[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9676-9692]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 9676]]

VIOLENT AND REPEAT JUVENILE OFFENDER ACCOUNTABILITY AND REHABILITATION 
                              ACT OF 1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 352

   (Purpose: To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to 
   require the provision of a secure gun storage or safety device in 
               connection with the transfer of a handgun)

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we have good news. We seem to have reached a 
bipartisan consensus on child safety locks, one which will result, we 
believe, in a lock being sold with every handgun. So I rise now, with 
my colleague, Senator Hatch, to offer the Safe Handgun Storage and 
Child Handgun Safety Act of 1999.
  This measure is closely modeled on the Child Safety Lock Act which I 
introduced earlier this year, with Senators Chafee, Feinstein, Durbin, 
and Boxer. Senator Chafee is also a cosponsor of this amendment.
  Briefly, our amendment will bring the entire industry up to the level 
of those responsible manufacturers who have already started including 
child safety locks with their handguns. It is a commonsense idea, not 
an extreme one, that will reduce gun-related accidents, suicides, and 
homicides by young people.
  Don't take my word for it. Ask your own constituents. According to a 
recent Newsweek poll, 85 percent of the American people support this 
proposal.
  Our amendment is simple, effective, and straightforward. While we 
want people to use child safety locks, our amendment doesn't mandate 
it. Instead, our measure simply requires that whenever a handgun is 
sold, a child safety device must also be sold.
  These devices vary in form, and effective ones are available for less 
than $10. We have added a new section that gives limited liability to 
gun owners, but only if they store their handguns properly. This 
actually creates an incentive for more people to use safety locks.
  Let me tell you briefly why this amendment is so much needed. Nearly 
2,000 young people are killed each year in firearm accidents and 
suicides. This is not only wrong, it is unacceptable. While our 
proposal is certainly not a panacea, it will help prevent many of these 
tragedies.
  Mr. President, safety locks will also reduce violent crime. Juveniles 
commit nearly 7,000 crimes each year with guns taken from their own 
homes. That doesn't include incidents like last year's school shooting 
in Jonesboro, AR, which involved guns taken from the home of one 
child's grandfather because most of the father's guns actually were 
locked up.
  A few extremists on both sides may not agree, but this is clearly a 
step forward. It will help make children safer. It will help make 
mothers and fathers feel more secure leaving their children at a 
neighbor's home. Senator Craig, who worked with me in 1994 to author 
the ban on juvenile possession of handguns, deserves much credit today. 
When passed, this law will be a huge victory for our children and a 
victory for bipartisanship as well. I hope my colleagues can all 
support this bill.
  At this point, Mr. President, I send the Kohl-Hatch-Chafee amendment 
to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl], for himself, Mr. 
     Hatch and Mr. Chafee, proposes an amendment numbered 352.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, in Title--, General 
     Provisions, insert the following new sections:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Safe Hand Gun Storage & 
     Child Handgun Safety Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (a) To promote the safe storage and use of handguns by 
     consumers.
       (b) To prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to 
     or use of a handgun, including children who may not be in 
     possession of a handgun, unless it is under one the 
     circumstances provided for in the Youth Handgun Safety Act.
       (c) To avoid hindering industry from supplying law abiding 
     citizens firearms for all lawful purposes, including hunting, 
     self-defense, collecting and competitive or recreational 
     shooting.

     SEC. 3. FIREARMS SAFETY.

       (a) Unlawful Acts.--
       (1) Mandatory transfer of secure gun storage or safety 
     device.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after subsection (y) the following:
       ``(z) Secure Gun Storage or Safety Device.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it 
     shall be unlawful for any licensed manufacturer, licensed 
     importer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer 
     any handgun to any person other than any person licensed 
     under the provisions of this chapter, unless the transferee 
     is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device, as 
     described in section 921(a)(35) of this chapter, for that 
     handgun.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to the--
       ``(A)(i) manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, 
     the United States or a State or a department or agency of the 
     United States, or a State or a department, agency, or 
     political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
       ``(ii) transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement 
     officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a 
     handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off 
     duty); or
       ``(B) transfer to, or possession by, a rail police officer 
     employed by a rail carrier and certified or commissioned as a 
     police officer under the laws of a State of a handgun for 
     purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
       ``(C) transfer to any person of a handgun listed as a curio 
     or relic by the Secretary pursuant to section 921(a)(13); or
       ``(D) transfer to any person of a handgun for which a 
     secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily 
     unavailable for the reasons described in the exceptions 
     stated in section 923(e): Provided, That the licensed 
     manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer delivers 
     to the transferee within 10 calendar days from the date of 
     the delivery of the handgun to the transferee a secure gun 
     storage or safety device for the handgun.''.
       ``(3) Liability for use.--(A) Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and 
     control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or 
     safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity 
     from a civil liability action as described in this paragraph.
       ``(B) Prospective actions.--A qualified civil liability 
     action may not be brought in any federal or State court. The 
     term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action 
     brought by any person against a person described in 
     subparagraph (A) for damages resulting from the criminal or 
     unlawful misuse of the handgun by a third party, where--
       ``(i) the handgun was accessed by another person who did 
     not have the permission or authorization of the person having 
     lawful possession and control of the handgun to have access 
     to it; and
       ``(ii) at the time access was gained by the person not so 
     authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a 
     secure gun storage or safety device.
       ``A `qualified civil liability action' shall not include an 
     action brought against the person having lawful possession 
     and control of the handgun for negligent entrustment or 
     negligence per se.''.
       (b) Civil Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and 
     inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Penalties Relating to Secure Gun Storage or Safety 
     Device.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Suspension or revocation of license; civil 
     penalties.--With respect to each violation of section 
     922(z)(1) by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or 
     licensed dealer, the Secretary may, after notice and 
     opportunity for hearing--
       ``(i) suspend for up to six months, or revoke, the license 
     issued to the licensee under this chapter that was used to 
     conduct the firearms transfer; or
       ``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount 
     equal to not more than $2,500.
       ``(B) Review.--An action of the Secretary under this 
     paragraph may be reviewed only as provided in section 923(f).
       ``(2) Administrative remedies.--The suspension or 
     revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty 
     under paragraph (1) does not preclude any administrative 
     remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''.
       (c) Liability; Evidence.--
       (1) Liability.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to--
       (A) create a cause of action against any federal firearms 
     licensee or any other person for any civil liability; or
       (B) establish any standard of care.
       (2) Evidence.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with the 
     amendments

[[Page 9677]]

     made by this Act shall not be admissible as evidence in any 
     proceeding of any court, agency, board, or other entity, 
     except with respect to an action to enforce paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) of section 922(z), or to give effect to paragraph (3) 
     of section 922(z).
       (3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to bar a governmental action to impose a penalty 
     under section 924(p) of title 18, United States Code, for a 
     failure to comply with section 922(z) of that title.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am prepared to accept the amendment. I am 
a cosponsor of it as well.
  Mr. KOHL. We want a roll call vote.
  Mr. HATCH. Can we put this over for a vote until next Tuesday?
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, 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.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote be 
postponed until the time set in an agreement of the two leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, our understanding is that the next 
amendment will be the Hatch-Feinstein amendment.
  Mr. REID. May I ask the manager of the bill a question?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes.
  Mr. REID. We have people who are ready to come and offer amendments. 
Could you give an indication as to how long your presentation will 
take?
  Mr. HATCH. I think very little time. I feel badly that Senator 
Feinstein is not here. She may want to say a few words right before the 
amendment comes up for a vote. We will offer some time there.
  Mr. REID. What is ``very little time'' in Senate hours?
  Mr. HATCH. I think I can explain the Feinstein amendment in probably 
less than 10 minutes.
  Mr. REID. We want to make sure we have somebody ready when that is 
finished.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 353

       (Purpose: To combat gang violence and for other purposes)

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

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] for himself and Mrs. 
     Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 353.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand we will have time to debate 
this more at a future time.
  This amendment, which I am pleased to offer with the Senator from 
California, Senator Feinstein, is a much refined version of legislation 
we offered last Congress to address the serious and troubling issue of 
interstate and juvenile gangs. I want to commend Senator Feinstein for 
her hard work and dedication on this issue.
  Our amendment includes improvement to the current federal gangs 
statute, to cover conduct such as alien smuggling, money laundering, 
and high-value burglary, to the predicate offenses under the penalty 
enhancement for engaging in gang-related crimes, and enhances penalties 
for such crimes.
  It criminalizes recruiting persons into a gang, with tough penalties, 
including a four year mandatory minimum if the person recruited is a 
minor.
  It amends the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. 1952, to include typical gang 
offenses in its predicate acts.
  It includes the James Guelff Body Armor Act, which provides penalty 
enhancements for the use of body armor in the commission of a federal 
crime. This provision also prohibits the purchase, possession or use of 
body armor by anyone convicted of a violent felony, but provides an 
affirmative defense for bona fide business uses, and enhances the 
availability of body armor and other bullet-proof technology to law 
enforcement.
  It includes penalties for teaching, even over the Internet, how to 
make or use a bomb, with the knowledge or intent that the information 
will be used to commit a federal crime.
  Finally, our amendment enhances penalties under the Animal Enterprise 
Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. 43, to address the growing problem of attacks 
on businesses and research facilities, as well as establishes a 
clearinghouse to track such offenses. These crimes are increasingly 
being committed by some juvenile gangs, particularly in my state of 
Utah.
  Gangs are an increasingly serious and interstate problem, affecting 
our crime rates and our youth. A 1997 survey of eighth graders in 11 
cities found in 1997 that 9 percent were currently gang members, and 
that 17 percent said they had belonged to a gang at some point in their 
lives. These gangs and their members are responsible for as many as 68 
percent of all violent crimes in some cities.
  My home state of Utah continues to have a serious gang problem. In 
1997, there were over 7,000 gang offenses reported to the police in 
Utah. Although we have seen some improvement from the unprecedented 
high levels of gang crime a couple of years ago, gang membership in the 
Salt Lake area has increased 209 percent since 1992. There are now 
about 4,500 gang members in the Salt Lake City area. Seven hundred and 
seventy of these, or 17 percent, are juveniles.
  During 1998, there were at least 99 drive-by shootings in the Salt 
Lake City area. Also, drug offenses, liquor offenses, and sexual 
assaults were all up significantly over the same period in 1997. And in 
the first 2 months of 1999, there were 14 drive-by shootings in the 
Salt Lake City area.
  An emerging gang in Utah is the Straight Edge. These are juveniles 
who embrace a strict code of no sex, drugs, alcohol, or tobacco, and 
usually no meat or animal products. Normally, of course, these are 
traits most parents would applaud. But these juveniles take these fine 
habits to a dangerous extreme, frequently violently attacking those who 
do not share their purist outlook.
  There are 204 documented Straight Edgers in Salt Lake City, with an 
average age of 19 years old. Like most gangs, they adopt distinctive 
clothing and tattoos to identify themselves. Although not all Straight 
Edgers engage in criminal activities, many have become very violent 
prone. They have engaged in coordinated attacks on college 
fraternities, and a murder outside the Federal Building in downtown 
Salt Lake City last Halloween night was Straight Edge related. This 
crime, in which a 15-year-old youth named ``Bernardo Repreza'' occurred 
during a gang-related fight against the Straight-Edgers. Three Straight 
Edge gang members, have been charged with the murder.
  Straight Edgers are also being recruited into, and more frequently 
linked to, the radical animal rights movement. For instance, in 1996, 
Jacob Kenison, then 16 and a Straight Edger, became so obsessed with 
animal rights that he set fire to a leather store and released 
thousands of animals from two Salt Lake County mink farms. In 1997, 
Kenison was charged in federal court for buying an assault rifle 
without disclosing he had been charged in state court. In December 
1998, Kenison, now 20 years old, was sentenced to 9 months in jail for 
the mink release. The juveniles who committed the firebombing

[[Page 9678]]

of a Murray breeders' co-op may have been Straight Edge, and have been 
linked to the Animal Liberation Front, a loose network of animal rights 
activists which advocates terrorist-like tactics.
  And these gangs are learning some of their tactics on the Internet, 
which is why our amendment includes a provision making illegal to teach 
another how to make or use an explosive device intending or knowing 
that the instructions will be used to commit a federal crime, has 
passed the Senate on at least three separate occasions. It is time for 
Congress to pass it and make the law.
  Sites with detailed instructions on how to make a wide variety of 
destructive devices have proliferated on the Internet. As many of my 
colleagues know, these sites were a prominent part of the recent 
tragedy in Littleton, Colorado.
  Let me give my colleagues an example of one of these sites. The self-
styled Animal Liberation Front has been linked to numerous bombings and 
arsons across the country, including several in my home State of Utah. 
Posted on their Internet site is the cyber-publication, The Final Nail 
#2. It is a detailed guide to terrorist activities. This chart shows 
just one example of the instructions to be found here--in this case, 
instructions to build an electronically timed incendiary igniter--the 
timer for a time bomb.
  And how do the publishers intend that this information will be used? 
The suggestion is clear from threats and warnings in the guide. One 
page in the site shows a picture of an industry spokeswoman, warning 
her to ``take our advice while you still have some time: quit your job 
and cash in your frequent flier points for a permanent vacation.'' Now, 
on this chart, which comes from The Final Nail #2, we have redacted the 
spokeswoman's address and phone number to protect her privacy. The 
publishers weren't so considerate. And this is just the beginning. This 
same document has a 59 page list of targets, complete with names and 
addresses from nearly every U.S. State and Canadian province.
  Let there be no mistake--the publishers know what they're doing. For 
instance, the instructions on how to make milk jug firebombs comes with 
this caution: ``Arson is a big time felony so wear gloves and old 
clothes you can throw away throughout the entire process and be very 
careful not to leave a single shred of evidence.''
  It is unfortunate that people feel the need to disseminate 
information and instructions on bombmaking and explosives. Now perhaps 
we can't stop people from putting out that information. But if they are 
doing so with the intent that the information be used to commit a 
violent federal crime--or if they know that the information will be 
used for that purpose, then this amendment will serve to hold such 
persons accountable.
  Unfortunately, kids today have unfettered access to a universe of 
harmful material. By merely clicking a mouse, kids can access 
pornography, violent video games, and even instructions for making 
bombs with ingredients that can be found in any household. Why someone 
feels the need to put such harmful material on the Internet is beyond 
me--there certainly is no legitimate need for our kids to know how to 
make a bomb. But if that person crosses the line to advocate the use of 
that knowledge for violent criminal purposes, or gives it our knowing 
it will be used for such purposes, then the law needs to cover that 
conduct.
  Mr. President, the Hatch-Feinstein Federal Gang Violence Act 
incorporated in this amendment is a modest but important in stemming 
the spread of gangs and violence across the country and among our 
juveniles. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to rise today in 
support of the Hatch-Feinstein amendment, a comprehensive package which 
contains no less than three different bills which I have introduced, 
which all seek to stem the steady tide of criminal violence in this 
country.
  Specifically, it includes the following bills which I have 
introduced:
  The Federal Gang Violence Act, a comprehensive package of measures 
which were recommended by law enforcement to increase their ability to 
combat the increasingly-violent criminal gangs which are spreading 
across the country. Senator Hatch and I introduced this legislation in 
the past two congresses, and some of its provisions have already been 
included in the bill before us today, as Title II of the bill.
  The James Guelff Body Armor Act of 1999, which is designed to 
increase police and public safety by taking body armor out of the hands 
of criminals and putting it in the hands of police. I introduced this 
earlier this year as S. 783, and it has been co-sponsored by Senators 
Sessions, Boxer, Reid, Bryan, and Kerry. We also have incorporated S. 
726, the Officer Dale Claxton Bullet Resistant Police Protective 
Equipment Act of 1999, which was introduced by Senators Campbell and 
Torricelli.
  Anti-bombmaking legislation, which is designed to do everything 
possible under the Constitution to take information about how to make a 
bomb off the Internet by criminalizing the distribution of such 
information for a criminal purpose. I have introduced it in the past as 
an amendment to other bills, with the support of Senator Biden, and 
introduced it earlier this year as part of S. 606, with Senators 
Nickles, Hatch, and Mack.
  This amendment also includes provisions drafted by Senator Hatch to 
address animal enterprise terrorism, which he introduced earlier this 
year as part of his omnibus crime bill, S. 899.
  I want to express my great thanks to the distinguished chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee for working with me to put this package 
together, which is obviously of the highest priority to me.
  Let me now describe what it does, in more detail:


                                 gangs

  Gangs are no longer a local problem involving small groups of wayward 
youths. Rather, gang violence has truly become a problem of national 
scope.
  The U.S. Justice Department issued a report which details the 
dramatic scope of this problem: there are over 23,000 youth gangs, in 
all 50 states; it will come as no surprise to you to learn that 
California is the number one gang state, with almost 5,000 gangs, and 
more than three times as many gang members as the next-most gang-
plagued state; and overall, there are almost 665,000 gang members in 
the country, more than a ten-fold increase since 1975. [Source: U.S. 
Department of Justice, 1995 National Youth Gang Survey, released in 
August, 1997.]
  In Los Angeles alone, nearly 7,300 of its citizens were murdered in 
the last 16 years from gang warfare, more people than have been killed 
in all the terrorist fighting in northern Ireland.
  Today's gangs are organized and sophisticated traveling crime 
syndicates--much like the Mafia. They spread out and franchise across 
the country, many from California.
  The Los Angeles-based 18th Street gang now deals directly with the 
Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, and has expanded its operations to 
Oregon, Utah, El Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico.
  Local police and the FBI have traced factions of the Bloods and Crips 
to more than 119 cities in the West and Midwest with more than 60,000 
members.
  The Gangster Disciples, according to local authorities, is a Chicago-
based 30,000 member multi-million dollar gang operation spanning 35 
states, which traffics in narcotics and weapons, with income estimated 
at $300,000 daily.
  A 1995 study of gang members by the National Gang Crime Research 
Center found: three-quarters of the gangs exist in multiple geographic 
areas; half of the gang members belonged to gangs which did not arise 
locally, but arose with contact from a gang from outside the area; and 
61 percent indicated their gang was an official branch of a larger 
national gang.
  Sgt. Jerry Flowers with the gang crime unit in Oklahoma City captured 
the migration instinct of these gangs

[[Page 9679]]

when he said: ``the gang leaders realized that the same ounce of crack 
cocaine they sold for $300 in Los Angeles was worth nearly $2,000 in 
Oklahoma City.''
  Gangs also steer at-risk youth into crime. A recently released study 
by the National Institute of Justice went about answering the question: 
``Are gangs really responsible for increases in crime or are youths who 
grow up in very difficult circumstances but do not join gangs 
committing just as many crimes?'' To answer this, the Institute 
scientifically compared gang members with demographically similar at-
risk youth in four cities.
  The results were very revealing, and I think it's important to share 
these with the Senate:

       The research revealed that criminal behavior committed by 
     gang members is extensive and significantly exceeds that 
     committed by comparably at-risk but nongang youth.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Youths who join gangs tend to begin as `wannabes' at about 
     age 13, join about 6 months later, and get arrested within 6 
     months after joining the gang. By age 14 they already have an 
     arrest record.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       An important positive correlation exists between when these 
     individuals joined gangs and when their arrest histories 
     accelerated.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       [D]ata indicate that gang involvement significantly 
     increases one's chances of being arrested, incarcerated, 
     seriously injured, or killed.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       [G]ang members are far more likely to commit certain 
     crimes, such as auto theft; theft; assaulting rivals; 
     carrying concealed weapons in school; using, selling, and 
     stealing drugs; intimidating or assaulting victims and 
     witnesses; and participating in drive-by shootings and 
     homicides than nongang youths.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Gang members . . . are better connected to nonlocal sources 
     than nongang drug traffickers.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       [N]early 75 percent of gang members acknowledged that 
     nearly all of their fellow gang members own guns. Even more 
     alarming, 90 percent of gang interviewees reported that gang 
     members favor powerful, lethal weapons over small caliber 
     handguns.

  Finally, the study noted, ``By all accounts, the number of youth 
gangs and their members continues to grow.''
  To help stem this tide, my staff met for months with prosecutors, law 
enforcement officers, and community leaders to search for solutions to 
the problem of gang violence.
  The Federal Gang Violence Act makes the federal government a more 
active partner in the war against violent and deadly organized gangs. 
Provisions which are already in the bill include:
  Making it a federal crime to recruit someone to join a criminal gang, 
subject to a one year mandatory minimum if an adult is recruited, and a 
four year mandatory minimum if a minor is recruited.
  One of the most insidious tactics of today's gangs is the way they 
target children to do their dirty work, and indoctrinate them into a 
life of crime.
  For example, the 18th street gang which I described earlier, 
according to the Los Angeles Times, ``resembles a kind of children's 
army,'' with recruiters who scout middle schools for 11- to 13-year-old 
children to join the gang. The gang's real leaders, however, are 
middle-aged veteranos, long-time gang members who direct its criminal 
activities from the background.
  The establishment of a High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Area 
program.
  Efforts to combat gang violence have been hampered by jurisdictional 
boundaries. The Los Angeles Times has opined that,

       To date, that sort of `in it for the long haul' anti-gang 
     effort has not occurred among law enforcement authorities 
     here. Local police agencies fail to share information and are 
     unwilling to commit resources outside their boundaries; this 
     is always a problem in multi-jurisdictional Southern 
     California. Federal law enforcement agencies have come in, 
     but only for limited times. Meanwhile, the outlaw force gets 
     nothing more than a bloody nose.
       The growth, greed and brutality of the 18th Street gang 
     demand a coordinated local, state and federal response, one 
     prepared to continue for months and even years if necessary.

  To remedy this situation, I crafted a program modeled after the 
popular High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, or HIDTA, program. The 
HIIGAA program:
  Adds $100 million per year for prosecutors and prevention programs, 
targeted to areas that are particularly involved in interstate criminal 
gang activity, for: Joint federal-state-local law enforcement task 
forces, ``for the coordinated investigation, disruption, apprehension, 
and prosecution of criminal activities of gangs and gang members'' in 
the areas; and community-based gang prevention programs in the areas.
  These areas are designated by the Attorney General, who in so doing 
must consider: The extent to which gangs from the area are involved in 
interstate or international criminal activity; the extent to which the 
area is affected by the criminal activity of gang members who are 
located in or have relocated from other states or foreign countries; 
and the extent to which the area is affected by the criminal activity 
of gangs that originated in other states or foreign countries (e.g., by 
migration of Crips and Bloods).
  I believe that this program could be tremendously helpful to the L.A. 
area in particular, as it is the leading source of interstate gang 
activity in the country, and could help bring together Los Angeles, 
Riverside, San Bernardino and other counties with the state and federal 
governments, in a coordinated, focused effort, balanced between 
enforcement and prevention, to beat back the gangs.
  The amendment Senator Hatch and I are offering today would increase 
the emphasis upon prevention in this program by boosting that share 
from 25 to 40 percent, consistent with the committee's action last 
Congress. The recent NIJ study which I mentioned earlier concluded: 
``It is also important to address the brief window of opportunity for 
intervention that occurs in the year between the ``wannabe'' stage and 
the age at first arrest. It is vital that intervention programs that 
target gang members and successfully divert them from the gang are 
funded, developed, evaluated, improved, and sustained.'' This program, 
and the change we propose today, will help to do that.
  This amendment also would add the following anti-gang provisions to 
the bill:
  1. Increases sentences for gang members who commit federal crimes to 
further the gang's activities, by directing the Sentencing Commission 
to make an appropriate increase under the Sentencing Guidelines.
  2. Makes is easier to prove criminal gang activity, by:
  Reducing the number of members prosecutors have to prove are in a 
gang from five to three;
  Changing the definition of a criminal gang from a group ``that has as 
one of its primary purposes the commission of'' certain criminal 
offenses to a group ``that has as one of its primary activities the 
commission of'' certain criminal offenses;
  Adding the following federal offenses to the list of gang crimes: 
extortion, gambling, obstruction of justice (includes jury tampering 
and witness intimidation), money laundering, alien smuggling, an 
attempt or solicitation to commit any of these offenses, or federal 
violent felonies or drug crimes, which are already included in the 
current law), and gang recruitment;
  Adding asset forfeiture
  3. Amends the Travel Act, which passed in 1961 to address Mafia-type 
crime, to deal with modern gangs, by adding gang crimes such as: 
assault with a deadly weapon, drive-by shootings, and witness 
intimidation to its provisions. It also increases penalties under the 
Act, and helps prosecutors by adding a conspiracy provision to the Act.
  4. Adds serious juvenile drug offenses to the Armed Career Criminal 
Act, which provides for a 15 year mandatory minimum sentence if a felon 
with three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug 
offenses is caught with a firearm.
  5. Further targets gangsters who exploit children by adding a three-
year

[[Page 9680]]

mandatory minimum sentence to the existing law against knowingly 
transferring a firearm for use in a violent crime or drug trafficking 
crime, where the gun is transferred to a minor.
  6. Provision addressing clone pagers, which Sen. DeWine has worked 
on, which would make it easier to investigate gang members by allowing 
law enforcement to obtain pagers which are clones of those possessed by 
gang members, under the lower standard which applies to pen registers, 
rather than the more difficult wiretap standard, which currently 
applies.
  I want to note that we did not include the provision of last year's 
bill which was criticized for federalizing much gang crime.
  Altogether, this anti-gang package gives federal law enforcement a 
set of powerful new tools with which to team up with state and local 
law enforcement and crack down on criminal gangs.


                               body armor

  The next piece of this comprehensive amendment is the James Guelff 
Body Armor Act of 1999, which is designed to increase police and public 
safety by taking body armor out of the hands of criminals and putting 
it in the hands of police. As I mentioned previously, I introduced this 
earlier this year as S. 783, and it has been cosponsored by Senators 
Sessions, Boxer, Reid, Bryan, and Kerry.
  Currently, Federal law does not limit access to body armor for 
individuals with even the grimmest history of criminal violence. 
However, it is unquestionable that criminals with violent intentions 
are more dangerous when they are wearing body armor.
  Many will recall the violent and horrific shootout in North 
Hollywood, California, just 2 years ago. In that incident, two suspects 
wearing body armor and armed to the teeth, terrorized a community. 
Police officers on the scene had to borrow rifles from a nearby gunshop 
to counteract the firepower and protective equipment of these suspects.
  Another tragic incident involved San Francisco Police Officer James 
Guelff. On November 13, 1994, Officer Guelff responded to a distress 
call. Upon reaching the crime scene, he was fired upon by a heavily 
armed suspect who was shielded by a kevlar vest and bulletproof helmet. 
Officer Guelff died in the ensuing gun-fight.
  Lee Guelff, James Guelff's brother, recently wrote a letter to me 
about the need to revise the laws relating to body armor. He wrote:

       It's bad enough when officers have to face gunmen in 
     possession of superior firepower . . . But to have to 
     confront suspects shielded by equal or better defensive 
     protection as well goes beyond the bounds of acceptable risk 
     for officers and citizens alike. No officer should have to 
     face the same set of deadly circumstances again.

  I couldn't agree with Lee more. Our laws need to recognize that body 
armor in the possession of a criminal is an offensive weapon. Our 
police officers on the streets are adequately supplied with body armor, 
and that hardened-criminals are deterred from using body armor.
  This body armor amendment has three key provisions. First, it 
increases the penalties criminals receive if they commit a crime 
wearing body armor. Specifically, a violation will lead to an increase 
of two levels under the Federal sentencing guidelines.
  Second, it makes it unlawful for violent felons to purchase, use, or 
possess body armor. Third, this bill enables Federal law enforcement 
agencies to directly donate surplus body armor to local police.
  I will address each of these three provisions.
  First, criminals who wear body armor during the commission of a crime 
should face enhanced penalties because they pose an enhanced threat to 
police and civilians alike. Assailants shielded by body armor can shoot 
at the police and civilians with less fear than individuals not so well 
protected.
  In the North Hollywood shoot-out, for example, the gunmen were able 
to hold dozens of officers at bay because of their body armor. This 
provision will deter the criminal use of body armor, and thus deter the 
escalation of violence in our communities.
  Second, this amendment would make it a crime for individuals with a 
violent criminal record to wear body armor. It is unconscionable that 
criminals can obtain and wear body armor without restriction when so 
many of our police lack comparable protection.
  The bill recognizes that there may be exceptional circumstances where 
an individual with a brutal history legitimately needs body armor to 
protect himself or herself. Therefore, it provides an affirmative 
defense for individuals who require body armor for lawful job-related 
activities.
  Another crucial part of this body armor amendment is that it speeds 
up the procedures by which Federal agencies can donate surplus body 
armor to local police.
  Far too many of our local police officers do not have access to 
bullet-proof vests. The United States Department of Justice estimates 
that 25 percent of State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers, 
approximately 150,000 officers, are not issued body armor.
  Getting our officers more body armor will save lives. According to 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, greater than 30 percent of the 
1,182 officers willed by guns in the line of duty since 1980 could have 
been saved by body armor, and the risk of dying from gunfire is 14 
times higher for an officer without a bulletproof vest.
  Last year, Congress made some inroads into this shortage of body 
armor by enacting the ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 
1998.'' This act established a $25 million annual fund to help local 
and State police purchase body armor. This amendment will further boost 
the body armor resources of local and State police departments.
  These body armor amendments have the support of over 500,000 law 
enforcement personnel nationwide. The Fraternal Order of Police, the 
National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs' 
Association, the National Troopers Coalition, the International 
Association of Police Chiefs, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
Association (FLEOA), the Police Executive Research Forum, the 
International Brother of Police Officers, the Major City Chiefs, and 
the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Executives, have all 
endorsed the legislation.
  An additional piece of this body armor package is S. 726, the Officer 
Dale Claxton Bullet Resistant Police Protective Equipment Act of 1999 
introduced by Senator Campbell and cosponsored by Senator Torricelli.
  Senator Campbell's proposals are dedicated to the memory of Dale 
Claxton, a Colorado police officer who was fatally shot through the 
windshield of his police car. These proposals include:
  Authorizing continued funding for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership 
Grant Act program at $25 million per year;
  Second, creating a $40 million matching grant program to help State 
and local jurisdictions and Indian tribes purchase bullet resistant 
glass, armored panels for patrol cars, hand-held bullet resistant 
shield and other life saving bullet resistant equipment;
  Third, authorizing a $25 million matching grant program for the 
purchase of video cameras for use in law enforcement vehicles; and
  Finally, the amendment directs the National Institute of Justice to 
promote bullet-resistant technologies.
  I am pleased that we were able to include these measures in our 
amendment as well. They strengthen the amendment's purpose to protect 
police and the public.


                               bombmaking

  Let me turn now to the bombmaking piece of this package.
  According to authorities, the killers in Littleton learned how to 
make their 30-plus bombs form bombmaking instructions posted on the 
Internet.
  Hundreds and hundreds of Web sites contain instructions on how to 
build bombs, such as this Terrorists' Handbook, which my staff 
downloaded from the Internet a week after the tragedy. This bombmaking 
manual contains detailed, step-by-step instructions for building 
devices such as pipe bombs, lightbulb bombs, and letter bombs, which 
have no legitimate, lawful purpose. It also tells the reader how to

[[Page 9681]]

break into college labs to obtain useful chemicals, how to pick locks, 
and even contains a checklist for raids on laboratories.


        internet bombmaking incidents continuing after littleton

  Unfortunately, in the short time since the tragedy in Littleton, 
Colorado, there has been a steady stream of incidents of youths using 
the Internet to build bombs and threaten their use at school:
  Police arrested five students at McKinley Junior High School in 
Brooklyn for possessing a bomb-making manual, a day after the eighth-
graders were caught allegedly plotting to set off a bomb at graduation. 
The arrested students, all 13, were charged with second-degree 
conspiracy after allegedly bringing bomb-making information found on 
the Internet to class, police and school officials said.
  Salt Lake City School District has received about 10 reports of 
threats to kill or blow up schools, said Nancy Woodward, district 
director of student and family services. Many of the students making 
such threats have a history of violent threats and have written about 
such violence in notebooks or downloaded Internet information. [4/28/99 
Deseret News]
  Three Cobb County, Georgia boys arrested for possession of a pipe 
bomb on school property learned how to make the explosive by browsing 
the Internet, according to testimony at a court hearing.
  One week after the high school killings in Colorado, authorities 
across Texas are reporting a spate of incidents that involve violent 
threats by students and crude efforts to manufacture bombs.
  In Port Aransas, Texas, a 15-year-old boy who allegedly downloaded 
from the Internet information on bomb making and killing faced criminal 
charges after the was turned in to police by his father. The boy had 
threatened teachers and classmates.
  At least seven teen-agers are being held in Wimberley and Wichita 
Falls alone, all of them on suspicion of making explosives, some of 
which officials say were to be used to attack a school.
  A judge ordered four Wimberley, Texas junior high school students to 
remain in a juvenile detention center, accused of planning an attack on 
their own school. Sheriff's deputies questioned the four eighth-graders 
over the weekend and searched their homes, turning up gunpowder, 
crudely built explosives and instructions on making bombs on computer 
disks and downloanded from the Internet.
  More than 50 threats of bombings and other acts of violence against 
schools have been reported across Pennsylvania over the last four days, 
which state officials attributed partly to last week's bombing in 
Littleton, Colo.
  Elsewhere on the Web, the Columbine tragedy has triggered a kind of 
electronic turf warfare, as individuals snap up site addresses 
containing words reflecting the tragedy, such as the killers' names or 
the name of their clique, the Trench Coat Mafia. At least one such 
site, filled with images of guns and bomb-making instructions, was 
offered for sale to the highest bidder on eBay, an online auction. 
``When we became aware of it, we took it down immediately,'' an eBay 
spokesman said. ``It is totally inappropriate.''
  And just 28 miles away from where we stand today, three students at 
Glen Burnie High School, in Maryland, were arrested for issuing bomb 
threats and possessing bomb-making components. One of those arrested 
had told another student, ``You're on my hit list.'' A police search of 
the boys' homes found match heads, suitcases, wires, chemicals, and 
printouts from the Internet showing how to put it all together to make 
bombs. Graffiti at the school read, ``if you think Littleton was bad, 
wait until you see what happens here.''


                     Description of the Legislation

  I have been trying to do as much as I can under the First Amendment 
to get rid of this sort of filth for four years now. This amendment:
  Makes it a federal crime to teach or distribute information on how to 
make a bomb or other weapon of mass destruction if the teacher: Intends 
that the information be used to commit a federal violent crime or knows 
that the recipient of the information intends to use it to commit a 
federal violent crime; and sets a maximum sentence of 20 years.
  This legislation has been endorsed by both the explosives industry 
(Institute for Makers of Explosives) and the Anti-Defamation League.


                        History of the Amendment

  The substance of this amendment has passed the Senate or the 
Judiciary Committee in each of the past four years, without a single 
vote in opposition: in 1995, as an amendment to the anti-terrorism 
bill, by unanimous consent; in 1996, as an amendment to the Department 
of Defense authorization bill, again by unanimous consent; in 1997, 
again as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill, 
this time by a vote of 94-0; and last year, in the Judiciary Committee, 
as an amendment to a private relief bill for Kerr-McGee Corporation, by 
unanimous consent.
  Unfortunately, despite the unanimous support of the Senate, the House 
has killed the amendment in conference each time it has passed the 
Senate: On the terrorism bill, it was replaced by a directive to the 
Attorney General to study and report to Congress on six different 
issues related to the amendment; on the FY 97 Defense bill, it was 
eliminated because the Attorney General's study was then ongoing, and 
she had not yet issued her report; on the FY 98 Defense bill, it was 
eliminated because it falls within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary 
Committees, and the House objected to its not taking this usual course.


                       Justice Department Support

  I mentioned the Justice Department report earlier; that report found 
that the amendment was justified on each of the six factors the 
Department was asked to consider, and recommended that Congress finally 
pass this legislation:
  Factor: ``(1) the extent to which there is available to the public 
material in any medium (including print, electronic or film) that 
provides instruction on how to make bombs, destructive devices, or 
weapons of mass destruction.''
  DOJ Report: ``It is readily apparent from our cursory examination 
that anyone interested in manufacturing a bomb, dangerous weapon or 
weapon of mass destruction can easily obtain detailed instructions for 
fabricating and using such a device.''
  Factor: ``(2) the extent to which information gained from such 
materials has been used in incidents of domestic or international 
terrorism.''
  DOJ Report: ``Recent law enforcement experience demonstrates that 
persons who attempt or plan acts of terrorism often possess literature 
that describes the construction of explosive devices and other weapons 
of mass destruction (including biological weapons).''
  ``[R]eported federal cases involving murder, bombing, arson, and 
related crimes, reflect the use of bombmaking manuals by defendants and 
the frequent seizure of such texts during the criminal investigation of 
such activities.''
  ``Finally, information furnished by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearms reveals that such literature is frequently used by 
individuals bent upon making bombs for criminal purposes.''
  The report connected ``mayhem manuals'' to numerous terrorist and 
criminal actions, including: The World Trade Center bombing; the Omega 
7 group, who conducted terrorist bombings in the New York area; an 
individual attempting to bring enough ricin--one of the most toxic 
substances known--into the U.S. to kill over 32,000 people; and the 
``Patriots Council'' began developing ricin to attack federal or local 
law enforcement officials.
  Factor: ``(3) the likelihood that such information may be used in 
future incidents of terrorism.''
  DOJ Report: ``both the FBI and ATF expect that because the 
availability of such information is becoming increasingly widespread, 
such bombmaking instructions will continue to play a significant role 
in aiding those intent upon committing future acts of terrorism and 
violence.''

[[Page 9682]]

  Factor: ``(4) the application of Federal laws in effect on the date 
of enactment of this Act to such material.''
  DOJ Report: ``while there are several existing federal laws which 
could be applied to bombmaking instructions in some circumstances, 
``current federal law does not specifically address certain classes of 
cases.''
  Factor: ``(5) the need and utility, if any, for additional laws 
relating to such material.''
  DOJ Report: ``the Department of Justice agrees with [Senators 
Feinstein and Biden] that it would be appropriate and beneficial to 
adopt further legislation to address this problem directly, in a manner 
that does not impermissibly restrict the wholly legitimate publication 
and teaching of such information, or otherwise violate the First 
Amendment.''
  Factor: ``(6) an assessment of the extent to which the first 
amendment protects such material and its private and commercial 
distribution.''
  DOJ Report: ``where such a purpose [to aid or cause a criminal 
result] is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as it would have to be in 
a criminal case, the First Amendment should be no bar to culpability.''
  ``[We] think these First Amendment concerns can be overcome, and that 
such a facilitation prohibition could be constitutional, if drafted 
narrowly.''
  I ask that the Justice Department's report be incorporated by 
reference as part of the Record.
  The Justice Department proposed a slight re-draft of the original 
version of the Feinstein amendment. It is this re-draft which we have 
included in this amendment with one further modification, removing 
state crimes from its scope, made at the request of Representative 
McCollum.


                               Conclusion

  This is a powerful set of amendments, which I am convinced can do a 
great deal to reduce criminal violence in America. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting this.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, is the bill open for my amendment now?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending legislation is the Hatch-Feinstein 
amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that measure be temporarily laid 
aside so I may offer an amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Gladly.
  Mr. HATCH. I am trying to work out the details to see if we can 
proceed with the Senator's amendment. If the Senator will give me a 
little bit more time, I will see if we can get that worked out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. I am told I could offer the amendment. I am glad to yield, 
however.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we want to do something on this bill. I have 
been asked personally by the majority leader and the minority leader to 
move this legislation along. I have pled with Members from the minority 
to narrow the amendment. We have done that. There are time limits on 
most every one.
  We have spent 2 hours today trying to offer amendments. We want to 
offer amendments. We are being told we can't offer gun amendments, so 
we bring in the second most senior Member of the Senate to offer an 
amendment dealing with alcohol, and we are told we can't offer that.
  What can we offer? I say to my friend from Utah, what can we offer? 
We want to move this thing along. I have been here since early this 
morning trying to move this bill along, and whatever we do we can't do 
it. You can't have it both ways. We can't be accused of trying to slow 
down the legislation and when we want to offer amendments we can't 
offer anything.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. HATCH. We understand that most Senators have left. We also 
understand some of these amendments are controversial and they need 
debate on both sides. We also understand that some of us have to 
protect ourselves on both sides or protect our Senators.
  We are moving ahead. I just put in a very important amendment for 
Senator Feinstein and myself. We are submitting our statements for the 
Record today rather than taking the time of the Senate. We are moving 
ahead in a regular forum. We can move with some amendments today and 
some we can't. We do want to move ahead and we will certainly try to do 
so and accommodate Members. When it comes to protecting Members of the 
Senate, we have to do that. It is just a common courtesy that has been 
used in this body ever since I have been here for 23 years. I don't 
want to see that courtesy not extended at this time.
  What I am hoping is that we can proceed with the Byrd amendment, 
which happens to be the bill that I filed on alcohol sales over the 
Internet. We know that the Senators from the States who are in 
opposition are not here today. We will try to work out an arrangement 
where this amendment can be filed and reserve time, an equivalent 
amount of time, for those who may be in opposition.
  We have asked for just a few minutes for one of our distinguished 
Senators who has a direct interest in this to be able to read the 
amendment. It is not a long amendment. If we could just get a few more 
minutes of time.
  As I now understand, the amendment is OK. Let's go ahead.
  May I propose a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I speak for 1 minute?
  This amendment has been printed in the Record. It is at the desk. So 
I have conformed with the request to get our amendments in. It was in 
yesterday's Congressional Record.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. BYRD. It catches no one by surprise.
  I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. HATCH. Nobody is accusing anybody of surprise. The Senator has 
every right to call up his amendment and we are glad he is.
  I ask unanimous consent whatever time the Senator takes on this 
amendment today, that those in opposition be permitted to take when 
they return on Monday.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized under 
his reservation.
  Mr. BYRD. Do I still have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia continues to 
have the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I say to my friend from 
Utah, of course people in opposition to this amendment can come and 
talk until the leader pulls the bill.
  I don't understand why we can't move forward with amendments. If 
somebody wants to make an objection to the amendment in the form of a 
speech, they can come anytime they want. That is how we do business 
around here. When an amendment is offered, you don't have to have on 
the floor somebody on the other side to oppose it.
  We are being accused of slowing down this bill. We are doing 
everything we can to move the bill along. I hope everyone understands 
who is slowing down this bill. It is not us.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wonder how this works. Does this mean if 
we have other amendments on either side that come up, just because 
somebody is not there to respond to it, does that mean this will now 
become the procedure to be followed? We will let the

[[Page 9683]]

proponent speak, and then on Monday the opponents speak?
  I ask that because we have to do something to move this on. It is 
frustrating to the Senator from Vermont, who has canceled all other 
plans today to be here into the evening, if necessary, to move forward 
on this bill, in keeping with what the majority leader said he wants 
done, if he suddenly finds he will be picking and choosing whether 
anybody can bring up an amendment or not.
  If Senators are serious about the amendments, they can come here and 
offer them. It is more of a question to the distinguished Senator from 
Utah: Is this going to be the practice, if another Senator brings up an 
amendment and there is not somebody on the other side, will that 
Senator bring it up and speak about it, and the other Senator comes 
back and responds on Monday?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will try to protect Senators on our side 
who may not be here. I presume the distinguished Senator from Vermont 
will do the same for Senators on this side when we know they are in 
opposition or opposing a particular amendment.
  I amend my unanimous consent request to request that, immediately 
following Senator Byrd's presentation of his amendment, Senators Frist 
and Ashcroft be permitted to call up their amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, before I agree, I would like----
  Mr. BYRD. May I say to the Chair, I am recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. If the distinguished Senator from California wishes to say 
something, I would be glad to yield for a statement.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. I wish to oppose your amendment 
and so I wish to see that there is an opportunity for me to do so.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator from California will certainly 
have an opportunity to oppose my amendment. Anybody else will certainly 
have an opportunity to do that.
  Mr. HATCH. May I have a ruling on my unanimous consent request to get 
this order?
  Mr. BYRD. Would the Senator remind repeating his request?
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that there be given time to debate 
by opponents on Monday, if they are unable to be here at this time, to 
amendments that are called up today, and we give them the time to 
debate the equivalent used today--in the case of Senator Feinstein, she 
is here so she can reply regarding Senator Byrd's amendment--but that 
Senator Byrd's amendment proceed, and immediately following the Byrd 
amendment, that Senators Frist and Ashcroft be permitted to call up 
their amendment, hopefully speaking for only 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President I wasn't here when the consent order was 
entered. But do I understand that no amendment in the second degree can 
be offered today?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). No second-degree amendment can be 
offered and voted on until there has been a vote on or in relationship 
to the amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not seek any vote on my amendment 
today, but I have entered it earlier and I want to speak to it and 
officially call it up today. And it will be up on Monday for further 
debate and for amendment by other amendments.


                           Amendment No. 339

(Purpose: To provide for injunctive relief in Federal district court to 
    enforce State laws relating to the interstate transportation of 
                          intoxicating liquor)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want the clerk to report it in full.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself and 
     Mr. Kohl, proposes an amendment numbered 339:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Shipment of Intoxicating Liquor Into State in Violation 
     of State Law.--The Act entitled ``An Act divesting 
     intoxicating liquors of their interstate character in certain 
     cases'', approved March 1, 1913 (commonly known as the 
     ``Webb-Kenyon Act'') (27 U.S.C. 122) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

     ``SEC. 2. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `attorney general' means the attorney 
     general or other chief law enforcement officer of a State, or 
     the designee thereof;
       ``(2) the term `intoxicating liquor' means any spirituous, 
     vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquor of 
     any kind;
       ``(3) the term `person' means any individual and any 
     partnership, corporation, company, firm, society, 
     association, joint stock company, trust, or other entity 
     capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in 
     property, but does not include a State or agency thereof; and
       ``(4) the term `State' means any State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States.
       ``(b) Action by State Attorney General.--If the attorney 
     general of a State has reasonable cause to believe that a 
     person is engaged in, is about to engage in, or has engaged 
     in, any act that would constitute a violation of a State law 
     regulating the importation or transportation of any 
     intoxicating liquor, the attorney general may bring a civil 
     action in accordance with this section for injunctive relief 
     (including a preliminary or permanent injunction or other 
     order) against the person, as the attorney general determines 
     to be necessary to--
       ``(1) restrain the person from engaging, or continuing to 
     engage, in the violation; and
       ``(2) enforce compliance with the State law.
       ``(c) Federal Jurisdiction.--
       ``(1) In general.--The district courts of the United States 
     shall have jurisdiction over any action brought under this 
     section.
       ``(2) Venue.--An action under this section may be brought 
     only in accordance with section 1391 of title 28, United 
     States Code.
       ``(d) Requirements for Injunctions and Orders.--
       ``(1) In general.--In any action brought under this 
     section, upon a proper showing by the attorney general of the 
     State, the court shall issue a preliminary or permanent 
     injunction or other order without requiring the posting of a 
     bond.
       ``(2) Notice.--No preliminary or permanent injunction or 
     other order may be issued under paragraph (1) without notice 
     to the adverse party.
       ``(3) Form and scope of order.--Any preliminary or 
     permanent injunction or other order entered in an action 
     brought under this section shall--
       ``(A) set forth the reasons for the issuance of the order;
       ``(B) be specific in terms;
       ``(C) describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference 
     to the complaint or other document, the act or acts to be 
     restrained; and
       ``(D) be binding only upon--
       ``(i) the parties to the action and the officers, agents, 
     employees, and attorneys of those parties; and
       ``(ii) persons in active cooperation or participation with 
     the parties to the action who receive actual notice of the 
     order by personal service or otherwise.
       ``(e) Consolidation of Hearing With Trial On Merits.--
       ``(1) In general.--Before or after the commencement of a 
     hearing on an application for a preliminary or permanent 
     injunction or other order under this section, the court may 
     order the trial of the action on the merits to be advanced 
     and consolidated with the hearing on the application.
       ``(2) Admissibility of evidence.--If the court does not 
     order the consolidation of a trial on the merits with a 
     hearing on an application described in paragraph (1), any 
     evidence received upon an application for a preliminary or 
     permanent injunction or other order that would be admissible 
     at the trial on the merits shall become part of the record of 
     the trial and shall not be required to be received again at 
     the trial.
       ``(f) No Right to Trial by Jury.--An action brought under 
     this section shall be tried before the court.
       ``(g) Additional Remedies.--
       ``(1) In general.--A remedy under this section is in 
     addition to any other remedies provided by law.
       ``(2) State court proceedings.--Nothing in this section may 
     be construed to prohibit an authorized State official from 
     proceeding in State court on the basis of an alleged 
     violation of any State law.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have not asked for any action on this 
amendment, but I did want to have it read for the information of the 
Senate, and I

[[Page 9684]]

want to speak on it briefly, after which I shall return to my office.
  Mr. President, over the past few days, many of my colleagues have 
come to this Chamber and, with heartfelt passion, offered proposals 
aimed at addressing the scourge of juvenile crime and violence. We have 
seen efforts to reduce the pervasiveness of violence and indecency on 
television and in the movies. We have seen efforts to provide the tools 
parents need in order to make the Internet a safe and educational 
environment for their children. We have observed proposals to increase 
criminal penalties for those who would seek to subvert our youth by 
introducing them to gangs or the drug culture; and we have had attempts 
to limit children's access to guns.
  Each of these has been, I believe, an honest effort toward seeking a 
much-needed solution to this national problem. And yet, despite these 
proposals, I am deeply concerned that we have overlooked an important 
element of this crisis--the problem of teen alcohol use--the problem of 
teen, t-e-e-n, alcohol use--more appropriately, perhaps, alcohol abuse.
  I have long been concerned about underage drinking.
  As a matter of fact, I am not an advocate of drinking at any age, but 
I recognize that not everybody seeks to pattern their own viewpoints 
and lives after my viewpoints. But especially--especially--I speak with 
reference to underage drinking.
  It takes an immense toll on our children and our society. The younger 
a child starts drinking, the more likely that child is to run into bad, 
bad trouble down the road. Research has shown, for example, that 
children who begin drinking before age 15 are four times more likely to 
develop alcohol dependence than those who abstain from such activity 
until the legal drinking age of 21. We also know that too many kids are 
drinking.
  If one kid is drinking, that is too many. I am not saying that with 
reference to this legislation. Obviously, if one is drinking, that is 
one too many. But for the purposes of this statement, let it stand as I 
say. We also know that too many kids are drinking.
  During the last month, approximately 34 percent of high school 
seniors, 22 percent of tenth graders, and 8 percent of eighth graders, 
have been drunk.
  That is hard to imagine. I started school in a two-room schoolhouse. 
I have said that many times, but I like to repeat it because there are 
still some of us here who remember those times. When I was later in 
high school, that would not have been tolerated. The parents would not 
have tolerated it. The community would not have tolerated it. The 
school principal, the teachers would not have tolerated it.
  Let me read that again.
  During the last month, approximately 34 percent of high school 
seniors--now that is a third of high school seniors--22 percent of the 
tenth graders; in other words, one-fifth of the tenth graders, and 8 
percent of the eighth graders--think of that, 8 percent of the eighth 
graders--have been drunk!
  What is going on here? Drunk. How can that happen if there is a 
parent who observes the responsibilities of a parent? How can a drunk 
child avoid the observation of the parent?
  Yes, I said drunk! And, in the most tragic of statistics, we know 
that, in 1996, 5,233 young people ages 15 to 20 died in alcohol-related 
traffic accidents--5,233 lives cut short for what? Mr. President, 5,233 
young people ages 15 to 20 died, and that means for a long, long time--
died in alcohol-related traffic accidents. These statistics should be a 
cause for great concern not just among Senators, but for everyone 
throughout this Nation. Everybody. The churches ought to be up in arms 
about it. Legislators ought to be up in arms about it. The 
administration ought to put forth a crusade, not just a word here and 
there, tippy-toeing around. There ought to be a real crusade like the 
crusade that has been effectively carried on against smoking. Why not 
have a national crusade against drinking and especially concerning 
young people in school? Something is wrong.
  Mr. President, we should also be concerned that, with direct-to-
consumer sale of alcohol, children can now get beer, wine, or liquor 
sent directly to their homes by ordering from catalogues or over the 
Internet.
  What a shame. Again, I have to point my finger at the parents. What a 
shame. Children can now get beer, wine or liquor sent directly to their 
homes by ordering from catalogs or over the Internet.
  Unfortunately, these direct-to-consumer sales work to undermine the 
extremely important controls currently in place in many of our States.
  Consequently, I am offering this amendment, on behalf of myself and 
Senator Kohl, in an effort to give States the opportunity to close that 
loophole and go after those who sell alcohol illegally to children. The 
Webb-Kenyon Act, a Federal statute dating back to the early part of 
this century, makes clear that States have the authority to control the 
shipment of alcohol into the State. Unfortunately, recent court 
decisions have maintained that the statute provides no enforcement 
mechanism. In the 1997 case of Florida Department of Business 
Regulation v. Zachy's Wine and Liquor, for example, the State of 
Florida was prohibited from enjoining four out-of-State direct shippers 
on the grounds that neither the 21st amendment to the Constitution, nor 
the Webb-Kenyon Act, gave the State a Federal right of action for 
failure to comply with State liquor laws. Thus, as a result of this and 
other court decisions, the ability of States to vigorously enforce 
their prerogatives under the 21st amendment and the Webb-Kenyon Act 
against out-of-State defendants is extremely limited at the very time 
when illegal alcohol shipments are burgeoning.
  This amendment would remedy this problem by stating unequivocally--no 
ands, ifs, or buts; unequivocally--that States have the right to seek 
an injunction in Federal court to prevent the illegal, interstate sale 
of alcohol in violation of State law.
  I am not saying you cannot sell it. I am simply saying that we should 
obey State laws by not selling alcohol to children--or expect to pay 
the consequences.
  This amendment is based on legislation originally introduced earlier 
this year by the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch. The 
distinguished Senator from Utah has been at the forefront of this 
issue, and I thank him for his leadership on this important matter. In 
addition, Senator Kohl is a cosponsor of my amendment and I sincerely 
thank him as well for his steadfast support.
  Beyond my colleagues here in the Senate, though, this legislation has 
garnered diverse support. Organizations favoring this amendment include 
the American Academy of Pediatrics, the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America, the 
National Beer Wholesalers Association, the National Licensed Beverage 
Association and the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association.
  Mr. President, let me be clear about what my amendment does. It 
simply clarifies that States may use the Federal courts to obtain an 
injunction to prevent the illegal shipment of alcohol. It does not 
overturn or interfere with any existing State law or regulation. It 
would have no impact on those companies that are selling alcohol 
products in accordance with State laws. It would not impede legal 
access to the marketplace. In fact, there are distributors who have 
offered to sell the products of any wine manufacturer, no matter how 
small that company might be. My amendment would have no impact on those 
who are using the Internet to sell alcohol products legally.
  In sum, companies would remain free to utilize any marketing or sales 
process currently permitted under State law. That is why companies that 
legally sell alcohol over the Internet, such as Geerlings and Wade, 
have endorsed this legislation. The legislation would only impede those 
who use the Internet or other marketing techniques to avoid compliance 
with State alcohol laws.
  Mr. President, as the Senate addresses the pernicious problem of 
youth

[[Page 9685]]

crime and violence, I urge my colleagues to join me in addressing this 
important facet. We should not--indeed, we cannot--turn a blind eye to 
those who would, and do, violate State laws governing the sale of 
alcoholic beverages. The laws regulating alcoholic beverages are in 
place because such products can be--can be--a dangerous product. It 
should not be shipped to minors. It should not be shipped into States 
in violation of those States' laws. Congress should act now and ensure 
that the laws regulating the interstate shipment of alcohol are not 
rendered meaningless.
   Mr. President, that completes my statement.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if nothing else can be said about this 
issue, it is absolutely imperative that states have the means to 
prevent unlawful access to alcohol by our children.
  If a 13-year-old is capable of ordering beer and having it delivered 
by merely ``borrowing'' a credit card and making a few clicks with her 
mouse, there is something wrong with the level of control that is being 
exercised over these sales and something must be done to address the 
problem.
  I am a strong supporter of electronic commerce. But the sale of 
alcohol cannot be equated with the sale of a sweater or shirt. We need 
to foster growth in electronic commerce, but we also need to make sure 
that alcohol control laws are respected.
  The growth of many of our nation's wineries is tied to their ability 
to achieve name recognition and generate sales nationwide--tasks the 
Internet is uniquely suited to accomplish. I do not want to preclude 
them from using the Internet; I want to ensure that they use it 
responsibly and in accordance with state laws.
  If there is a problem with the system, we need to fix the system, not 
break the laws.
  The 21st amendment gives states the right to regulate the importation 
of alcohol into their states. However, efforts to enforce laws relating 
to the importation of alcohol have run into significant legal hurdles 
in both state and Federal courts.
  The scope of the 21st amendment is essentially a Federal question 
that must be decided by the Federal courts--and ultimately the Supreme 
Court. For that reason, among others, I believe a Federal court forum 
is appropriate for state enforcement efforts.
  Most states do not permit direct shipping of alcohol to consumers. 
Therefore most Internet sales of alcohol are currently prohibited. If a 
state wants to set up a system to allow for the direct shipment of 
alcohol to consumers, such as New Hampshire and Louisiana have already 
done, then that is their right under the 21st amendment. But the 
decision to permit direct shipping, and under what conditions, is up to 
the states, not the purveyors of alcohol.
  S. 577, the Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act was introduced by 
myself and Senator DeWine on March 10, 1999. Senators Byrd and Conrad 
have now cosponsored and Senator Kohl is to be added as a sponsor.
  It is my understanding that Senator Byrd will offer the Twenty-First 
Amendment Enforcement Act as an amendment to S. 254, the Violent and 
Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability Act of 1999. To my knowledge, 
only three Senators have gone on record opposing the bill--Feinstein, 
Durbin, Rockefeller--and 57 Senators have given the bill tentative 
approval.
  The bill is supported by a host of interests including, inter alia, 
Utah interests (Governor Leavitt, Attorney General Graham, Utah's 
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the Utah Hospitality 
Association, numerous Utah Congressional Representatives and Senator 
Bennett), SADD, the National Licensed Beverage Association, the 
National Beer Wholesalers Association, the Wine and Spirits 
Wholesalers, Geerlings and Wade (leading direct marketer of fine wines 
to 27 States and more than 81 percent of the wine consuming public) 
Americans for Responsible Alcohol Access, the National Association of 
Beverage Retailers, the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association, 
and the National Conference of State Liquor Administrators.
  I had intended to offer this amendment. Senator Feinstein asked that 
I withhold--and I was agreeable to working with her. I still wish to 
work with her. But, given Senator Byrd's decision to offer the 
amendment at this time I feel compelled to vote my conscience.
  I have been working with Senator Feinstein and others to try to come 
to an agreement on legislation which will balance the legitimate 
commercial interests involved with the rights of the states under the 
21st amendment. However, I haven't seen any proposed amendments at this 
time which help alleviate the problems inherent in direct shipping 
while at the same time protecting the wineries' commercial interests.
  I still want to work with the vineyards and those who have concerns. 
I hope we can keep working together.

    Summary of Byrd Amendment (S. 577, the ``Twenty-First Amendment 
                           Enforcement Act'')

       (1) Permits the chief law enforcement officer of a state to 
     seek an injunction in federal court to prevent the violation 
     of any of its laws regulating the importation or 
     transportation of alcohol;
       (2) Allows for venue for the suit where the defendant 
     resides and where the violations occur;
       (3) No injunctions issued without prior notice to the 
     opposing party;
       (4) Requires that injunctions be specific as to the 
     parties, the conduct and the rationale underlying the 
     issuance of the injunction;
       (5) Allows for quick consideration of the application for 
     an injunction; conserves court resources by avoiding 
     redundant proceedings;
       (6) Mandates a bench trial.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to send an amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's request?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I certainly have no objection to the Senator 
sending her amendment to the desk. Wait, Mr. President. Is this 
amendment a second-degree amendment?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. First degree.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Is this an amendment to the amendment offered by the 
Senator from West Virginia or is this another amendment?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I say to the Senator, this is another amendment on 
the same subject. It is a first-degree amendment.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. If I may ask, as a point of procedure, I thought we 
were operating under a unanimous consent that the next amendment to be 
offered was to be, according to the unanimous consent, an amendment 
sponsored by Senator Frist and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I do not mean to forestall other amendments, but it was 
just my understanding. I am happy to try to work out a unanimous 
consent which allows for the other amendment. But I think it would be 
appropriate to do that rather than set aside the amendment in place, 
and as a result, until we work that out, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Could I ask the distinguished Senator what her amendment 
is?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. The amendment essentially would require that 
when one ships an alcoholic beverage, that there be a label on the 
shipping container that contains clearly and prominently an 
identification of the contents of the package. It would then require 
that upon delivery, an adult must show identification to receive it. It 
also would provide that it is a criminal charge to violate that, and 
with three violations, the BATF revokes the license.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask the distinguished sponsor of the amendment, is this 
one of the amendments that has been approved by both sides under the 
unanimous consent agreement?

[[Page 9686]]


  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I do not believe it has been.
  Mr. HATCH. If it has not been, the only way we can bring it up 
without objection would be to get one of the--I think there are nine 
reserved amendments that could be utilized for this purpose. If you can 
do that, if I have interpreted this correctly, you would like your 
amendment right after the Byrd amendment so there will be a contrast.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If possible, yes.
  Mr. HATCH. I support the Byrd amendment, but I do not think that is 
an unreasonable request. I ask my colleagues on this side to allow it, 
as long as there is not a lot of intervening debate.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from California? Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah 
for doing that. It was a request similar to what I wanted. I agree with 
him. I happen to support the amendment by the distinguished Senator 
from California. I think it is a very reasonable and realistic one that 
should be passed.
  Mr. HATCH. I do not know whether I was clear or not on my unanimous 
consent request, but she should be entitled to do it if she can use one 
of those nine amendments which have been reserved for things like this. 
We shouldn't have this if it is an additional amendment to all the ones 
we have on the Record.
  Mr. LEAHY. I did not understand that to be the unanimous consent.
  Mr. HATCH. That is what I meant to say.
  Mr. LEAHY. I did not understand that to be the unanimous consent 
request that was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Let me rephrase the unanimous consent request. There are 
nine reserved amendments, five by the distinguished ranking member and 
four by the minority leader. The Senator should be allowed to call up 
this amendment utilizing one of those nine amendments, if she wants to. 
I do not want to expand the amendment list.
  I ask unanimous consent that she be permitted to do that, utilizing 
one of the nine that aren't presently utilized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, I make a parliamentary 
inquiry. What is the unanimous consent request the Senate just agreed 
to prior to this, as propounded by the distinguished senior Senator 
from Utah?
  Mr. HATCH. Would the Senator acknowledge----
  Mr. LEAHY. Could I get an answer?
  Mr. HATCH. I do not know that I was clear. That is why I am trying to 
be clear now.
  Mr. LEAHY. Well, all of us are unclear at times. I just want to be 
clear so I can understand how the Chair understands it.
  Mr. HATCH. I did mention the nine amendments. That is clearly the 
import of what I wanted to do.
  Mr. LEAHY. Well, except that that would not require, I would say to 
my friend from Utah, unanimous consent in any event, because we could 
just simply take one of those----
  Mr. HATCH. I am prepared, but I think we should use one of the nine 
open amendments to be fair about it. But if you want to raise a 
technical objection and not use one, that is fine with me, because it 
is fair to the distinguished Senator from California, whom I oppose. 
That is why you kept those amendments. I think it is fairer to use one 
of them. That way, we do not expand the list. That is what I would do 
for you. If you won't, then I will accept whatever.
  Mr. LEAHY. I tell my friend from Utah, I hope that I don't have to 
use them all in any event. But again, the reason I didn't object or 
anything, my understanding was that the distinguished Senator from Utah 
proposed a unanimous consent agreement which basically paralleled the 
unanimous consent agreement that the distinguished senior Senator from 
California had already made, which was to move forward, to be allowed 
to introduce her amendment. Now, that is why I am asking the 
distinguished occupant of the Chair, the Senator from Nebraska, just 
what it is we have agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Let me say--
  Mr. LEAHY. I am getting old, and it is Friday afternoon, Mr. 
President. I want to make sure I understand.
  Mr. HATCH. I believe I was inarticulate. I believe I did not make it 
clear that one of these nine amendments should be used. If the Senator 
wants to be technical about it and not utilize one of those nine 
amendments, then let's quit debating and wasting time on it. We will 
just expand the amendment list by one in order to accommodate a Member 
of his side, but I would prefer, if he would, that he grant her the use 
of one of the nine which currently are not being used, as a courtesy to 
me and to her. And if he doesn't, we will do the other. I don't care, 
but I don't want a big debate on it. I want to get to the Ashcroft 
amendment, if we can.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I have two amendments that have been agreed upon for 
calling up. One of those I will not call up, if I may yield that slot 
to the distinguished Senator from California.
  Mr. HATCH. If you will do that, that will be--
  Mr. LEAHY. That takes care of everybody's problem, and it satisfies 
the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request is modified and 
the request is agreed to.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from West 
Virginia whose intelligence is only exceeded by his gentility and 
courtliness. Thank you very, very much.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 354

    (Purpose: To modify the laws relating to interstate shipment of 
                         intoxicating liquors)

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I may, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 354.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC. __. INTERSTATE SHIPMENT AND DELIVERY OF INTOXICATING 
                   LIQUORS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 59 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 1263--
       (A) by inserting ``a label on the shipping container that 
     clearly and prominently identifies the contents as alcoholic 
     beverages, and a'' after ``accompanied by''; and
       (B) by inserting ``and requiring upon delivery the 
     signature of a person who has attained the age for the lawful 
     purchase of intoxicating liquor in the State in which the 
     delivery is made,'' after ``contained therein,''; and
       (2) in section 1264, by inserting ``or to any person other 
     than a person who has attained the age for the lawful 
     purchase of intoxicating liquor in the State in which the 
     delivery is made,'' after ``consignee,''.
       (b) Revocation of Basic Permit.--The Director of the Bureau 
     of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms shall revoke the basic 
     permit of any person who has been convicted of 3 or more 
     violations of the provisions of title 18, United States Code, 
     added by this section.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, what I believe we are in, to some 
extent, is a kind of interindustry beef, if I might use that 
vernacular. And it all deals with the shipment of alcohol or alcoholic 
beverages across State lines.
  The amendment just submitted by the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia is of major concern to the California wine industry. It is of 
major concern to the California wine industry, which makes 90 percent 
of the wine of this country, because small boutique wineries, which 
have wine tastings and then offer for sale a bottle of rather expensive 
wine over the Internet, are essentially affected by this amendment, 
which takes all State laws and essentially provides a Federal court 
venue.
  We have had discussions in the Judiciary Committee; we had a full 
hearing

[[Page 9687]]

in the the Judiciary Committee. The California Wine Institute testified 
as well as a vintner from Santa Cruz, CA. I thought there was going to 
be a delay. Senator Hatch had this amendment. He decided to let it sit 
for awhile so that we could put together some agreement.
  Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been an original supporter of what 
the distinguished Senator from West Virginia proposes. However, at this 
time I will read from the text of a letter, dated May 13, from Mothers 
Against Drunk Driving, signed by Karolyn Nannalee, the national 
president.

       At the time MADD provided testimony no legislation had been 
     drafted on the subject. The text of S. 577 has implications 
     far beyond our concerns and is, in fact, a battle between 
     various elements within the alcoholic beverages industry. It 
     does not surprise us that the competing parties would like to 
     have the support of the victims of drunk driving. It does, 
     however, dismay us that they would go to such lengths to 
     misrepresent our views on the subject.

  I only say this because Mothers Against Drunk Driving does not, in 
fact support the legislation that has just been presented.
  The allegation is, of course, that this legislation is directed 
against the wine industry, which is having increasing success in the 
United States as more and more Americans consume wine as opposed to 
other alcoholic beverages. For the small winery that may not have shelf 
space in a supermarket, the Internet has emerged as a source of sales 
of their products.
  Now, let's address the question of teenage drinking. In this respect, 
I agree entirely, 100 percent, with what the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia said. We ought to do everything we can to discourage 
teenage drinking. I do not have a problem with that. What I have a 
problem with is throwing all complicated laws with respect to alcoholic 
beverages into the Federal courts. I think that is unnecessary, and I 
think it is unwanted by many of us at least.
  The amendment I have submitted--actually as an alternative, although 
it is a first-degree amendment--as an alternative to the amendment of 
the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, I believe, would solve 
the problem, because it would require that any package containing an 
alcoholic beverage that is shipped across State lines must be labeled 
clearly and its contents must be identified as alcoholic beverages.
  Second, it would require that upon delivery the recipient must be of 
an age to lawfully purchase the beverage and must sign and identify 
himself or herself as such. It would require the invoice to state that 
an adult signature is required for delivery. It would require the 
deliverer not to deliver unless an adult signature is attached. It 
provides criminal penalties for violation, and with three violations 
the BATF, on a mandatory basis, must revoke the basic permit of any 
person who has been convicted of three or more violations of this 
section.
  I think this gets at the basic problem by setting up safeguards so 
that particularly wine can be shipped across State lines by the 
purchaser.
  This is complicated but is something that has arisen and has become a 
kind of folk art, if you will, and that is the wine tasting where 
people go to wine areas, where they go directly to the winery where 
there is a wine tasting, where they see a new bottle of wine, sometimes 
very limited supply, and they say: Oh, how can I buy it? And the vendor 
will say: You can buy it through my web site, and it is $90, $80, $70 a 
bottle. That is how this is done.
  I believe my amendment, without throwing all of this into Federal 
court, essentially skins the cat without killing it. I would be hopeful 
that the Senate would see it as worthy.
  I very much thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I 
would like to thank the ranking member and those who made it possible 
for me to offer this amendment at this time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                           Amendment No. 355

(Purpose: To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and 
    the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 to authorize schools to apply 
appropriate discipline measures in cases where students have firearms, 
                        and for other purposes)

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I call up the Frist-Ashcroft amendment as 
under the previous unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist), for himself, Mr. 
     Ashcroft, Mr. Allard, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Helms, and Mr. 
     Nickles proposes an amendment numbered 355.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
                       Subtitle __--School Safety

     SEC. __1. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``School Safety Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. __2. AMENDMENTS TO THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES 
                   EDUCATION ACT.

       (a) Placement in Alternative Educational Setting.--Section 
     615(k) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1415(k)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A)(ii)(I), by inserting ``(other than 
     a gun or firearm)'' after ``weapon'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph (11); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following new 
     section:
       ``(10) Discipline with regard to guns or firearms.--
       ``(A) Authority of school personnel with respect to guns or 
     firearms.--
       ``(i) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     school personnel may discipline (including expel or suspend) 
     a child with a disability who carries or possesses a gun or 
     firearm to or at a school, on school premises, or to or at a 
     school function, under the jurisdiction of a State or a local 
     educational agency, in the same manner in which such 
     personnel may discipline a child without a disability.
       ``(ii) Nothing in clause (i) shall be construed to prevent 
     a child with a disability who is disciplined pursuant to the 
     authority provided under clause (i) from asserting a defense 
     that the carrying or possession of the gun or firearm was 
     unintentional or innocent.
       ``(B) Free appropriate public education.--
       ``(i) Ceasing to provide education.--Notwithstanding 
     section 612(a)(1)(A), a child expelled or suspended under 
     subparagraph (A) shall not be entitled to continued 
     educational services, including a free appropriate public 
     education, under this title, during the term of such 
     expulsion or suspension, if the State in which the local 
     educational agency responsible for providing educational 
     services to such child does not require a child without a 
     disability to receive educational services after being 
     expelled or suspended.
       ``(ii) Providing education.--Notwithstanding clause (i), 
     the local educational agency responsible for providing 
     educational services to a child with a disability who is 
     expelled or suspended under subparagraph (A) may choose to 
     continue to provide educational services to such child. If 
     the local educational agency so chooses to continue to 
     provide the services--

       ``(I) nothing in this title shall require the local 
     educational agency to provide such child with a free 
     appropriate public education, or any particular level of 
     service; and
       ``(II) the location where the local educational agency 
     provides the services shall be left to the discretion of the 
     local educational agency.

       ``(C) Relationship to other requirements.--
       ``(i) Plan requirements.--No agency shall be considered to 
     be in violation of section 612 or 613 because the agency has 
     provided discipline, services, or assistance in accordance 
     with this paragraph.
       ``(ii) Procedure.--Actions taken pursuant to this paragraph 
     shall not be subject to the provisions of this section, other 
     than this paragraph.
       ``(D) Firearm.--The term `firearm' has the meaning given 
     the term under section 921 of title 18, United States 
     Code.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 615(f)(1) of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1415(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting 
     the following: ``Except as provided in section 615(k)(10), 
     whenever''.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I offer on behalf of Senators Ashcroft, 
Allard, Coverdell, and Helms an amendment which addresses an issue 
which is fundamentally central to the issues we have been discussing 
over the last several days; that is, of guns and bombs in schools. This 
amendment will address a

[[Page 9688]]

problem that we in this body have created through good intent but 
created a loophole which allows students who have brought a bomb or a 
gun into a school to be allowed to return to the classroom.
  The amendment very specifically ends what has become a mixed message 
that the Federal Government has sent and is sending to American 
students on the issue of guns and bombs in our schools. Under the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, a law that I have 
fought very hard for, supported and have worked hard to reform and 
improve in past Congresses, a student with a disability who is in 
possession of a firearm is treated differently than a regular education 
student because of the disability. Students in special education are 
treated differently than all other students, if both have brought a gun 
or a bomb into the school. That is wrong. It has to be fixed. It is a 
loophole that creates a huge danger, I believe, to the safety of our 
children and teachers in our schools.
  How big a problem is it? Some people said it is a hypothetical 
problem. It is hard to get this data. But I want to share with my 
colleagues what I have been able to find.
  If you look just last year, over the 1997-1998 school year, just in 
Nashville, just one community in this country, there were eight firearm 
infractions, where children have been found to have brought a gun or 
firearm into the school. That isn't how many came in, but only how many 
were actually discovered. Of those eight, six were special education 
students, protected under IDEA.
  By the way, about 13 percent of all students, or one out of every 
eight, are in special education. What happened to the six special 
education students? Under the law as it is written, we basically 
determine whether or not bringing that gun into school was a 
manifestation, meaning was it related in any way to the disability. Of 
those six, three were found to have brought that firearm in for a 
reason that is unrelated to the disability, and were expelled but were 
still allowed to receive educational services. The other three special 
education students were found to have brought the firearm to the school 
because it was related to the disability.
  The significance of this is that we take those three students and 
say, You can go back into the school. The other two regualr education 
students not protected under IDEA were expelled and were not required 
to receive educational services. They can't come back to the school. 
But because we created this special class, we are letting kids with 
bombs and firearms to come back into the school in as soon as 45 days 
later. It is no more complicated than that.
  Our amendment fixes this dangerous, dangerous loophole. To look at 
just over the last 8 months, of nine firearm violations in Nashville, 
four have involved special education students. These statistics say 
that in one city, Nashville, it is a problem. But it is a snapshot, a 
microscopic picture of what goes on all over the country. It is wrong. 
Students should be subject to the exact same disciplinary action 
whether or not they happen to be in special education. It is our fault. 
We created this system which treats them differently.
  We contend that when it comes to bombs and firearms, they should all 
be treated exactly alike. The issue of possession of a gun or firearm, 
I don't believe the Federal Government should tie the hands of our 
local education authorities, our principals and teachers, when it comes 
to protecting students and teachers from guns and bombs in schools.
  I believe there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for any student to 
intentionally possess or bring to school a gun. What we have done is 
create by previous legislation, which this amendment fixes, a means by 
which a special group of students, students in special education to 
hide behind the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to avoid 
the same punishment that a regular education student would receive.
  Our amendment says that the possession must be intentional. This 
would allow the principal to determine if the student with a disability 
unknowingly had the gun placed on him. This targets a student who comes 
to that schoolyard with a firearm or gun intentionally.
  Again, it is a tight, focused amendment.
  Since its inception in 1975, 24 years ago, IDEA has been gradually 
modified with the times and has been improved.
  I believe this is a marked improvement. I think this amendment is 
necessary for the reasons that we have been discussing regarding this 
bill, with the catastrophes around my State and other States, and in 
Colorado most recently, which reflect the decline in safety in our 
Nation's schools.
  Our amendment, very simply, ensures that school authorities at the 
local level have the ability to remove dangerous students, whoever they 
are, from the classroom regardless of their status. Today they can't. 
Our amendment fixes this problem.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from 
Tennessee, first of all, for his sensitivity to what is happening in 
the schools of America. His visiting the schools is something which I 
find to be very important. You can sit here in Washington for a long 
time and cook up all sorts of theories about how schools ought to be, 
but until you talk to the people in the schools--and in his case 
Nashville, Davidson County--until you talk to the principals and 
teachers and parents, you do not understand the problems created by our 
current Federal IDEA law. The Senator from Tennessee has found out that 
in a 1-year snapshot there were eight detected possessions of weapons 
in the schools, six of which were from students covered by 
individualized education plans, and three of which our law--the law 
that we made--says schools can't expel those students the way they 
ought to be able to expel them. He has pointed out we should fix the 
law.
  What is interesting to me--and I commend the Senator from Tennessee. 
I have visited school districts all across the State of Missouri. I 
have gone to district after district to try and assert exactly what it 
is we should be doing. I have had school superintendents mention to me 
time after time this same problem. I talked to one small school 
district superintendent who talked about the dangers of not being able 
to have discipline in these settings. He talked about a student who 
threatened to kill other students seven times--threaten to shoot them.
  Finally, the individual shot another student. Fortunately, the shot 
took place off the school premises so that the legal authorities 
incarcerated the student. They didn't have to go through the painful 
procedure of trying to discipline him within the confines of this law 
which makes it virtually impossible to exercise the kind of discipline 
necessary.
  This bill is very simple. This bill is not designed to hurt any group 
of students. This is designed to secure the classroom. There isn't any 
class of students that is better off being favored and being able to 
bring guns or bombs to school. That is not in the interest of any group 
of students.
  This bill basically takes off barriers that the Congress placed in 
the path of good school administrators, parents, teachers and local 
school boards. We erected barriers that kept from taking students who 
had guns in their possession out of schools--merely because they were 
determined to be in some way disabled.
  This amendment simply says in spite of the fact that you are a 
student--of course, one out of every eight students nationally turns 
out to be disabled; one in seven in the State of Missouri--the fact 
that you are in this category called IDEA, doesn't mean you can bring a 
gun or a bomb to school with impunity.
  We simply take the barriers, the roadblocks out of the system. We say 
to school administrators and principals: You are free to discipline 
these students uniformly, just like you would discipline other 
students.

[[Page 9689]]

  I think that is a very important, profoundly simple point. It is the 
kind of correction which we only make when we get out and talk to 
people out there who are running the schools. When they tell you they 
can't discipline kids who are threatening over and over to kill other 
students, who eventually shoot other students, when they tell you they 
can't keep kids who brought guns to school out of school or from 
bringing guns back into school, and because of Federal procedures that 
say disciplines are more difficult the second time because we set up a 
Federal bureaucracy that keeps schools from being able to exercise 
discipline, it is time to say the most important thing for students--
whether disabled, conventional, mainstream or not--the most important 
thing for that classroom is safety.
  When you keep guns and bombs out of the school, you promote the 
safety of all students.
  I am here to say how much I appreciate the opportunity to be able to 
sponsor this amendment that gives local schools, principals, teachers, 
parents and school boards the right to maintain gun-free, bomb-free 
schools, to have safe learning environments where students, without the 
feeling of threat and insecurity, can actually learn.
  It is a pleasure to be a cosponsor of this amendment with Senator 
Frist. I commend him. We all want to do everything we can for the 
education of all of our students. Our students who are disabled deserve 
our special compassion and attention, and more than any others, they 
deserve the protection that is afforded when we can have the ability to 
have secure, safe learning environments. We can do that when we allow 
our administrators to make sure that those individuals who bring guns 
to school can be disciplined.
  One last point: The law that provides for expulsion of students who 
bring guns to schools gives principals discretion to allow students to 
reenter the school. That same discretion would apply to these kinds of 
students as it applies to conventional students.
  This is a field leveler. It puts people on the same level and it puts 
the safety of our schoolchildren in first place--not part of our 
schoolchildren, all of them. Disabled children, other individuals, the 
entire school population must have the assurance that school officials 
have the capacity to enforce safe schools.
  I thank the Senator from Tennessee and others for joining in this. I 
am honored to be an original cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am grateful to the able Senator from 
Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, and the able Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, 
for offering this amendment which corrects a glaring flaw in the 
Federal disabilities law and, in my judgment, is among the most 
important amendments to the juvenile justice legislation when, again, 
it is pending.
  This past Thursday morning, I was aghast when I noted an op-ed piece 
in the Washington Times written by Kenneth Smith. It was entitled 
``Disabled Educators.'' The article detailed a number of disturbing 
incidents of students threatening their teachers and peers with 
violence, bringing knives and guns to campus and even burning down 
their own schools. In the wake of the tragedy of Littleton, CO, these 
news items, of course, are particularly chilling.
  What is most alarming about the column is not the individual stories 
of violence, it is that a well-intentioned Federal law nevertheless 
prevents local school officials from expelling these dangerous students 
from their schools for all but a short period of time.
  Let me admit up front that I bear my share of the responsibility for 
this situation. Two years ago, I was one of 98 Senators who voted to 
reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Act, the so-called IDEA 
legislation.
  Only the courageous and farsighted Senator from Washington, Mr. 
Gorton, voted against final passage of IDEA shortly after his 
commonsense amendment to address these discipline procedures failed by 
just three votes.
  Two years later, Senator Gorton's warnings began to appear prophetic, 
and I certainly appreciate his crucial leadership on this issue, as 
well as the many others Senator Gorton has helped the Senate to follow.
  In any case, I voted for IDEA because I believed then, and I continue 
to believe, that it is appropriate for the Federal Government to help 
local school districts bear the financial burden of attending to the 
special needs of disabled children. But it is unfair and it is unwise 
for the Federal Government to use these funds to mandate unreasonable 
and even dangerous discipline procedures on the local schools. I 
believe that the amendment which I hope will be pending shortly will be 
an important first step in correcting this flaw in the IDEA 
legislation.
  There are 165,402 children in North Carolina classified as learning 
disabled. I believe that every one of these children is entitled to get 
an education. But under the IDEA legislation, if 1--even 1--of those 
165,402 children brings a weapon to school, he or she must be returned 
to the classroom within 45 days if the school district wants to keep 
its IDEA funding. If a disabled student threatens violence or poses any 
other kind of general discipline problem, the student can be suspended 
for only 10 days. Worse, these limitations apply to disabled children 
even if their behavior is unrelated to the disability.
  Clearly, this policy defies common sense. This amendment frees the 
hands of school administrators to use their discretion to discipline a 
learning-disabled student who brings a weapon to school or threatens 
violence. I believe the Senate should adopt this eminently reasonable 
position.
  Anybody who does not want to take my word for it should listen to the 
experts. For example, North Carolina State University is home to a 
unique organization called the Center for the Prevention of School 
Violence. It is, as far as I know, one of the few public policy outlets 
devoted solely to the issue of school violence. Its director, Pam 
Riley, works tirelessly to collect statistics, analyze legislation, and 
suggest solutions to make our schools safer.
  I called Dr. Riley and asked her to look over the amendment I am 
discussing and to let me know her opinion. With the Chair's permission, 
I shall read a paragraph from her reply to me, because she states the 
issue quite clearly and succinctly, as far as I am concerned. Let me 
quote her:

       I believe it is entirely appropriate--indeed, entirely 
     necessary--for Congress to allow local schools the 
     flexibility to discipline students who bring weapons to 
     school or threaten violence on their teachers or peers, 
     regardless of whether the student is classified as disabled. 
     While I believe it is important to make sure disabled 
     students receive quality education, the safety of our 
     classrooms should be an overriding goal of federal education 
     policy.

  That says it all, as far as I am concerned. I know that Senator 
Ashcroft and Senator Frist share my appreciation for Dr. Riley's 
support of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that her entire 
letter, dated May 11, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the North Carolina School Boards Association, in a 
letter dated May 13, 1999, echoed Dr. Riley's sentiments:

       Being able to appropriately discipline all students is 
     essential to maintaining safe schools.

  Dr. Bob Bowers, superintendent of the Buncombe County Schools, wrote:

       [T]he Ashcroft amendment--

  And it is now the Ashcroft-Frist-Helms amendment--

     is a necessary and proper response to student threats of 
     violence in our schools made against teachers and [other 
     students]. Moreover, weapons have no place in our schools and 
     making exceptions erodes confidence regarding overall school 
     safety.

  I certainly agree. I ask unanimous consent that this letter from the 
North Carolina School Boards Association and the Buncombe County Public 
Schools be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 2.)

[[Page 9690]]


  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  I hope those listening to this discussion are not misled into 
thinking that school administrators are suddenly discovering this 
problem as an aftermath of the Littleton tragedy. The fact is that 
schools have long been concerned about this aspect of IDEA.
  This letter to my office dated April 2, 1998, from the Onslow County 
Schools in Jacksonville, NC, clearly indicates that discipline 
procedures have long been a problem for our school districts. More than 
a year ago, Superintendent Ronald Singletary wrote to me to say that 
under the IDEA law, ``we convey [to students] that there are no real 
consequences for the serious misbehavior of a disabled student.'' I 
cannot imagine a more inappropriate message to send to our students.
  The problems we are discussing are more than just a quirk in the law 
or a technical matter. It is clearly an ill-conceived mistake by 
Congress, in which I participated. And I hope Senators will ask 
themselves what possible reason the Federal Government would have to 
prevent local school officials from making sure that their students 
have safe classrooms. This is the real problem.
  Our school boards and our administrators are asking for our help in 
correcting a part of IDEA that does not work. And I sincerely hope the 
Senate will listen.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article ``Disabled 
educators'' to which I referred at the outset of my comments be printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 3.)
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, with that I thank the Chair for recognizing 
me and I yield the floor.

                             Exhibit No. 1

                                         Center for the Prevention


                                           of School Violence,

                                        Raleigh, NC, May 11, 1999.
     Hon. Jesse Helms,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Helms: I appreciate your letting me know of 
     Senator Ashcroft's school safety amendment, which would free 
     the hands of local school districts to discipline dangerous 
     students without regard to their status under the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act. I am certainly pleased to 
     offer my support for this proposal, and I hope it will be 
     swiftly adopted by the Senate.
       I believe it is entirely appropriate--indeed, entirely 
     necessary--for Congress to allow local schools the 
     flexibility to discipline students who bring weapons to 
     school or threaten violence on their teachers or peers, 
     regardless of whether the student is classified as disabled. 
     While I believe it is important to make sure disabled 
     students receive quality education, the safety of our 
     classrooms should be an overriding goal of federal education 
     policy.
       As Director of the Center for the Prevention of School 
     Violence at North Carolina State University, I know our local 
     officials are struggling to curb the worsening problem of 
     violence in our schools. The Center's vision that ``Every 
     student will attend a school that is safe and secure, one 
     that is free of fear and conductive to learning.'' I hope the 
     federal government will take all proper steps to assist in 
     obtaining this goal, and I believe the Ashcroft amendment is 
     a step in the right direction.
           Sincerely,
                                              Dr. Pamela L. Riley,
                                               Executive Director.

                             Exhibit No. 2

                                             North Carolina School


                                           Boards Association,

                                        Raleigh, NC, May 13, 1999.


           public education: north carolina's best investment

     Hon. Jesse A. Helms,
     Dirkson Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Helms: Thank you for sharing with me the 
     Ashcroft School Safety Act, which seeks to amend the IDEA and 
     the Guns Free Schools Act of 1994. The North Carolina School 
     Boards Association strongly supports this Act. As you know, 
     school safety is an issue of paramount concern for school 
     districts. If we cannot maintain safety, it is impossible for 
     us to teach children. Being able to appropriately discipline 
     all students is essential to maintaining safe schools. The 
     Ashcroft School Safety Act would give school systems more 
     ability to discipline special education students the same as 
     regular education students in specific situations. This would 
     allow the entire school's safety to not be impaired by one 
     individual student.
       If I can be of further assistance to you, please let me 
     know.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Leanne E. Winner,
     Director of Governmental Relations.
                                  ____



                               Buncombe County Public Schools,

                                      Asheville, NC, May 12, 1999.
     Re Ashcroft amendment to IDEA.

     Hon. Jesse Helms,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Helms: Thank you for making this Board of 
     Education aware of Senator Ashcroft's proposed amendment to 
     the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This Board 
     supports that law and is committed to providing an excellent 
     education to all students attending the public schools in 
     Buncombe County.
       However, this Board is concerned about school violence and 
     the ability of educators and administrators to deal with 
     potential problems and protect the safety of everyone. To 
     that end, we believe that the Ashcroft Amendment is a 
     necessary and proper response to student threats of violence 
     in our schools made against teachers and peers. Moreover, 
     weapons have no place in our schools and making exceptions 
     erodes confidence regarding overall school safety.
       We are pleased to offer our support of this measure.
           Sincerely,

                                               Dr. Bob Bowens,

                                   Superintendent, Buncombe County
                                               Board of Education.

                             Exhibit No. 3

                [From the Washington Post, May 6, 1999]

                           Disabled Educators

                           (By Kenneth Smith)

       When Fairfax County school officials discovered that a 
     group of students had somehow managed to get a loaded .357 
     magnum handgun on school property, they moved swiftly to deal 
     with the offenders. They expelled five of the students and 
     would have done so with the sixth, only to discover that 
     federal law prohibited them from doing so.
       Why? He was considered ``learning disabled''--he had a 
     ``weakness in written language skills''--and according to 
     federal disabilities laws, Fairfax County had to continue 
     educating him. As Jane Timian, a county School Board official 
     who oversees student disciplinary cases, later explained the 
     matter, ``The student was not expelled, The student later 
     bragged to teachers and students at the school that he could 
     not be expelled.''
       He wasn't alone. She reported that after five gang members 
     used a meat hook in an assault on another student, only three 
     of them were expelled; the other two were special-ed 
     students. When then-Virginia Gov. George Allen dared to 
     challenge the wisdom of using federal law to make schools 
     safer for violent offenders, the Clinton administration 
     responded by threatening to yank millions of dollars in 
     federal education dollars from the state.
       That was 1994. Five years' worth of reform later, parents 
     shocked by the shootings at Columbine High School and 
     elsewhere may be interested to know that a law known as the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act still limits the 
     discretion of local school boards to provide children with 
     the safest schools possible. At a meeting in San Francisco 
     last month, the National School Boards Association urged 
     federal lawmakers to amend the law to provide greater 
     flexibility to suspend, expel, or reassign students whose 
     misconduct jeopardizes safety or unreasonably disrupts 
     classroom learning. In particular, it seeks the removal of 
     federal restrictions on withholding educational services to 
     disabled students ``when their behavior, unrelated to their 
     disability, endangers themselves or others.''
       One would have thought it one of the more uncontroversial 
     requests ever made of Congress. But when Rep. Bob Livingston, 
     chairman of the House Appropriations Committee before he 
     unexpectedly left town, tried to tack an amendment onto an 
     appropriations measure that would accommodate the concerns of 
     school officials, the administration forced him to drop it. 
     Safer schools would have to wait.
       How a model program like the IDEA turned out to be so 
     delinquent would keep a political science class at the 
     chalkboard for a week. The point of the act, first passed in 
     1975 and reauthorized most recently in 1997, was to ensure 
     that a disability, physical or otherwise, did not deny 
     someone access to education that everyone else got. Among 
     other things, it called for the least restrictive--most 
     permissive, one might say--educational setting possible for 
     the disabled student. The law also dictated that special 
     education was to take place within the school and not be 
     isolated in some outside annex.
       In theory it sounded like a fine idea. If the handicapped 
     were to lead the kind of independent lives everyone wanted 
     for them, they would need at least as good an education as 
     everyone else. The last thing anyone worried about was that a 
     blind, retarded child in a wheelchair might bring a gun to 
     school.
       Today, school officials still aren't very worried about 
     that particular child. What's changed is the definition of 
     disabled. When mere ``weakness in written language skills'' 
     or attention and learning disorders constitute a handicap, 
     not only do the numbers

[[Page 9691]]

     of disabled grow, there is no physical impairment to limit 
     the harm they could do. ``No one thought,'' one school 
     official says, ``the disabled would be like us.''
       Louisiana officials who sought help from Mr. Livingston 
     found out the hard way. Among the anecdotes they collected 
     from across the state:
       Two students, one of them a special-education student, 
     severely beat a third student who was subsequently 
     hospitalized. The non-special-ed attacker was expelled from 
     school. The special-ed attacker was suspended for 10 days, 
     then returned to an alternative school across the street from 
     the school where the girl was beaten.
       A 14-year-old special-ed girl, who had been suspended for 
     threatening a class aide, attacked her school principal 
     twice, knocking her unconscious, damaging vertebrae in her 
     neck and causing permanent nerve damage. Police arrested the 
     student, and school officials kept her out of school for 45 
     days, the maximum under the IDEA. The principal was out for 
     eight months.
       A special-ed student, already under an in-school 
     suspension, threatened to burn his school down after being 
     told his suspension was being extended. Days later the school 
     did in fact burn down, and police arrested the student. His 
     brother, also a special-ed student under suspension, 
     subsequently threatened to shoot the principal. The school 
     was forced to lock its doors, keeping students inside, until 
     police could apprehend the student. The law permits the 
     students to return to school in 45 days, but the school 
     superintendent has vowed he will go to jail before he lets 
     them back in.
       School administrators say they are more than willing to 
     educate disabled students, but not at the cost of the safety 
     of everyone else in the school. And they worry that the 
     federal government is teaching disabled students a terrible 
     lesson--that there is one standard for them, and another for 
     everyone else. What could be more disabling?
  Mrs. LINCOLN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from North 
Carolina. In the recent debates, certainly in the passage of the Ed-
Flex bill, the great State of North Carolina showed what a great 
example it could be in its forward thinking and being able to look for 
innovative solutions for our children's education.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my colleagues from 
Tennessee and from Missouri for an outstanding amendment, one that I 
hope will be overwhelmingly supported by all of our colleagues. It is 
important we not discriminate, in a way we would say if this child 
happens to be under the IDEA program, individuals with disabilities, 
that the laws or the rules and regulations say we will not discipline 
you if you happen to carry a gun or bomb to school.
  Clearly, we want any student who is carrying a gun or a firearm or 
bomb to school to be disciplined--any student. We want safe schools. 
This amendment would provide for that. It is a commonsense amendment. 
It is an amendment that should be passed overwhelmingly.
  I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that 
is critical to saving children's lives. That issue is guns in the hands 
of our children. The events of Columbine have been a wake up call for 
the American people. Guns don't belong in the hands of kids. We must do 
everything we can to see to it that children cannot buy guns. We also 
need tougher penalties for illegal possession and crimes committed with 
guns. This is about America's children and getting behind our kids. 
This is about keeping our kids safer in their schools and safer on our 
streets.
  I respect the Constitution and the right of law-abiding citizens to 
own guns. I understand that many people own a gun for self-protection. 
The fear of crime is a real issue for many Americans. I believe people 
should be able to protect themselves. I also know people enjoy using 
guns for sport. Many Americans enjoy hunting, and I do not want to 
interfere with lawful sport.
  My support for reasonable steps to protect kids does not go against 
my support for people's right to protect themselves or their right to 
hunt. We can take measures to save lives without infringing on the 
Constitution.
  One of my biggest concerns is the safe storage of guns in the home. I 
think it makes sense to require trigger locks for guns while children 
are in the home. There have been too many tragic accidents with 
children that could have been prevented.
  Guns are too easily available to our young people. We must require 
gun show participants to comply with the same laws as gun shop owners. 
This would cut off a deadly supply of firearms to our Nation's children 
and dangerous criminals. The guns used in the Columbine massacre were 
purchased from gun shows. I was very disappointed that the Lautenberg 
amendment did not pass. This amendment would have closed the gun show 
loophole. What passed instead was an amendment giving a gun show 
participant the option of conducting a background check. Now, what gun 
show participant is going to choose to take the time and effort when 
the gun seller in the next booth is willing to sell a gun with no 
questions asked?
  I was happy to support an amendment which would toughen the penalties 
for possession of semiautomatic assault weapons. The presence of 
semiautomatic weapons on our streets is a deplorable situation. Assault 
weapons have one purpose--to kill the largest number of people as 
quickly and efficiently as possible. They have no legitimate hunting or 
sporting use. I want to see them taken off our streets.
  We must get behind our kids and teach them that character counts. We 
have to teach them respect for guns and respect for human life. We must 
listen carefully to them and help them when they are in trouble. We 
need to give them constructive goals to work toward. We must give them 
opportunities to live a rewarding life. Then they can respect 
themselves and others and not resort to guns and violence to demand the 
attention they need. We want kids to turn toward each other--not 
against each other.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I object.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Utah?
  Mr. HATCH. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 2 minutes ago the distinguished Senator 
from Utah had made the suggestion, another unanimous consent request, 
that Senators bring up things even if Senators were not available on 
the other side of an issue to speak, and that that Senator be given 
equal time on Monday or sometime prior to the vote. I might ask the 
Chair, is there such a unanimous consent pending? Am I perhaps stating 
it too broadly?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There were two amendments authorized to be 
offered with the understanding, the proviso, that they would have 
adequate time on Monday. There was, further, an additional granting of 
the request of the Senator from California that her amendment to be 
considered. But it does take consent for further amendments to be 
offered at this time.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. I note the Senator from New Jersey is 
within his rights to make such a request. The Senator from Utah is 
within his rights to object to it.
  Mr. President, I note the distinguished majority leader was on the 
floor earlier, urging we move forward on this legislation, that we try 
to get as much done as possible today and Monday, a position both the 
distinguished Senator from Utah and I joined. I suspect the two of us 
have probably worked more hours than anybody else in this body to bring 
that about. But there are not an awful lot of Senators around here 
waiting to be heard. I urge the majority, they may well allow Senators 
like Senator Lautenberg or others who have amendments to bring them up, 
discuss them, have some debate on them, and then if there are those who 
wish to oppose those amendments, they would of course have an equal 
amount of time on Monday to do that. Otherwise, of course, the Senator 
from New Jersey can bring it up Monday.
  But you cannot keep holding it off with the idea that maybe it will 
only

[[Page 9692]]

come up at the time of the vote on Tuesday, because that would be, in 
effect, a debate cloture on the part of the Republican side that would 
say even if it was a serious matter they would only get 2.5 minutes of 
debate.
  I know the distinguished senior Senator from Utah is a fair person. I 
think he would perhaps agree that 2.5 minutes debate is not quite 
enough on major amendments. I hope they will find in their heart to 
allow the distinguished senior Senator from New Jersey to bring up his 
amendment. Clearly, he is going to be allowed to bring it up sometime 
prior to the vote on it.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, when I suggested equal time, it was on 
those particular amendments because of the need for certain Senators to 
be here on those particular amendments. Earlier this morning, Senator 
Lautenberg desired to call up his amendment and I respectfully 
requested that he reserve bringing it up until Monday because there are 
people gone who will not have an opportunity, who have asked me--who 
believed these amendments would not be brought up, who asked me to 
protect their right to be here when the amendments are brought up. As a 
courtesy, I ask him not to bring up the amendment. So I have no 
alternative other than to object to it.
  We have had six amendments brought up. It is our turn on our side to 
present an amendment. I think we are making progress. But we should 
honor, to the best of our abilities on each side--the request of some 
of our colleagues that they might be here on amendments they consider 
to be important to them, especially since this is a Friday and almost 
everybody left believing we would not do much more today.
  Be that as it may, that is why I have to object. I have objected and 
I will object to certain amendments where I have to protect people on 
our side, as I would expect the distinguished Senator from Vermont to 
object if we tried to bring up an amendment when Senators on his side 
could not be here to respond.
  I have another amendment for our side to bring up at this time. It is 
an amendment on the part of Senator Sessions and Senator Robb and 
Senator Allard. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  Mr. LEAHY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.

                          ____________________