge the tools, so he or 
she can make a rational decision about bond or a rational decision 
about sentencing.
  We need to make these records more accessible so law enforcement can 
keep closer track of kids who have been convicted of violent crimes. 
The tracking provision I wrote, along with Chairman Hatch and Senator 
Sessions, will help do this.
  If a State uses Federal funds to upgrade their juvenile records under 
this bill, all records of juvenile felonies will have to be accessible 
from the National Criminal Information Center. When it comes to making 
key decisions about juvenile offenders, judges, probation officers, 
police officers, need to make judgments based on the best possible 
information, and that is what this bill will give them.
  One of my key priorities as a Senator, and as someone who started his 
career as a county prosecuting attorney in Greene County, Ohio, one of 
my priorities is to make sure the Federal Government does more to help 
law enforcement. That is where the action is. Mr. President, 95 to 96 
percent of all Federal prosecutions is done at the local level by 
counties and States. They are the ones who do it--the police, the 
sheriffs' deputies, the local prosecutors. Anything we can do to help 
them will make a difference.
  Helping set up a good system of records, good information on juvenile 
felons is one of the most important things we can possibly do to help 
them do their jobs more effectively, and this bill does it.
  Let me turn to a second provision. We need to provide incentives to 
local governments to coordinate the services they offer to the kids who 
are most at risk, kids who may have already gotten into a little 
trouble, but who we believe can still be saved. This is prevention, and 
it is very, very important.
  Here is the problem. Many times, juveniles who find themselves in 
juvenile court have multiple problems. Some of these problems may not 
come to the attention of the juvenile court judge, or if they do come 
to his or her attention, many times that judge does not have the 
resources, does not have the ability to treat that young person.
  For example, a child may have both a psychiatric disorder and a 
substance abuse problem. A child may have been sexually abused, a child 
may have been physically abused, or any combination of four or five 
things. Many times, juvenile courts do not have the resources to detect 
or appropriately address these types of multiple problems. As a result, 
for too long, many children have been falling between the cracks of the 
court system. Many times these children are identified as the 
``juvenile court's child.'' Many times we refer to them as a ``children 
services' child,'' or a local protection services agency child or maybe 
the child is under the auspices of the mental health system and 
sometimes the substance abuse system.
  What we aim to do under this provision is allow the local community 
to come together with the juvenile judge and coordinate all of these 
services so that we can help these children. It is cost-effective and 
it is the right thing to do.
  My proposal, which is included in this bill, will promote all across 
this country an approach that has been very successful in Hamilton 
County, Ohio, near Cincinnati; an approach that gives our most 
problematic children the multiple services they need under the overall 
coordination of the court system. These kids should not fall victim to 
bureaucratic turf conflicts. All of these children are our children.
  The purpose of this initiative is to leverage limited Federal, State 
and local agencies and community-based adolescent services to help fill 
the large unmet need for adolescent mental health and substance abuse 
treatment in the juvenile justice system.
  One of the things I learned when I started as a county prosecutor was 
that there is, in fact, many times a turf battle. There is a turf 
battle that occurs between the criminal justice system, in this case 
the juvenile justice system, the judge, his probation officer or her 
probation officer, and the social services agency--children's service 
is what we call it in Ohio--that protects children, or maybe the local 
mental health agency or maybe the local substance abuse agency. We have 
made progress in breaking down these walls, but what our provision in 
this bill does is accelerates that process and that progress.
  If you talk to the judges, if you talk to the substance abuse 
counselors in most counties, they tell you there is a finite number of 
children who they have already identified who are the most problematic, 
who have the most problems, who need the most resources, who, if we do 
not deal with them now at the age of 13 or 14 or 15, are going to grow 
up and graduate into our adult system and are going to pose monumental 
problems for society for the rest of their lives.

[[Page 9054]]

  Bringing the resources of the community together in a coordinated 
fashion to address the needs of these children is the right thing to 
do. We will not save all of them. We know that. But many of them can, 
in fact, be saved, and they can be saved if we care and if we approach 
this issue from an intelligent point of view.
  The juvenile judge is key because the juvenile judge has the ability 
to get the attention of that young person. The juvenile judge has the 
ability to use the carrot and the stick in the sense of simply saying 
to the young person: Fine, if you don't want to go into drug treatment, 
I am going to commit you to the department of youth services for an 
indefinite period of time; I am going to put you, in essence, in 
prison. Or that judge can say to that young person: If you don't stay 
free of drugs for the next 2 years, and we are going to monitor you 
every 2 weeks and we are going to know whether you are on drugs or not 
on drugs --that type of approach where the juvenile court works with 
the substance abuse people, the experts in the field, or works with the 
mental health people. That coordination is absolutely essential when we 
deal with our most problematic children.
  The idea for this, as I indicated, came from Hamilton County, Ohio. 
They have tried this. It works. They have identified 200, 300, 400 of 
the most problematic children. They meet regularly to talk about these 
kids and what they can do to get services to them. There is only so 
much money available. There are only so many services that can be 
provided. What we do with this provision is encourage local communities 
to get together and use that money in the most efficient and most 
effective way. It is the right thing to do. It is the most cost-
effective thing to do.
  In bringing this piece of legislation to the floor--and I 
congratulate Senator Hatch, Senator Leahy, Senator Sessions, Senator 
Biden, and all those who have worked on this bill--we are making an 
important contribution to meeting a major challenge facing our 
communities.
  I have mentioned just two key initiatives that will help our 
communities meet these challenges. Over the last several days, I have 
been working with several of my colleagues, including the Senator from 
Colorado, Mr. Allard; the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions; the 
Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, and others on other initiatives that 
will help these children. These initiatives will be offered in the form 
of amendments over the next few days. These amendments will help, I 
believe, those people who are closest to troubled children--parents and 
teachers in particular.
  I look forward to working on this bill and passing it and seeing it 
signed into law. Will it solve all the problems with juveniles? Of 
course not. Will it prevent all the Littletons that may occur or other 
tragedies that we have seen? No, there is no guarantee of that, but we 
do know, just to take one statistic, that the Littletons are replicated 
every single day in this country, quietly, silently, but tragically, 
because on average 13 children die every day just because of contact 
with guns. Most of them are homicides, a few of them are suicides, and 
some are accidents. That does not include all the other children who 
die violent deaths.
  Our objective in this bill should be to try to reduce the number of 
children who die and who die needlessly. I believe we can do it. I 
believe we can make a difference.
  We should not judge this bill, nor every amendment that is offered, 
by the test of would it have prevented one of the tragedies that is 
foremost in our minds. Some of the amendments would have, I think, but 
we will never know.
  A more rational approach and more logical approach is simply this: 
Will the amendment that is being debated or the provision we are 
talking about or the bill itself save lives? I think the evidence is 
abundantly clear that this bill, as is written right now, will save 
lives. It will make a difference. I think we can improve it in the 
course of the next several days.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, much of the Robb amendment (#325) to S. 254 
is based on S. 976, the Youth Drug and Mental Health Services Act, 
which I introduced this past Thursday, May 6, 1999. Furthermore, the 
Robb amendment does not include S. 976 in its entirety, but rather 
includes portions of S. 976 along with several new provisions which I 
have not yet had a chance to carefully consider in the context of other 
provisions of S. 976. Therefore, I voted to table this amendment. As 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Health which has jurisdiction 
over these Public Health Service programs, my intent is to allow the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions full consideration 
of S. 976.
  I look forward to moving S. 976 through the normal legislative 
channels to ensure that we pass a balanced, commonsense measure to 
provide for greater flexibility in treatment services for children.

                          ____________________