[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9661-9673]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



VIOLENT AND REPEAT JUVENILE OFFENDER ACCOUNTABILITY AND REHABILITATION 
                              ACT OF 1999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Also, under the previous order, the Senate 
will now resume consideration of S. 254, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       A bill (S. 254) to reduce violent juvenile crime, promote 
     accountability and rehabilitation of juvenile criminals, 
     punish and deter violent gang crime, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Hatch/Craig amendment No. 344, to provide for effective gun 
     law enforcement, enhanced penalties, and facilitation of 
     background checks at gun shows.
       Schumer amendment No. 350, to amend title 18, United States 
     Code, to regulate the transfer of firearms over the Internet.


                           Amendment No. 344

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 5 
minutes of debate on the Hatch-Craig amendment No. 344, the time to be 
equally divided in the usual form.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Hatch-Craig amendment is an amendment 
that corrects a number of problems in this particular bill that people 
have complained about that we believe need to be corrected, but we also 
do a number of other things as well. We have more aggressive 
prosecution of violent minors who are going to continue to do violence 
unless we pass the accountability and the prevention efforts in this 
bill. It has enhanced penalties for the use of firearms, something that 
we need. It is probably the only thing that is going to make a real 
difference with regard to firearms. That is important. The amendment 
has increased maximum penalties for the use of firearms, and that is 
important as well. It has expanded protection for children.
  For instance, we have the juvenile Brady bill within the underlying 
bill, but we are passing it again so everybody will know that all of 
this complaining by those who have tried to defeat this bill is just 
political posturing. The fact is we are going to prevent any juvenile 
who has used a gun in the commission of a crime from ever having a gun 
henceforth. That is the juvenile Brady bill.
  Last, but not least, we are expanding the background checks. A couple 
of days ago Senator Craig tried to do a voluntary background check with 
incentives, which was a step forward in resolving this issue. However, 
the Democrats wanted a very bureaucratic, very Government-oriented bill 
to do these background checks. The Hatch-Craig amendment provides for 
mandatory background checks and provides for more background checks 
than the Democratic alternative. We have a more stringent amendment 
than what the Democrats came up with, and we have offered this 
amendment in order to try to resolve the animosities and the problems 
that have existed on this gun show issue.
  Last, but not least, I may get a little uptight with people who try 
to make the whole juvenile justice issue an issue about guns. Guns may 
be a part of it, and there is no question they are, and we are doing 
the things that are right with regard to guns. However, anyone who 
tries to reduce all of these juvenile justice problems in our society 
to guns is not only exaggerating but they are misreading the American 
people. The people realize that juvenile justice encompasses a lot more 
than just gun issues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Unfortunately, much of this has become about guns. As the 
distinguished chairman knows, one of the things in this amendment is a 
section that dismisses pending State and Federal lawsuits, overrides 
all the State legislatures, all the State courts, just dismisses them 
on behalf of gun sellers and manufacturers.
  I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from New York and the 
remaining time to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator from Vermont.
  This proposal is as riddled with loopholes as the previous Craig 
proposal. No. 1, you can buy guns at gun shows without any background 
check through the new provision of special licensees. No. 2, criminals 
can buy guns at pawnshops without any background check--a step 
backward. No. 3, there is still immunity in lawsuits. But most 
importantly, anyone who thinks that we close the gun show loophole with 
this amendment is mistaken, because special licensees neither have to 
make a background check nor file any reports.
  Please do not think that we are closing the gun show loophole with 
this amendment. I urge my colleagues in strong terms to oppose it. We 
should pass the Lautenberg amendment. That

[[Page 9662]]

does close the gun show loophole. You cannot have it both ways. You 
cannot say you are closing it and leave a huge, wide open loophole. 
This is a Swiss cheese amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I oppose the Hatch-Craig loophole 
amendment. I am calling it that deliberately. Unfortunately, this 
amendment goes exactly in the wrong direction. Instead of closing the 
gun show loophole, it creates several new loopholes that will help 
criminals get even more guns.
  We look here on this chart at a licensed dealer: Background check? 
Voluntarily. Special license: They don't even have to ask whether or 
not there is any evidence that this individual shouldn't have any 
permit for a gun.
  The first choice was my amendment to really close the gun show 
loopholes, and that is what the public wants. We see it all the time. 
We heard it all over TV, and last night on a show called ``Extra,'' 
they showed how penetrable the rules are in a gun show where a 15-year-
old and 17-year-old were able to buy guns under the table. I hope they 
will respond here today to the American people, 87 percent of whom said 
close the gun show loopholes. I hope we will do that and have the 
courage to stand up to the NRA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given an 
additional 2 minutes and also if the other side needs an additional 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. For both sides?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, that just plain is not true. The language 
does correct those loopholes he is talking about, but just to guarantee 
it, I send a modification to the desk that certainly clarifies and 
corrects those loopholes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. HATCH. Do we want to get this done or don't we?
  Mr. LEAHY. Let's let the Senate run this and not the gun lobbies run 
this Senate Chamber.
  Mr. HATCH. This is not the gun lobby, this is Senator Hatch sending a 
modification to the desk.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I object.
  Mr. HATCH. You object to doing what is right here?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I object until I have a chance to read it.
  Mr. HATCH. You object to closing the so-called loophole?
  Mr. SCHUMER. The Senator----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. I withdraw it. It is amazing to me----
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We object.
  Mr. LEAHY. No one has seen it.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor at this 
point. Does the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I do not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. There will be 2 minutes on the other side.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Utah be 
given time to read what his modification is, and whatever time that 
takes, this side be given equal time. Does that help the chairman?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Let me tell you, I am so tired of this unnecessary 
argument. I want a juvenile justice bill. I have insisted on making 
these changes so we can get rid of these political arguments made on 
the other side, and I am tired of it.
  What we are trying to do this morning is make it absolutely clear--
even though we think it is clear in the bill as it is--with this 
modification. I hate to say this, but I really believe there is an 
effort by some in this body to never have a juvenile justice bill. I am 
going to do everything in my power to get it.
  Under current law, anyone who engages in the business of selling 
firearms at a gun show must have a license. The loophole of current law 
lets gunsmiths and other individuals go to gun shows as nonlicensed 
individuals to sell guns with no instant check. That is current law. We 
are trying to solve that. Others are trying to exploit this issue, and 
I think very unfairly so.
  As long as the gunsmiths do not sell so many firearms as to be 
engaged in the business of firearms dealing, they are not classified as 
firearms dealers. Thus, they can sell a limited number of firearms at a 
gun show without a license. This is also a loophole in existing law.
  The Craig amendment which the Senate adopted on Wednesday provided 
that the gunsmiths who wanted to engage in the business of selling 
firearms, but just at gun shows, could do so, but have to be licensed 
to do so--a step in the right direction. It was not enough, apparently, 
and so we have been willing to change that.
  The Craig amendment provided for a special license that would last 
for only 3 days. By becoming, in effect, a temporary dealer, the 
gunsmith was subject to all the provisions of the Gun Control Act to 
which dealers are subject, including the recordkeeping requirements, 
the requirement to be subject to inspection by Federal officials, and 
the requirement to perform background checks--a step in the right 
direction.
  While the Craig amendment exempted special registrants who only 
conducted background checks and did not engage in the business of 
selling firearms from the dealer recordkeeping requirements, it 
expressly provided that the special licensee would be subject to the 
recordkeeping requirements of the Gun Control Act.
  The Hatch-Craig amendment, which we are going to vote on in a few 
minutes, which we offered yesterday, simply changed the voluntary 
background check for individual sellers at gun shows to a mandatory 
background check. It did not affect the special licensing requirements. 
Thus, after the Hatch-Craig amendment, an individual who desires to 
obtain a firearm at a gun show must submit to a background check 
whether he purchases the firearm from a regular dealer, a special 
licensee, or another individual.
  It is my desire to ensure that any gun sale that takes place at any 
gun show has a background check. That is what we are doing here, and we 
are doing it because of the complaining on both sides of the aisle, and 
I have insisted on it.
  My colleague, Senator Craig, and I now agree on this. I believe the 
current language clearly, clearly accomplishes this, without this 
modification I have sent to the desk. However, if my colleagues want to 
make the language to the special licensee even more express, that is 
why I expressed a desire to work with them. I am glad to work with 
them. I sent a modification to the desk to make it absolutely 
superabundantly clear. Since we have the same goals here, there is no 
reason to play politics on this issue. Let's get the job done.
  Last but not least, we have asked the Justice Department and others 
to cooperate with us and help to know what they want here. Not one word 
in 2 years, other than political crticism. The President bad-mouthed 
this all day yesterday for political purposes, and I am tired of that 
because I am one of those who is insisting on making these changes. I 
am one of those who wants to accommodate my colleagues on the other 
side. If they have any substantive problems, bring them to us, but 
their amendment certainly does not do as much as ours does. I cannot 
solve every problem here, but this I think we can solve.
  The modification basically says:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, section 
     923 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this Act, 
     shall be applied by amending in subsection (m) the following: 
     In subsection (m), amend paragraph 1 by adding the new 
     subparagraph as follows: Subparagraph (f), except as provided 
     in subparagraph (d) a special licensee shall--

  Not may, shall--

     be subject to all the provisions of this chapter applicable 
     to dealers, including, but not

[[Page 9663]]

     limited to, the performance of an instant background check.

  I do not think that is necessary, but my colleagues do, and I want to 
accommodate my colleagues on the other side. I cannot accommodate----
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what was the unanimous-consent 
agreement?
  Mr. HATCH. Sufficient time to explain this amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. We will get equal time.
  Mr. HATCH. They have equal time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has used 4 minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Right. Our colleagues have been complaining here for 2 
days. We are doing what I think they and others on our side would like 
to have done. And the National Rifle Association has not had a thing to 
do with it. I don't care whether they accept it or don't accept it. 
These things are done by us. Frankly, to try to make them the terrible 
organization that some on the other side try to do bothers me. They 
represent millions of decent, law-abiding, honest sports people.
  I think it is time to start talking about these things in earnest 
with clarity and with decency. I think, more important, this is not all 
about guns. Guns are a part of the juvenile justice bill, but it is not 
all about guns. There are so many other things this bill does that will 
help us in this society to resolve the problems of violent juveniles 
that it is a crying shame we have had to play around with this bill 
over the last number of days like we have. I have tried to move these 
amendments forward and will continue to do so, but there is only so 
much time this bill can be given.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. LEAHY. Let's stay somewhat within the unanimous consent 
agreement.
  Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it true that it has been brought to the attention 
of all that there is a loophole that needs to be closed and this is a 
good-faith effort to do that?
  Mr. HATCH. This is a good-faith effort to accommodate our colleagues 
on the other side who I believe have raised legitimate objections. They 
have tried to make it look like our side is in frantic shape about 
doing it. I just want to get it done.
  Mr. McCAIN. Isn't it also true----
  Mr. LEAHY. Regular order.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 3 minutes to 
question the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. McCAIN. Do you object or not object?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, let the Senator from Arizona----
  Mr. McCAIN. I repeat my unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will not object if, following the earlier 
unanimous consent agreement to accommodate the Senator from Utah----
  Mr. HATCH. He did.
  Mr. LEAHY. At which time the Senator from Arizona was not on the 
floor and does not realize that we have equal time over here.
  Mr. HATCH. He did.
  Mr. McCAIN. I withdraw my unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Let me just end with this. I believe my colleagues are 
sincere on the other side. I know the distinguished ranking member on 
the Judiciary Committee has been working diligently with me to get this 
bill passed. I compliment him and I honor him for that.
  I believe the distinguished Senator from New Jersey is doing his best 
to try to make sure that loopholes are closed. I appreciate that. I 
have tried to accommodate him. I did not like his amendment because I 
thought it was too bureaucratic and too heavyhanded. On the other hand, 
he was sincere in presenting it. If he had not presented it, we 
probably would not be here today trying to accommodate him.
  With regard to my friend from New York, there are very few people in 
this body who understand this issue any better than he does. And I 
respect him.
  But I am serving notice, I am getting tired of the spurious arguments 
that have been made by some against what we are trying to do. And I am 
a little impatient because I think they are trying to artificially 
paint this gun show amendment like a National Rifle Association 
amendment. I can tell you right now, I did not talk to the National 
Rifle Association about this amendment; and I had a lot to do with 
changing the previous voluntary background check to a mandatory 
background check for sales at gun shows. And to his credit, Senator 
Craig has cooperated every step of the way.
  Now, this mandatory gun show check is to accommodate our colleagues. 
This is to solve this gun show problem. We cannot solve every problem 
in this bill, but we are certainly trying to solve as many as we can. 
And this is a very small part of this total juvenile justice bill that 
we need to pass. We will never get it passed unless we get some 
cooperation from both sides of the aisle. I am asking for that.
  We have been debating this juvenile justice bill for 3 days. This is 
a bill that should have been passed in 1 day. Every one of us should 
have been very, very happy to get this bill passed. Most everybody on 
this floor knows that this bill is a very, very well-thought-out bill. 
It is bipartisan, and it is time for us to get it passed. But we have 
to quit playing political games around here. Let's start worrying about 
the young people in this society, the families and our society as a 
whole.
  That is all I need to say about it. I apologize if I have offended 
any of my colleagues on the other side, but I am tired of having 
arguments made that are not constructive when I am trying to meet the 
needs of the very people who have made these arguments.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair at this point will----
  Mr. HATCH. Could I yield----
  Mr. CRAIG. Very briefly, as a cosponsor of the bill, half a minute?
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that he be given a half a minute.
  Mr. LEAHY. And that be added to the time over here.
  Mr. CRAIG. Of course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. The Senator from New York has pointed out consistently 
through the bill where there might be corrections or where in some 
instances there were deletions that were not intended. Last night he 
expressed there was a loophole.
  I pointed out in the law that we had placed this new category 
directly into the law to comply with all of the law which included 
background checks. They were apprehensive. We went back and reviewed it 
and confirmed with many attorneys exactly what we believe to be true.
  But this morning, in good faith, we have offered this. You can accept 
it or reject it at your will. But it is very clear what we intend. I 
think the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has made that intention 
clear: Temporary licensees, for the purpose of convenience and also 
security at gun shows, will do background checks.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will now explain the parliamentary 
situation based on the unanimous consent.
  Based on the previous unanimous consent, the Senator from Utah has 1 
minute 5 seconds; the Senator from Vermont has 12 minutes 53 seconds. 
That is arrived at by the 2 minutes the Senator from Vermont had 
previously from a previous unanimous consent, plus the 10 minutes 53 
seconds the Senator from Utah consumed in explaining his position.
  So to restate, the Senator from Utah has 1 minute 5 seconds; the 
Senator from Vermont has 12 minutes 53 seconds.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I think the modification I have sent to the desk does 
close the loophole in a way that hopefully will please my colleagues on 
the other side. I hope they will grant unanimous consent to do that. If 
they do not grant

[[Page 9664]]

unanimous consent, then I will try to do that by amendment later, which 
we will have to vote on, I suppose.
  But all I am trying to do is to accommodate them. I sometimes wonder 
if unfair political advantage isn't what is being sought here, instead 
of a bill. Everybody ought to be happy to have this additional 
language. The Hatch-Craig amendment closes the gun show background 
check loophole. This additional language makes it even more express 
than the bill makes it express at this time.
  I hope my colleagues will permit the unanimous consent request to 
modify the amendment. To the degree we can work on other problems that 
they are concerned about, we will be happy to try to do that during the 
course of the debate on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, first, I commend the distinguished 
Presiding Officer for his usual fairness, something I have expressed 
before. I say to my good friend from Utah that nobody would ever accuse 
you of being uptight. I don't know where you ever got that idea. The 
Senator from Utah and I have worked very closely on this and will 
continue to do so.
  But on this particular amendment, I do have some grave concerns. When 
it was first brought up, I said on this floor that there were serious 
problems with it, as did the Senator from New York. The proponents 
basically told us we didn't know what we were talking about, and it was 
rammed through on basically a party-line vote.
  The next day they came back and said: Oh, by the way, you were right. 
We're really sorry about that. We want to do it over again.
  Well, in my religion we believe in redemption, and I assume that is 
at least partial redemption. But it shows what can happen if they could 
get away with it. It was going to go through, but it was discovered. 
The objections that the Senators from New York and New Jersey and I 
raised were heard, and so they came back.
  Now, at the eleventh hour, the last minute, they come out with 
another amendment which still does not close loopholes and does nothing 
to stop what I have raised on this floor for several days now; and that 
is the question of doing away with State courts and Federal courts--
basically a court-stripping bill.
  The Senator from Utah is right when he says there should be 
bipartisan concern on juvenile justice. And I believe there is. But if 
he is worried about what is taking a lot of time--when we have all of 
these provisions, and when presented by Democrats they are all voted 
down on a party-line vote, and then the next day they are brought up in 
a Republican amendment and now they are OK--maybe we would do it a 
little bit quicker if we would vote on them irrespective of which side 
brought them up and be able to vote on them only once.
  How much time do I have, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New 
Jersey, and then 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Vermont.
  What we see here--and I apologize if we have exhausted the patience 
of the Senator from Utah, but we have been in this situation before 
where patience runs out. I heard the Senator from Utah, who is one of 
the most concerned people about children and family that I know. But he 
said: This isn't about guns; it is not all guns. I agree. It is about 
life. It is about saving people's lives. But we do not focus on that. 
The argument against the Lautenberg amendment, as originally presented, 
was: It is bureaucratic and we ought to do more law enforcement.
  If we are going to do more law enforcement, I assume that means 
bigger government, I assume that means spending more money for the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms personnel. Unfortunately, what 
we see is this persistent backpedaling, trying to make it up. Aha, the 
public caught us. They caught us with a mistake, with another error 
that protects those who want to avoid having background checks, so we 
had better fix it.
  They worked like the devil to keep people from voting for the 
original Lautenberg amendment, which said: Close all the loopholes in 
the gun shows that permit people to buy guns without background checks.
  I refer, just for 1 more minute, to the poll which says 87 percent of 
the people in the country say that all people who buy guns at the gun 
shows should have background checks.
  Sixty percent of Americans blame the tragedy in Littleton in 
significant measure on the availability of guns. That is what we are 
talking about.
  As mistakes were made in the presentation on the other side, 
nevertheless, before I leave the subject, six Republicans voted on the 
Lautenberg amendment positively, but now we see the errors creep in.
  First, the statement was made that only 2 percent of the guns bought 
at gun shows were bought without background checks. Then there was a 
realization. The distinguished Senator from Idaho said, no, he was 
wrong. It was 40 percent. It is close--2 percent, 40 percent. How many 
guns is that? It is a lot when there are 4,000 gun shows a year.
  Then we had another presentation yesterday that said we are closing 
the loopholes. Well, we have attempted to close one of the loopholes, 
but every time they get caught with an error or a decision not to close 
another loophole, they come back again, because it gets exposed on 
television. It gets exposed in the newspapers.
  Last night, there was a program on ABC called ``Extra,'' and they 
showed a film, a camera secreted in a hidden spot, of a 15-year-old 
girl and a 17-year-old boy buying guns. He said, I am 17; she said, I 
am 15. They were able to buy those guns.
  Why can't we shut it down once and for all?
  I have a letter here. The Senator from Utah said there was no 
response from the administration. It is addressed to Senator Lott. It 
was sent by Secretary Rubin and Attorney General Reno. It says:

       This amendment would seriously impede the effectiveness of 
     the national instant criminal background check system. It 
     would reduce from 3 business days to just 24 hours the period 
     of time that law enforcement has to ensure that firearms sold 
     at gun shows are not being sold to felons and other 
     prohibited persons.

  There is flaw after flaw, and the Senator from Utah said that is why 
we are here; we are fixing them.
  We will never fix it that way. Anyone who knows Senate procedure 
knows that you fix the flaws in the committee or you fix the flaws in a 
private discussion on the floor. You don't suddenly throw up an 
amendment and say, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment. If 
you are caught with your hand in the cookie jar, then, by goodness, 
step back and say, OK, let's find out what we did wrong. Let's find out 
if we can agree on closing all the loopholes.
  This may be an exhausting procedure, but it is more exhausting for 
those people who are threatened by the casual presence of guns all 
over. We don't need to add to that quantity by not requiring background 
checks. We close one loophole, but there are others. There is the 
pawnshop loophole. There is the one that says all records have to be 
destroyed after 24 hours. What kind of a database do we have that we 
can refer to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I hope we will defeat this and have a 
chance to reconsider this proposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 
the balance of the time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair and thank the Senators from Vermont 
and New Jersey for their consideration and leadership on this issue.

[[Page 9665]]

  Let me say, again, even with the new Hatch-Craig amendment, which I 
understand the Senator from Utah has offered in the best of faith, 
there are three and possibly four major problems.
  No. 1, it does not close the pawnshop loophole. Felons will flock to 
pawnshops and get guns. Why are we taking a step backward less than a 
month after Littleton? Why are we telling criminals around the country, 
you can go to a pawnshop, get a gun, no questions asked? How can this 
body vote for that given what just happened in Littleton? What is the 
justification? What is the reason to allow pawn dealers to give guns to 
criminals, no questions asked? There is absolutely none.
  All of America is scratching its head and saying, what is going on in 
this Chamber? Some say it is not the gun lobby. Well, I would like to 
know what it is that is making us do the most irrational, ridiculous 
things that make it easier for criminals to get guns after what we have 
seen happen.
  No. 2, this modification puts a stranglehold on the Brady law. It 
sets a 24-hour time limit for gun show sale background checks, only 24 
hours. Do you know what the FBI says they need? They say they need 3 
days. That is what Federal licensed dealers get. When the FBI says give 
us 3 days, they get it. But not at a gun show. So if they can't find 
the records within 24 hours, the gun will go right to a criminal. What 
kind of loophole is that? Why do we need it? Again, if it is not the 
gun lobby that is pushing us to do this, then who is it?
  Finally--this is not even about the modification that was mentioned--
the bill undermines the law by weakening prohibitions on interstate 
sales. Dealers would now be able to go to gun shows outside their 
States and sell firearms directly to residents of other States, even 
though they may not know the firearms law of that State. Why is that? 
Why are we allowing gun dealers who have been previously limited to 
their own State on the grounds that they know the laws of the State, 
that they know the people of the State, to go across the Nation to sell 
their guns? If it is not the gun lobby, my colleagues, then what is it?
  So even with the modification that the Senator from Utah has so 
graciously offered--and I will get to that in a minute--you have 
pawnshops being able to sell guns to criminals with impunity. You have 
no kinds of checks when the FBI says it might be a criminal, give us 
the time, the 72 hours. And you allow gun dealers to go from one end of 
the country to the other and sell out of the State for the first time.
  Then, finally, on the gun show loophole, if you really wanted to fix 
this, you would pass the bill we had before us 2 days ago, the bill 
that was sponsored by the Senator from New Jersey, cosponsored by me.
  Let me say this: 2 days ago I brought up on the floor to the Senator 
from Idaho that there were mistakes in the bill. The next morning they 
said, yes, there were. They were corrected; some of them, not all. Last 
night, I went quietly over to the Senator from Utah in the hallway and 
said that you have a major loophole in this called ``special 
licensees.'' If I or the Senator from New Jersey or the Senator from 
Vermont were trying to obfuscate, we would have just laid in wait, not 
brought that up to you and not looked at the correction.
  I say this: It is only fair to give us some time to look at the 
language here, because twice what we were told was in the bill was not 
in the bill. I think something is going on here. We are trying to act 
as if we are being tough on gun control but then put so many loopholes 
in the bill that we can say to our friends on the other side, hey, see, 
we really didn't mean it. It is sort of a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
  I am also told, in all fairness, by the Senator from Utah--and I 
don't know, because the language hasn't been analyzed--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, each year half a million guns are stolen 
and thousands of violent crimes are committed with stolen guns. 
Furthermore, approximately half of the juvenile gun related crimes in 
this country involve stolen guns.
  To address this problem, I am pleased the amendment pending before 
the Senate to S. 254, includes provisions to increase the maximum 
prison sentence for existing stolen gun laws. This provision is based 
on S. 728, the Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999, which I 
introduced on March 25, 1999.
  The extent of this problem was recently underscored by several news 
reports and studies. Reports indicate that almost half a million guns 
are stolen each year. Each year, the Federal Bureau of Investigations 
alone receives an average of over 274,000 official reports of stolen 
guns. A large number of stolen guns also go unreported. Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms studies note that convicted felons often 
choose to steal firearms as a way to avoid mandatory background checks.
  In my home State of Colorado, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation 
receives over 500 reports of stolen guns each month. As of this March, 
the Bureau had a total of 36,000 guns on its unrecovered stolen 
firearms list, with about one-third of them being handguns.
  As I mentioned earlier, the stolen gun problem is especially 
widespread and alarming among young people. A Justice Department study 
of juvenile inmates shows that over 50 percent of them had stolen a 
gun.
  Clearly, with half a million guns being stolen each year, those 
criminals and juveniles stealing guns must not be very deterred by the 
current penalties. A provision within the bill before us today would 
address this problem by increasing prison sentences for violating 
current stolen firearms law provisions from a maximum of 10 years to a 
maximum of 15 years imprisonment.
  Specifically, under current federal law, it is illegal to steal a 
firearm from any person including licensed firearm collectors, dealers, 
importers, and manufacturers. It is also illegal to knowingly 
transport, ship, receive, possess, conceal, store, sell, or otherwise 
dispose of a stolen firearm or stolen ammunition. Current sentencing 
guidelines cap the penalty for violating these stolen gun laws at a 
maximum of 10 years imprisonment. My provision calls for increasing the 
maximum prison sentence from 10 years to 15 years, and directs the 
United States Sentencing Commission to revise the Federal sentencing 
guidelines with respect to these firearms offenses.
  While I am a strong supporter of the rights of law abiding gun 
owners, I also firmly believe we need tougher penalties for criminals 
who steal guns or use stolen guns to commit crimes. This stolen gun 
penalty enhancement provision will send a clear signal to criminals 
that stealing or using stolen guns is something we take very seriously.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this provision.
  Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let us see if I can bring some order to 
this. We did say last night we were going to try to come up with 
language that would address Senators' concerns.
  I hesitate to say this, but the distinguished Senator from New York 
had the language before I did. It was only a matter of minutes, but he 
did. It is only a one-paragraph thing. But rather than continue the 
heated debate, I will ask my colleague, the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont, if he will work with me. Let us see if we can work out this 
language so that we can solve this, so that your side is happy with it. 
I am personally happy with the Hatch-Craig amendment. But to the extent 
we can do that, we will do that.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Utah and I have had a 
chance to discuss this during the debate. I think this is the wise way, 
to go ahead and vote on the amendment before us without the 
modification. The Senator from Utah and I will work during the morning. 
We are stuck here like everybody else this weekend so let us work on 
this. It has come in at such a late time and this is such a technical 
issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

[[Page 9666]]


  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Utah.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), the 
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from New York (Mr. 
Moynihan) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is 
attending a funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) 
would each vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 118 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Breaux
     Dodd
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Moynihan
  The amendment (No. 344) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                          EXPLANATION OF VOTE

 Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was absent from the Senate today 
in order to be a pallbearer at a funeral in Tahlequah, Okla. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no'' on the Hatch-Craig amendment. This 
position is consistent with my vote to table the same amendment on May 
13. The tabling motion failed 3-97, thus leading to the today. I 
believe my presence would not have changed the outcome since determined 
efforts were being made to switch just enough votes to assure the 
amendment's passage.


                           Amendment No. 350

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 5 
minutes debate on the Schumer amendment, to be equally divided in the 
usual form. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will Senators please clear the aisle and take 
their conversations off the floor.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment is a very simple one. It 
requires Internet web sites which offer at least 10 guns for sale to be 
federally licensed firearm dealers--no more, no less. It closes the 
loophole which has allowed unlicensed, and only unlicensed, gun brokers 
to set up web sites offering thousands of guns for sale.
  Right now, if you punch into the web you will see legitimate gun 
dealers who will continue just as they have been, and you will see lots 
of unlicensed gun dealers.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. The Senator 
from New York deserves to be heard on this issue, as will I.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Again, this bill has no effect on chat rooms, on 
newspaper want ads, or on licensed dealers in any way. It does not 
restrict advertising or the sale of guns on the Internet. It is a very 
simple and modest measure which says that unlicensed dealers cannot--
cannot--sell guns on the Internet. If they wish to become a dealer, 
which is relatively easy, then they will be able to.
  The entire nature of the black market in guns will make a quantum 
leap if we do not deal with this problem. The Internet has already 
become for some, and will become for many, the method of choice by 
which children, criminals, and the mentally incompetent get guns. 
Presently the unlicensed dealers sell their guns completely on the 
honor system. Let me quote one, GunSource.com:

       Because user authentication on the Internet is difficult, 
     we cannot confirm that each user is who they claim to be.

  That is how a 17-year-old Alabama boy got a semiautomatic last month.
  The Weapons Rack:

       It is the sole responsibility of the seller and buyer to 
     conform to regulations.

  My colleague from Idaho said last night there are laws on the books. 
You can't enforce them on the Internet unless you have a dealer, 
because if somebody says on the Internet that he is 22 and gets a gun 
mailed to him and he is really 14, the post office is not going to open 
every piece of mail that might have a gun. We wouldn't want them to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to finish my 
point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Just this morning we did not close the gun show 
loophole. Maybe we will, but we have not. Let us not say the same about 
the Internet loophole. We can easily close it by simply requiring 
everyone who sells to be a licensed dealer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, Senators who just voted for the immediate 
past amendment have voted to clarify and limit advertising on the 
Internet, both for guns and explosive materials. Remember, the Internet 
is an advertising medium. Guns do not materialize through the screen of 
the computer if you order them. In fact, if you order a gun on the 
Internet, here is what American Guns says:

       Please note, a buyer must first call the seller of the gun, 
     confirm the price available, arrange for a Federal-firearms-
     licensed dealer in your State to receive shipment. Your FFL 
     dealer must send a copy of their license to the seller.

  The Senator from New York mentioned the 17-year-old Alabama boy. If 
that happened--and I am not saying it did not happen; he has the news 
story--three laws were broken. Three laws were broken. The teenager 
attempting to buy the gun broke a law. The person who trafficked the 
gun, transported it, broke a law--you cannot transport a gun through 
the mail service, through a common carrier. There has to be contact in 
these relationships or laws are broken.
  I must also tell you, although I am not a constitutional attorney, he 
walks all over commercial speech. This is advertising. We have 
corrected those kinds of things in our bill to make sure we keep the 
Internet clean, but we went one step further, we went after the 
explosive materials and the kinds of devices that were used in 
Littleton. I think all of us want that corrected. That is what you 
voted for. Let's not trample on the marketing that goes on, advertising 
on the Internet. Let's keep this bill and the Internet clean and 
protect those kinds of rights.

[[Page 9667]]

  I yield my time.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, is all time yielded back?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty seconds remain.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I do hope this amendment will be tabled. I 
intend to move to table it. I know my colleague is very sincere about 
it, but I am concerned about decent, law-abiding people and having 
these onerous burdens placed upon them.
  Mr. President, I move to table. I 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 question is agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 350.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), 
the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Mack) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from New York 
(Mr. Moynihan) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is 
absent attending a funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) 
would each vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 119 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bennett
     Breaux
     Dodd
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Mack
     Moynihan
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                          EXPLANATION OF VOTE

 Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was absent from the Senate today 
in order to be a pallbearer at a funeral in Tahlequah, Okla. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yes'' on the vote to table the Schumer 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The distinguished majority 
leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators--and I 
see there are a few still interested in what the schedule may be; a few 
have decided they will worry about it next week--I will propound a 
unanimous consent agreement now that would allow for a list of 
amendments to be locked in and passage time of this vital piece of 
legislation.
  I know that Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy, Senator Biden, and 
Senator Sessions have spent a lot of time trying to craft this 
legislation, and there are some good features in here. I am sure there 
are a lot of Senators who have agreed or disagreed with certain parts 
of it, but there are a lot of good things that have been included. If 
this agreement can be entered into, then this vote that would be coming 
up would be the last vote until Tuesday morning. If the agreement 
cannot be reached, then we have no other alternative but to keep going 
forward today and have votes to try to dispense with this legislation.
  I think it is important that we get the list locked in and find a way 
to bring it to a reasonable conclusion, with Senators being able to 
offer amendments and have debate during the day today and on Monday, 
and then we would have votes on Tuesday and Tuesday night.
  It is very hard for the leadership to try to honor all Senators' 
requests. First of all, all Senators knew that we would be having votes 
today, and yet a lot of them have complained about it and have now 
left. It is very hard to get amendments accommodated and voted on when 
Senators say: I do not want to vote Thursday night. Or when we have 
Senators that say: I have to be gone Friday. Or when we have Senators 
say: I have amendments I want to offer, but I don't want to do it 
Thursday night, Monday or Friday. I want to do it Tuesday afternoon 
when it is convenient for me, even though it may inconvenience 99 other 
Senators.
  I am asking Senators, please, be reasonable. I know on both sides 
there has been an effort to narrow down the list and get a way that we 
could have votes on key amendments and bring it to a conclusion. But it 
is very hard when you have that kind of attitude with Senators saying: 
I don't want to do it on Thursday night or I don't want to do it on 
Friday or I don't want to do it on Monday. I would like to do it at my 
pleasure, Wednesday afternoon.
  I hope we can at least lock in amendments where they won't continue 
to grow. We have had a lot of good debate and a lot of good amendments.
  I now ask consent the following amendments be the only remaining 
first-degree amendments in order, with relevant second-degree 
amendments in order only after a vote on or in relation to the 
amendment and the amendments limited to time agreements where noted, 
all to be equally divided in the usual form.
  I further ask that all first-degree amendments be offered and debated 
on Friday and Monday's session of the Senate, with votes stacked to 
occur in the order offered beginning at 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday, with 5 
minutes for debate equally divided prior to each vote.
  I further ask that following the disposition of the listed first-
degree amendments, the bill be advanced to third reading and passage to 
occur, all without any intervening action or debate.
  I do have a list of amendments and I need to, I believe, read and 
submit them. I will just send it to the desk.
  I believe Senators Reid and Daschle have a list of amendments on 
their side they would like--are you going to submit those to the desk 
now?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if the majority leader has propounded a 
unanimous consent request, reserving the right to object, let me just 
respond first by sympathizing with his lament about scheduling votes. 
It is extraordinarily difficult, and both of us are confronted daily 
with requests for certain prerequisites with regard to votes that make 
it increasingly difficult for us to schedule legislative debate. There 
are people who are objecting to votes now even on Friday mornings. I 
remember Senator Mitchell once lamenting to me personally that the only 
time he could absolutely schedule a vote without any criticism was 
Wednesday afternoon. I think there is a lot of truth to that. Now I 
know fully what he meant. And that is before 7:00.
  We have been on this bill for 3 days. We have had 15 amendments 
offered, and there have been good debates. There have been time limits 
associated, as I understand it, with each one of the amendments. There 
have been 14 rollcall votes. Our side alone began with a list of 89 
amendments, and I do not in any way diminish the importance of any one 
of those amendments.

[[Page 9668]]

I think that they are all worthy amendments. Not one of them was 
dilatory, not one of them was irrelevant to this bill. The problem, 
however, is that with the extraordinary work of Senator Reid and 
Senator Dorgan, we have now been able to persuade our colleagues to 
reduce that list. Many of them have waited patiently with the 
expectation that if they waited patiently, they would get their turn. 
In many cases, they have waited now 3 or 4 days to be able to offer 
their amendment.
  Now what we are telling them is that we want you to offer them today 
or Monday, even though we have spent 3 days and we have only been able 
to get through 15 amendments. We have been able to get our list down to 
around 30 amendments, as I understand it. So it would be very 
difficult, without further cooperation on both sides, to accommodate 
the unanimous consent request that the majority leader has 
understandably propounded.
  So we will have to object to his request. We would be more than 
willing to enter into an agreement that would require a complete 
listing of all the amendments to be offered with time limits. We will 
offer amendments today and Monday, filling the day today, and then on 
Monday, in an effort to move this legislation along, and then stack 
votes on Tuesday, as the majority leader has requested.
  What we can't agree to, given where we are right now, is any time 
certain for final passage--recognizing the majority leader's desire to 
work through a number of other bills yet next week. At least right now, 
that is not something that we can agree to. I hope, at the very least, 
as the majority leader suggested, we can submit the list, work on that 
list, and we can even tighten up the time limits. I think that is all 
doable.
  So I have to object to the request as it was propounded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will have another suggestion on what we 
might be able to do in a moment. I want to remind Senators that next 
week we have the Y2K liability issue that we need to have concluded. 
The House has voted on that. The clock is running. This is not an issue 
we can leave unclarified any longer, because we are fast approaching 
the time when this liability question has to be known and dealt with in 
one way or the other because we are fast approaching the turn of the 
clock into the next millennium. We also have, after a lot of 
difficulty, the supplemental appropriations bill, which we have waiting 
in the wings. We need to bring that up. We also have the bankruptcy 
bill that is scheduled for next week--a bill that has overwhelming 
bipartisan support on both sides. That bill is beginning now to be 
squeezed out of the picture because of other bills.
  I want to complete this bill. Two years of effort has been put into 
juvenile justice, and we need to have some decision made in that area. 
We have had amendments, and more will be offered, on violence in the 
schools and how we deal with it, and violence in the movies, and the 
gun issue. So we need to try to find a way to conclude it.
  I will then propound another UC, the same as the earlier one, with 
votes occurring on Tuesday morning, stacked. Those amendments that had 
been debated on Friday and Monday, beginning at 9:45, with 5 minutes of 
debate; and instead of asking that following disposition of the listed 
first-degree amendments the bill be advanced to third reading and 
passage occur all without any intervening action or debate, I will 
modify that to say we will go to third reading and final passage at 5 
o'clock on Tuesday. That way, we would have the debate on amendments 
the rest of today, on Monday, votes on Tuesday morning, more amendments 
and debate with time limits, and final passage to occur no later than 5 
o'clock on Tuesday afternoon.
  Then we would be prepared to have a vote on the Y2K liability issue 
and go to the supplemental on Thursday, hopefully completing it. 
Although the supplemental can't be completed probably in just a couple 
of hours; it will take a little longer. Then we would go to bankruptcy 
after that. I will make that request. The Senator suggested that we go 
ahead and use the bulk of Tuesday. I think that is fair, and I hope we 
can get this agreed to.
  Remember, I made a commitment to call up this bill so we could have 
this debate, and I made a commitment to bring it up on last Tuesday, I 
guess. Actually, we started on Monday. We agreed we would work to try 
to complete it on Thursday. That effort has been made by Senator 
Daschle, along with Senator Reid, and I appreciate that. We haven't 
been able to achieve that. So we will have other amendments and debate 
on Friday, Monday, votes on Tuesday morning, more debate, amendments 
and votes Tuesday afternoon, but finish it up Tuesday. That will have 
been a full week. That will have been 7 days we will have spent on it. 
I believe that we will have been able to craft, hopefully, a good bill, 
and we have all been able to make our case and get to a conclusion. I 
make that request.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first of 
all, I failed to mention my admiration for our two managers and the 
excellent job they have done in getting us to this point. This has not 
been easy. They have worked diligently on both sides to bring us to 
this point. I want to reiterate my gratitude for the effort they have 
made to get us here.
  In the 103rd Congress, we spent 11 days on a bill of this kind. It 
was a very important piece of legislation--I guess it was 12 days. So 
it is difficult to bring up a bill of this complexity and controversy 
without having the opportunity to spend some time on it. As the 
majority leader noted, he has brought this up, as he promised he would, 
open to amendment. I have indicated that if we were to do that, I would 
work as hard as I could to ensure that we stayed on the bill and worked 
diligently to ensure that it is completed in a reasonable time. My hope 
was that we could do it this week. I think we will get it done in a 
reasonable time early next week.
  I am unable to agree to that time limit just because, again, we don't 
know what the circumstances will be Tuesday. But I will promise this: 
We will continue to make the effort we have made over the last few 
hours to lock in time limits on all of the amendments and to make sure 
there is no quorum call, or any other intervening time that would be 
dilatory. We want to back these up, one after the other. So we will 
agree to a list and time limits, but I will have to object to a time 
certain for final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened carefully to the minority 
leader, and I appreciate his usual courtesy. But just stop and think 
about this. There has been all this time on this bill. If we were to 
vote on it today, it would pass overwhelmingly. It would make a 
tremendous amount of difference to this country at a time when that 
tremendous amount of difference needs to be made.
  We all know how this game works around here. If we don't put a 
finality to it--and our leader has tried to do that--in this very tight 
time-constrained situation, with Y2K and all the other bills that have 
to come up, defense bills, the supplemental appropriations bills, and 
other types of appropriations bills, we will wind up spending another 4 
or 5 days, or maybe even 2 weeks, on this bill. I know the majority 
leader does not have that much time and neither do we on this side.
  If we wind up without a juvenile justice bill this year after we have 
come this far, I think it would be catastrophic for this Nation. The 
next time we have another situation like the Columbine massacre, I 
wonder what kind of excuse we are going to use at that time if we 
didn't do the very best we could.
  I hope my colleagues on the other side will think this through. We 
are seeing a situation that could bring this bill down because we don't 
have the time to play politics with it. To have

[[Page 9669]]

everybody bring up their amendments--we could go on for years with 
amendments on juvenile justice. We have done that for 2 years now. I 
know the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee has 
worked closely with me to get this to a conclusion.
  I think this is a pretty fair offer. I understand the minority leader 
may not be able to get his people together on this at this particular 
time. But let me tell you, I can't blame our majority leader if he has 
to pull this down and get the other bills done under these 
circumstances. I am very concerned.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in view of the objection, I will get the 
amendments locked in.
  I ask unanimous consent, then, that the following amendments be the 
only first-degree amendments in order, with relevant second-degree 
amendments in order, only after a vote on or in relation to the 
amendment and the amendments limited to time agreements, where noted, 
all to be equally divided in the usual form.
  I have sent to the desk my list of amendments.
  The list is as follows:

                      Juvenile Justice Amendments

       B. Smith--relevant.
       B. Smith--relevant.
       B. Smith--judges/felons
       B. Smith--gun lawsuits
       Stevens--parenting; 20 minutes.
       Stevens--brain dev.
       Stevens--relevant.
       Helms--relevant.
       Helms--relevant.
       Ashcroft--IDEA
       Chafee--trigger lock.
       Chafee--prevention.
       Chafee--site and sound separation.
       Chafee--title 1 of the bill.
       Specter--prevention.
       Bond--film industry.
       Hatch/Feinstein--gangs.
       Frist--victims rights
       Santorum--Aimee's law; 20 minutes.
       Craig--Fed Grants, gun safety.
       Craig--self defense prevention.
       B. Smith--2nd amdment right protection act.
       McConnell--fed prop/violent movies; 30 minutes.
       Ashcroft--try juvenile as adults; 20 mintues.
       Inhofe--prohibit violent video games.
       Gregg--ID for NC 17 movies.
       Gregg--faith based intervention.
       McCain/Lieberman--National YV Comm.
       Abraham--locker searches; 20 minutes.
       Sessions--disclaimer.
       Allard--memorials school property; 30 minutes.
       Lott--4 relevant.
       Hatch--2 relevant.
       Gramm--relevant.
       Gramm--Family law.
       Sessions--Hotline.
                                  ____

       Akaka--gun registry.
       Biden--Cops.
       Bingaman--School security.
       Boxer--After school programs.
       Boxer--No guns until 18 years old.
       Byrd--Sale of alcohol to minors.
       Byrd--Relevant.
       Daschle--Relevant.
       Daschle--Relevant.
       Daschle--Relevant.
       Dodd--Truancy.
       Dodd--Conflict resolution.
       Dorgan--Son of Sam laws.
       Durbin--Child access prevention.
       Durbin--Waiting period.
       Feinstein--Gun industry package.
       Feinstein--Separation (w/Chafee).
       Feinstein--Gangs (combined w/4 and 5 as 1 amdt)
       Feinstein--body armor.
       Feinstein--Bomb-making.
       Harkin--School counseling.
       Harkin--IDEA.
       Kennedy--Labor.
       Kerrey (NE)--Gun shows.
       Kerrey (NE)--State advisory committees.
       Kerry (MA)--Early childhood development demo project.
       Kohl--Child safety locks.
       Kohl--Prevention block grants.
       Lautenberg--Juvenile mentoring program.
       Lautenberg--Gun shows.
       Leahy--Relevant--Managers amendment.
       Leahy--Relevant.
       Leahy--Relevant.
       Leahy--Relevant.
       Leahy--Relevant.
       Levin--Semi automatic.
       Lieberman--National youth violence commission.
       Moynihan--black powder.
       Moynihan--Explosives.
       Reid--Relevant.
       Schumer--Prohibition sales handguns, semiauto/large 
     capacity.
       Torricelli--Gun kingpin penalty act.
       Torricelli--Explosives.
       Wellstone--Mental health treatment.
       Wellstone--Mental health treatment.
       Wellstone--Access to legal representation.
       Wellstone--Disproportionate minority requirement.
       Wellstone--Welfare tracking.
       Wellstone--Integration mental health into ESEA programs.
       Wellstone--SEED money states for mental health providers 
     school.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, do we have Senator Daschle's list of 
amendments?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Yes. We submitted it.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object, is there a list of 
amendments?
  Mr. LOTT. Yes. Senator Ashcroft's amendment is on the list.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I have no objection.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure I 
know what is on the list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request by the 
majority leader?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Thank you, very much, Mr. President. At least we have 
locked in the amendments where they will not continue to multiply. But 
I don't view this as a positive development. It is unfortunate. If 
Senators are waiting to see if there are any now, there will not be any 
further rollcall votes today. The next rollcall vote will occur 
probably at 9:30 Tuesday morning. But we will need to make sure, and we 
will make the Democratic leader aware of the exact time and the vote. I 
presume that vote will be on Y2K.
  I yield to Senator Leahy.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I think the distinguished majority leader 
is saying it is not a positive development. Of course it is. We have 
cut back very substantially on the number of amendments. On this side, 
we cut out two-thirds of our amendments. We have worked very closely. I 
have not had a single Senator on the Democratic side who failed to 
agree to a time agreement every time the distinguished majority 
managing Senator wanted it. They have agreed, in fact, to each and 
every single one. In fact, we have had Senators who brought up 
amendments who took less time to debate the amendments than some of the 
rollcalls have taken while we have waited to see who had to leave.
  Mr. LOTT. If I could respond, just to show you what I am talking 
about, at least this stops them from multiplying. But this is a 
pathetic accomplishment. There are 100 Senators, and we have about 75 
amendments left. Please, let's get serious. Every Senator doesn't have 
to offer an amendment. We can make our case about what we think is 
positive juvenile justice and what is causing the violence in our 
country and the violence in our schools. I think it is a societal and a 
cultural problem. I don't think it is as a result of guns in this 
country. It is why these things are happening, not what and who.
  This is very minimal. It is a very, very disappointing 
accomplishment. We will have to evaluate now how to proceed.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator could respond on that, he 
said there are 100 Senators, and they don't all have to put them in.
  In 1994 we had the crime bill. It was on the floor for 12 days--over 
3 weeks. There were 99 amendments. Maybe there was one Senator who did 
not have one. I mention that only because of what the Senator from 
Mississippi said. But there were 99 amendments, a great bulk of them 
coming from the other side. And in no way did the then Democrat 
majority seek to cut them down. It took 12 days--over 3 weeks. The 
predecessor to this is S. 10. The Judiciary Committee, under the 
distinguished leadership of the Senator from Utah, met in the 
summertime for over 6 weeks to work on 55 amendments.
  Mr. LOTT. If I might respond.
  Mr. LEAHY. We can clip through these things.
  Mr. LOTT. If we have to spend a month on a bill, or 6 weeks on a 
bill, how many bills are we going to be able to take up that are 
important to our country? The defense authorization bill is one that we 
have to take up next week. It is extraordinarily important, because 
here we are with our troops engaged in combat at this very moment. We 
have to get that work done.
  It is a very interesting crossfire you get into when we are saying, 
wait a

[[Page 9670]]

minute, we have to have 99 amendments, we have to have 6 weeks, or 11 
days, on this piece of legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am not suggesting that.
  Mr. LOTT. Then the argument is, why aren't we doing more bills? You 
can't have it both ways.
  Give it a reasonable time, give it full debate, have reasonable 
amendments, and then vote.
  I, frankly, feel used and put upon. I thought we were going to have a 
good debate, have amendments, and complete this by Thursday night. I 
understood there was good effort being made. We said, OK, we will be in 
on Friday, debate all day on Friday, and debate all day on Monday, with 
votes Tuesday, and all day Tuesday. There has to be an end to this. 
There has to be some reasonableness.
  But look, we made our point, and now that we have the amendments 
locked in, hopefully the managers and others can find a way to figure 
out how to end this. When they do, give me a call.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I just want to say to the majority leader how much I 
appreciate his leadership, and that of Senator Hatch. One reason we 
ought not to have so many amendments is that Senator Hatch, in managing 
this bill, has worked to accomplish and accommodate as many amendments 
as there could possibly be. I am just concerned that we don't have a 
final time agreement. I think that reflects and suggests there are some 
in this body who do not want a bill passed. I think it would not be 
helpful. We need to pass this legislation. And we have accommodated 
greatly those who have differing views. I think it is a good bill, and 
it will be a tragedy if we do not complete it. I know you have to have 
at some point a time limit or we cannot continue with it. I hope the 
Members of the other party will agree to a time limit.
  Thank you.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. LOTT. Yes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, as the majority leader 
knows, there are some of us who have waited patiently. We have 
amendments that are right on point with this legislation. We are 
concerned about things like disproportionate minority confinement, some 
of the sort of sentencing that has to do with race, some of what is 
very weak in this bill in addressing that. My colleague from Alabama 
says it would be a tragedy if this bill didn't pass. Some of us think 
it would be a tragedy--let me finish if I could.
  Mr. LOTT. I want to make it clear that I didn't yield the floor but I 
would be glad to yield to the Senator for his comments.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you.
  Some of us think it would be a tragedy if this bill passed in its 
present form without an opportunity to try to make this a much better 
bill. I gave one example. I can talk about the amendments that deal 
with juvenile justice and mental health. There has been very little 
focus on that. I think there has to be a full-scale debate and 
discussion about what it means when so many kids of color are 
disproportionately incarcerated. What does that mean in America? And 
what kind of legislation is this that does not allow States to do the 
kind of investigation they need to do, or that really doesn't give the 
States the encouragement to do that kind of investigation so we can 
understand it better?
  There are a lot of key issues here that are directly relevant to this 
piece of legislation. Nobody is talking about 6 weeks. Nobody is 
talking about 1 month. But in all due respect, you brought the bill 
out. It is called the juvenile justice legislation.
  I would like to have an opportunity to vote on this on the justice 
part. There are a lot of serious human rights abuses in some of these 
facilities. I have visited some of these facilities in this country, 
some of which are snake pits. I would like to make sure that these 
kids, even if incarcerated, are treated in such a way that it is 
correctional.
  Don't tell me that the kinds of amendments I have in mind aren't on 
point. I think we would be willing to move forward on this legislation. 
I want the majority leader to know that it is not a question of 6 
weeks, it is just a question of some of us refusing to essentially be 
squeezed and jammed, to be told: All right, now we don't focus on a lot 
of the substance of this legislation.
  We have amendments. We are ready to debate these amendments. I will 
bet that if we even went another day, Tuesday, and we could offer 
amendments Tuesday as well when people are here and then we finish as 
soon as possible, that we would move forward--if I could just finish.
  Mr. LOTT. Just one point.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If I could finish my statement; I have been patiently 
waiting here.
  Let me just be crystal clear that when I hear colleagues from Utah 
and Alabama, both of my friends, say it is a great piece of 
legislation, it would be a tragedy if it didn't pass right now, that 
they have presupposed what is in doubt about a good piece of 
legislation. Aren't there places where it could be corrected? Aren't 
there things we could do better?
  I give one example: the amendment I introduced with Senator Kennedy 
which deals with the whole problem of disproportionate minority 
confinement. We need time to do that.
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator would, perhaps I could go ahead and do my 
work, and he could continue after that.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I said what I needed to say.
  Mr. LOTT. The Senator from Minnesota suggested that if they could 
offer amendments on Tuesday and get votes, that would be positive and 
we could complete this bill. As a matter of fact, that is what I 
suggested and it was objected to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. What I thought I heard was no debate, and that all 
debate would be over.
  Mr. LOTT. No. What I suggested was we have Senators--I realize it is 
hard for Senators to work on Fridays and Mondays. It is a real 
inconvenience. But what I suggested was the amendments be offered on 
Monday, on Friday, and debated, that amendments be offered all day 
Monday--the Senator could surely get his amendment offered on Monday, 
and I think it is one that ought to be offered and debated--have the 
debate, and then on Tuesday we would vote on all those amendments that 
had been offered up to that point, and have votes. Then we would go on 
to other amendments with time limits agreed to during Tuesday 
afternoon, and then have those voted on, and final passage by Tuesday 
afternoon.
  That was objected to.
  The problem is, Senators don't want to offer their amendments on 
Mondays or Fridays or Tuesday afternoons. It really makes me question 
whether they are serious about getting to a conclusion.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If I could respond to the majority leader, I have 
amendments that are on point. I am more than ready, willing and able to 
debate these amendments, but I believe what Senator Daschle was saying, 
and this was the point I was trying to make, in all due respect, the 
substance of this legislation, the juvenile justice legislation, you 
can't artificially say by the end of Tuesday that is it; surely, 
Senators don't have anymore amendments that deal with this topic; 
surely, we don't have anymore time to spend on this.
  We are talking about kids. We are talking about how to prevent kids 
from getting into trouble. We are talking about the best kind of 
corrections for kids that get into trouble. We are talking about a lot 
of issues here.
  I think Senator Daschle was saying you just can't simply say if it is 
not done by Tuesday, it is all over, period.

[[Page 9671]]




                           Amendment No. 351

 (Purpose: To allow the erecting of an appropriate and constitutional 
permanent memorial on the campus of any public school to honor students 
    and teachers who have been murdered at the school and to allow 
 students, faculty and administrative staff of a public school to hold 
 an appropriate and constitutional memorial service on their campus to 
  honor students and teachers who have been murdered at their school)

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, No. 351. I 
am pleased to join Senator Allard from Colorado in offering this 
amendment.
  It would allow the erecting of an appropriate and constitutional 
permanent memorial on the campus of any public school to honor students 
and teachers who have been murdered at the school and allow students, 
faculty, and administrative staff of the public school to hold an 
appropriate service on their campus to honor these students and 
teachers.
  I am horrified to find, and I think the American people would be 
horrified to find, that there are those in this country who object to 
having appropriate memorial services on the school campuses for 
teachers and students who are murdered. This should clearly be included 
in this legislation.
  I am pleased to join Senator Allard in that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott), for Mr. Allard, 
     for himself and Mr. Lott, proposes an amendment numbered 351.

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

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.   . CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MEMORIAL SERVICES AND MEMORIALS 
                   AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress of the United States finds that 
     the saying of a prayer, the reading of a scripture, or the 
     performance of religious music as part of a memorial service 
     that is held on the campus of a public school in order to 
     honor the memory of any person slain on that campus does not 
     violate the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, and that the design and construction of any memorial 
     that is placed on the campus of a public school in order to 
     honor the memory of any person slain on that campus a part of 
     which includes religious symbols, motifs, or sayings does not 
     violate the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States.
       (b) Lawsuits.--In any lawsuit claiming that the type of 
     memorial or memorial service described in subsection (a) 
     violates the Constitution of the United States--
       (1) each party shall pay its own attorney's fees and costs, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, and
       (2) the Attorney General of the United States is authorized 
     to provide legal assistance to the school district or other 
     governmental entity that is defending the legality of such 
     memorial service.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the majority leader 
for giving me an opportunity to participate more fully in this 
legislative process and for his profound concern for the people of 
Colorado. The majority leader has been especially sensitive to this 
tragedy as it affected the students, parents, teachers, administrators 
and the support staff at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. I 
appreciate his willingness, along with the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, to work with me on possible solutions in the youth violence 
bill. There will be proposals to try and prevent future tragedies of 
this nature in our Nation's schools. There will be those who will try 
and take advantage of this tragedy for their own personal gain. Sadly, 
in some cases, some people have already sought to gain from this 
horror.
  There will be those who will want to completely ignore the problem 
believing that it will go away on its own. There will be those who 
share the views of many editorial writers in Colorado that this is a 
very complicated issue and that no simple solutions are going to be 
forth coming. These writers echo my views that only a comprehensive 
examination of all the contributing factors will yield smart, effective 
policy.
  The natural reaction is to seek simple solutions by laying blame. Was 
it inadequate laws? Inadequate enforcement? Do we blame parents, 
teachers, students themselves, administrators, politicians, 
organizations, the entertainment industry, churches, or the whole of 
society? Do we blame the Constitution of the United States?
  We need to put all this finger pointing aside and realize that we 
didn't come to this point overnight, that no one-thing is culpable, and 
that finding sensible solutions will take some time. Now is the time to 
concentrate and focus on what can be done about the emerging violence 
we are seeing in our schools. This is the time for us to look for 
responsible solutions. Now is the time to try and come up with common 
sense solutions that will make schools more safe.
  The Constitution of the United States is one of civilization's 
greatest documents. It has served magnificently as the basic governor 
of this nation, the world's greatest nation, as it has developed and 
thrived for over 200 years. The Constitution continues to serve us well 
and will serve us well as we go through dramatic change in the future.
  It is the bedrock and the foundation that moves us through national 
crises while preserving individual freedom. It empowers and checks the 
government in thoughtful, humble, and timeless language. I would like 
to take this opportunity to briefly examine the Bill of Rights in the 
context of today's world and in light of the recent shootings in our 
schools.
  During the most recent violent school crisis in Colorado and 
previously in Oregon, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi, we are 
suffered the sense of loss, pain, anger, and frustration from each 
event. We collectively witnessed the anguish of students, teachers, 
parents, administrators, and law enforcement through an intense and at 
time intrusive news media invasion. The wide and dramatic coverage of 
these events often inspires copycat crimes. But we do not throw out the 
first amendment.
  We have seen what happens in societies where there is no freedom of 
the press. We have witnessed the danger of censorship and government 
control of the media most recently in Iraq and Yugoslavia; ruthless 
dictators shut off the free flow of information to strengthen their 
grip on people who don't enjoy the benefits of a free press! Yes, some 
who report the news can be insensitive, irritating and down-right rude, 
but the alternative is far worse. Most news reporting is responsible.
  It seems as though we re flooded in today's world with acts of 
violence from guns, knives, and bombs. Anger wells-up inside us as we 
read and witness such senseless acts of violence, especially in our 
schools which are supposed to be safe havens for learning. There are 
many responsible, law-abiding Americans who own and use firearms today.
  We have witnessed many cases where ruthless dictators have moved 
early in their reign to disarm their soon-to-be victims. Yes, of the 
270 million people in this country there are a few who are a menace to 
society with the guns that they own, but we cannot forget the many 
responsible gun owners in the United States. Guns have sporting uses, 
but they also save lives. Let us not forget that guns have been used to 
protect people, and they will continue to do so in the future.
  The third amendment to the Constitution talks about the excesses of 
the military in terms of the home. It recognizes the right of the 
citizen to have his own home and to have it as his sanctuary free from 
any soldier claiming a greater right than the citizen. In times of 
civil crisis we occasionally see the military used to ensure safety.
  Most soldiers are dedicated and trustworthy servants of this country 
and it is only on the rare occasion that one is not. Throughout these 
crises in our schools we have seen a highly charged and emotional 
police force move to secure the area and conduct an investigation. 
People are calling for quick action, looking for people to blame, and 
being critical of every move. The fourth amendment protects

[[Page 9672]]

students, teachers, administrators, and parents from unfounded 
accusations and unwarranted seizures. It protects them from the crafty 
criminal who may want to shift the focus and action to an innocent 
party. One does not have to look far to see that people in parts of 
Central America, Iraq, and Yugoslavia do not have this right. During 
these times of crisis in our schools, people in and around these 
institutions are protected by due process of law.
  They cannot be deprived of their life, liberty, and property without 
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use 
without just compensation. Some Americans want to disregard these 
provisions in a time of crisis. There are those who demand immediate 
resolution regardless of cost, but here we see the grandeur of the 
fifth amendment as it protects people from whims and the heat of a 
crisis.
  In any time of urgent need or catastrophe, the innocent may fall 
victim to false accusations. This is particularly obvious when elected 
officials are trying to show the electorate that they can produce 
results. We have seen the innocent accused and then exonerated by the 
justice system in cases of violence in our schools, and for this we owe 
the sixth amendment to our Constitution.
  During these troubling times in our schools there are claims of 
injury placed against those who have had a public responsibility. The 
vast majority of our public servants are good decent Americans who work 
to serve other people. There are a few, for one reason or another, who 
fail to carry out their responsibilities. The method for redress in 
these sad circumstances is provided in the seventh amendment.
  In responding to the horrific events in our schools the justice 
system is required to balance bail and punishment with the crime 
committed. The eighth amendment provides for this process to be fair 
and judicious.
  And what of rights not clearly enumerated in the Constitution? The 
ninth amendment expressly states that as sweeping and dedicated to 
liberty as the document is, it cannot provide for all freedoms. The 
ninth amendment allows for the protection of rights not clearly defined 
by the Constitution indicating a wisdom that we embrace as we approach 
any crisis.
  The 10th amendment prevents the Federal Government in times of crisis 
from ignoring the role of the States. Our forefathers feared most of 
all not the military but a national police force. The individual states 
were given the basic responsibilities of law enforcement, and in times 
of school crisis we have witnessed the effectiveness of this provision. 
We have also witnessed through our history many nations terrorized by a 
national police force. In these cases isn't an armed citizenry capable 
of defending itself the preferred but not perfect solution?
  My purpose for reviewing these vital amendments to our Constitution, 
this grand Bill of Rights, is to illustrate that in times of crisis, 
these rights are the layers of a foundation of liberty on which we 
live. This bedrock is the sacred strength of our nation. It is the 
bedrock that supports our churches, our homes, our businesses, and our 
schools. A natural tendency in times of crisis is to drive wedges into 
this bedrock in search of a solution. It is my hope that we conduct 
this debate upon the bedrock, and not within it.
  I hope during this debate we keep in mind that we do not have the 
power to eliminate all violence in all schools. We must strive to 
restore a safe environment for learning within the bounds of individual 
freedom. A few must not be allowed to destroy that which the American 
people have prospered and come to appreciate over several centuries. 
Common sense and sensitivity must prevail.
  In that light I believe there are things we can do to address school 
violence. There are no simple solutions and it will not happen 
overnight but I believe we can begin to move down that road by 
improving the safety in our schools. Even though schools will be our 
focus, the problems we face go far beyond the walls of any school, any 
community, any state, or for that matter any country. The laws we pass 
will have far reaching effects on numerous aspects of our society. I 
look forward to proceeding through this legislative agenda in a 
thoughtful manner, mindful of our sacred responsibility to the bedrock 
of our nation--the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
  I was recently given the honor and privilege of chairing a task force 
on Youth Violence. This task force, composed of twelve Senators, has 
thoughtfully deliberated over the problem of youth violence for the 
past two weeks. Our efforts are, in part, a response to the recent 
tragedies seen in our nation's schools. We support S. 254, the Juvenile 
Justice bill, and the efforts of Chairman Hatch and his committee who 
have labored for the past several years to draft careful reforms that 
will positively impact our juvenile justice system. In addition, we 
have come to a consensus on several themes which affect juvenile crime, 
education and our culture. This package of legislative proposals 
applies reasonable reforms which we hope will enhance the work of 
Senator Hatch and his committee.
  The consensus of themes our task force will be working toward this 
week are:
  Stengthening prevention and enforcement assistance to State and local 
government. This is the first step in a plan which infuses funds to 
State and local authorities to combat juvenile crime. The Federal 
government will assist states best by providing flexible block grants. 
Our plan includes juvenile crime grants; improving our management of 
juvenile crime records; targeted prevention funding; a plan for 
graduated sanctions which begin early--when the first signs of 
delinquent or antisocial behavior appear, and alternative education 
opportunities for at-risk or problem juveniles.
  Another point is pushing back the influence of cultural violence by 
empowering parents and encouraging the public to be socially 
responsible. Our second step is to help our culture do more to limit 
the exposure of America's children to harmful and violent 
entertainment. Following the recent tragedy in my state, it seems clear 
that our culture's fascination with violence played some role in the 
thoughts and motivations of the cruel perpetrators of the crimes in 
Littleton. This includes enacting an entertainment industry code of 
conduct that allows for further development and enforcement of rating 
systems to limit exposure to children of material that the industry 
itself has deemed inappropriate for children. We include a plan to 
investigate the marketing practices of the entertainment industry where 
children are concerned. This plan also includes empowering Internet 
service providers to offer screening and filtering software that is 
designed to empower parents to limit access to material unsuitable for 
children. Our package also includes a plan to prohibit the posting of 
bomb making instructions on the Internet.
  Last, I am offering two amendments which liberate students and 
faculty to hold memorial services or to construct a memorial on school 
property in the aftermath of a tragedy.
  I will conclude my statement today with remarks on these amendments. 
The final theme of our package reinforces the theme that it is time to 
get tough on violent juveniles and firearms used by criminals. The 
Republican plan makes it more difficult for a juvenile to gain access 
to a firearm and insures that violent juveniles--teenagers who commit 
violent crimes--will be held accountable for their actions. We do this 
by ensuring the prosecution of those who abuse existing firearms laws. 
This means directing the Department of Justice to make firearms 
prosecutions a priority--something they have not been so far. We 
address gun show safety and firearms background checks, juvenile 
firearms possession, and penalties for firearms offenses across the 
board. We increase the penalty for theft of a firearm and we increase 
the mandatory minimum sentences for those who corrupt youth by selling 
them or encouraging them to sell drugs.
  We also address safe and secure schools. Republicans want all 
children to receive a quality education. This experience should be a 
safe one. We propose numerous options for schools to use federal funds 
for better teacher

[[Page 9673]]

training regarding violent students and school security. We provide for 
mandatory school discipline records disclosure for transferring 
students; we allow for all schools the opportunity to institute address 
code or school uniform policy; and we free up teachers and school 
administrators to adequately discipline students while at the same time 
giving them limited liability protection. Our bill establishes a 
national center to boost school security efforts and creates a national 
award for children with character.
  In proposing this package, we do not pretend to believe our 
legislative actions will erase the harm already inflicted on too many 
Americans. Nor do we believe these laws will guard against all future 
threats of youth violence. But I do believe that the Congress has an 
opportunity today to strengthen and enhance our existing laws to 
empower families and communities to take action against this cultural 
virus seen in our youth.
  Our responsibility is to apply reason and temperance to the decisions 
we make this week, holding close the dearly held principles of life and 
liberty which are expressed in our Bill of Rights. I am hopeful that 
the Senate will work together to accomplish this objective.
  I would like to say a few words regarding my proposed amendments that 
will be before the Senate the first part of this next week. In the 
aftermath of the Littleton tragedy, I propose these amendments which 
will allow Congress to go on record with respect to the 
constitutionality of a permanent memorial or a memorial service that 
contains religious speech. Of course, the Allard amendments do not put 
Congress on record with respect to the kind of memorial that would be 
appropriate--that decision is for local schools and communities. The 
Allard amendments do, however, declare that a fitting memorial may 
contain religious speech without violating the Constitution.
  As you approach Arlington National Cemetery, signs are posted which 
say:

       Welcome to Arlington National Cemetery, Our Nation's Most 
     Sacred Shrine. Please Conduct Yourselves with Dignity and 
     Respect at All Times. Please Remember these are Hallowed 
     Grounds.

  Similarly, Congress appropriates the funds to pay for chaplains who 
conduct memorial services not only at Arlington Cemetery but wherever 
they are needed to serve our departed men and women of the Armed Forces 
and their families. We recognize that paying for chaplains to conduct 
memorial services is not an establishment of religion by the 
Government, but a dignified and proper Government function. The Supreme 
Court has noted that the chaplaincies of the various branches of the 
service are constitutional. Likewise, no one could seriously contend 
that the signs identifying Arlington Cemetery as a sacred shrine and 
hallowed ground are establishments of religion.
  So today I am offering an amendment which states that it is fitting 
and proper for a school to hold a memorial service when a student or 
teacher is killed on school grounds. And it is fitting and proper to 
include religious references, songs, and readings in such a service. 
Memorial services help the grieving process of students and faculty, 
bring a school together in the face of tragedy, and meet a need deeply 
felt by so many to see their friend given recognition in a dignified 
and solemn manner. My amendment allows students and faculty of a public 
school to hold a memorial service that includes prayer, reading of 
scripture, or the performance of religious music at a memorial service 
that is held on the campus of a public school in order to honor the 
memory of any person slain on that campus.
  As a part of my proposed amendment there is a section that allows for 
the construction of a memorial that includes religious symbols or 
reference to God on school property. In either case, if a lawsuit is 
brought forth, parties are required to pay their own fees and costs and 
the Attorney General is authorized to provide legal assistance to 
defenders.
  This is not the equivalent of a daily school prayer. A memorial 
service is a very specific response to an unusual circumstance, a 
circumstance I hope we will not have to revisit again. The amendments 
specifically mention that religious songs may be sung at such memorials 
without violating the Constitution. The two federal appeals courts that 
have taken up this issue both have ruled that school choirs may sing 
religious music. And the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that it 
was constitutional for a public high school choir to have ``The Lord 
Bless You and Keep You'' as its signature song.
  In the same way, erecting a memorial that contained religious 
references, such as a quote from scripture, or a religious symbol from 
the deceased's religious tradition, would not violate the establishment 
clause of the Constitution.
  In any community visited by such a tragedy, a person who views such a 
memorial with religious symbols or references that were important to 
the deceased would certainly not see some sort of covert attempt to 
establish an official religion. Rather, they would see a fitting and 
proper memorial to a departed friend.
  I urge my colleagues to support my modest proposal. This legislation 
does two things. It requires that if a school holds memorial services 
or puts up a memorial in response to a killing on school grounds, and 
the school is sued, then all parties will bear their own costs and 
attorneys fees. A school that has experienced a tragedy of this kind 
should not have to worry about someone bringing a suit and winning 
thousands and thousands of dollars in attorney fee awards just because 
the school decides to hold a memorial service or put up a memorial. 
Second, this legislation permits--but does not require--the Attorney 
General to aid a school in defending against these suits.
  This is one small thing we can do to help our schools respond in a 
humane, compassionate, and constitutional way to the violence that has 
become far too common in our schools. If the people of Colorado believe 
that religious speech is necessary to memorialize the heroism and 
tragedy at Columbine High School, then let them express themselves with 
the most profound and durable expressions of the human heart. Let us 
adopt this amendment today, hoping an occasion for its use may never 
happen again.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________